The US is considering arming the rebels and maybe considering airstrikes to switch the balance in favour of the rebels, and against the evil, human rights abusing, regime.
tinyurl.com/ndl43t3
In other news, rebels kill teenager for blasphemy.
tinyurl.com/ntgf69u
|
You'd think further instability was a 'mare for all including US and Israel. Assad's regime, like Saddam Hussein, has kept the lid on an ethnic tinderbox.
|
The US objects to states that it believes are run against the morals and stand points of the US. It believes that this is sufficient to justify attack, manipulation and invasion.
So, if a Muslim state (for example), believes that the US is immoral, evil and dangerous, why are they not justified in attacking, manipulating and interfering in the US?
Attacking another country because you don't like how its being run is a very iffy thing to do. Even if you're correct.
|
|
It's taken the West a long time to fail to realise that a strong, nationalistic, secular dictator, even one who doesn't like us, is a much better bet for world security than the mess we get from trying to interfere.
|
>> It's taken the West a long time to fail to realise that a strong, nationalistic,
>> secular dictator, even one who doesn't like us, is a much better bet for world
>> security than the mess we get from trying to interfere.
Hitler aside, of course.
|
"It's taken the West a long time to fail to realise that a strong, nationalistic, secular dictator, even one who doesn't like us, is a much better bet for world security than the mess we get from trying to interfere."
So if that strong dictator you have been backing begins to lose their grip on power and needs propping up would you advocate selling the regime arms? Assuming you don't and as a consequence the rebels manage to seize power do you swap your allegiance to the new de facto power? Do you then sell them arms? The reality of politics is difficult and messy . There are no easy answers.
|
>> "It's taken the West a long time to fail to realise that a strong, nationalistic,
>> secular dictator, even one who doesn't like us, is a much better bet for world
>> security than the mess we get from trying to interfere."
>>
>> So if that strong dictator you have been backing begins to lose their grip on
>> power and needs propping up would you advocate selling the regime arms? Assuming you don't
>> and as a consequence the rebels manage to seize power do you swap your allegiance
>> to the new de facto power? Do you then sell them arms? The reality of
>> politics is difficult and messy . There are no easy answers.
Yes there are
1/ You sell arms to the Dictator when in power
2/ You sell arms to the rebels and the dictator during instability
3/ You sell arms to whoever wins.
Its been the standard way of doing business for years. You might however omit to tell anyone or any interested party about any stage of the above.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 17:00
|
>> "It's taken the West a long time to fail to realise that a strong, nationalistic,
>> secular dictator, even one who doesn't like us, is a much better bet for world
>> security than the mess we get from trying to interfere."
>>
>> So if that strong dictator you have been backing
>>
No, I wouldn't be backing him, nor aiding his insurgents.
(Hitler's a different case. I meant a small buffer state, not a big player. )
|
>> Attacking another country because you don't like how its being run is a very iffy
>> thing to do. Even if you're correct.
>>
Our politicians do it all the time, correct or not, and in blatant disregard of public opinion.
|
Actually the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria did make ethnic/religious frictions more intense. Because those regimes were effectively family-based tyrannies, the ruling group tended to be homogeneous in that respect and other groups felt excluded or persecuted, because they were (either deliberately or carelessly). Sometimes the reasons were political, as in the case of the Saddam regime and the southern Shi'ite populations which were under socialist or communist influence - anathema to Baathists.
The Kassem military regime in Iraq for example was more technocratic and the (relative) harmony between different tribal and religious groups which had evolved over centuries was preserved. The monarchies imposed on those countries earlier by France and Britain were also tolerant (although some of the modern Gulf monarchies aren't).
|
I feel so sorry for the families and young children caught in this.Some of them escaped to Greece got most of their money taken of them or slung in jail.
I know the Greeks are in a mess but to treat these people like dogs is beyond me.
|
Too much to expect the west to keep its greedy interfering nose out of everyone else's business and let them run their own countries i s'pose.
They won't be happy till everyone is chipped/tagged/controlled, sorry, everyone except them.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 17:24
|
>> The US objects to states that it believes are run against the morals and stand
>> points of the US. It believes that this is sufficient to justify attack, manipulation and
>> invasion.
>>
>> So, if a Muslim state (for example), believes that the US is immoral, evil and
>> dangerous, why are they not justified in attacking, manipulating and interfering in the US?
>>
>> Attacking another country because you don't like how its being run is a very iffy
>> thing to do. Even if you're correct.
>>
That's one way of looking at it....another is:
A huge democracy (with flaws), flexes its muscles every now and then when dictators and tyrants treat their people too badly.....and there ought to be more of it.
I know it's more complicated than that e.g. Rwanda = diddly squat and Iraq = take over (oil) but the basics are valid.
If you could show me a democratic Muslim state that wished to attack the US on your basis, then you might have a point.
|
But a democracy is what you (and I for that matter) think is best. That is not a commonly held view throughout the world.
Iraquis for example frequently believe that they should be led by someone chosen by God (Saddam) rather than someone chosen by the people (Elected President).
I'm not saying I agree, but I see no moral reason why imposing my view upon them is any better than them imposing theirs upon me.
|
>
>> That's one way of looking at it....another is:
>>
>> A huge democracy (with flaws), flexes its muscles every now and then when dictators and
>> tyrants treat their people too badly.....and there ought to be more of it.
Another is
A huge democracy (with flaws), flexes its muscles every now and then when it decides it wants to impose leadership of its choice on the people of another country
Vietnam, Afghanistan,
>> I know it's more complicated than that e.g. Rwanda = diddly squat and Iraq =
>> take over (oil) but the basics are valid.
Thats not complicated, thats perverse tyranny,
The basics are that the US, basically with corrupt foreign policy, has not shown sufficient global morals to throw its weight around
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 18:36
|
|
There is me thinking that Barrack Hussein Obama was our saviour.Puting is a pussycat in comparison.
|
>> There is me thinking that Barrack Hussein Obama was our saviour.Puting is a pussycat in
>> comparison.
Nah, he just made a bunch of promises to get votes. He made them eloquently though, so a lot of the middle class over here went crazy for him too.
He's not stupid though. He would have known full well that he would have to keep lobbing missiles at huts in Pakistan and elsewhere, to keep certain groups in check.
It seems to work, so we should hope that he and his successors keep doing it.
Forget the people in the towers, but don't forget that it led to two wars, and another big attack might lead to a couple more.
As for all of the "Hussein" stuff...isn't that a bit, Tea Party/Shock Jock/Trump-esque?
|
>> It seems to work,
Really?
so we should hope that he and his successors keep doing
>> it.
Could try stopping, and leaving them alone - see what that does.
|
>> so we should hope that he and his successors keep doing
>> >> it.
>>
>> Could try stopping, and leaving them alone - see what that does.
Yeah, Clinton tried that and so did Bush Jr for a bit, and it didn't work out too well did it?
If they are successful on the same scale again (which they will be eventually), then you can almost guarantee at least one further war.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 21:33
|
>> A huge democracy (with flaws), flexes its muscles every now and then when it decides
>> it wants to impose leadership of its choice on the people of another country
>>
>> Vietnam, Afghanistan,
Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism...and Afghanistan was to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism.
Both of which in theory at least, does the rest of us in a democratic West a favour.
Even if the logistics were flawed, the principle is sound....especially when you think it came from a democratic country.
|
>>
>> >> A huge democracy (with flaws), flexes its muscles every now and then when it
>> decides
>> >> it wants to impose leadership of its choice on the people of another country
>> >>
>> >> Vietnam, Afghanistan,
>>
>> Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism...
Failed, And look! we did not succumb to communism because it failed! All the Americans can take from that is shame on the nation.
and Afghanistan was to prevent the spread of
>> Islamic extremism.
Failed. All they have managed to do is destabilise Pakistan. Much more dangerous.
>> Even if the logistics were flawed, the principle is sound....especially when you think it came
>> from a democratic country.
Its a perverse principle on nearly every decent democratic level, because its not, even faintly, democratic for the victims of such colonial aggression. No matter what way you paint it, the logistics are not just flawed, the whole principle is shameful, does not work, and causes worse consequences. The principal is a complete crock.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 22:20
|
>> >> Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism...
>>
>> Failed, And look! we did not succumb to communism because it failed! All the Americans
>> can take from that is shame on the nation.
Did it fail? Yes that actual war was a humiliating defeat for the Yanks...but.. it also told the major Communist forces in the world that the US would be prepared to fight and that a democracy isn't necessarily weak....so how many other Communist take overs have been saved? How much did it influence the Cold War?
>>
>>
>> and Afghanistan was to prevent the spread of
>> >> Islamic extremism.
>>
>> Failed. All they have managed to do is destabilise Pakistan. Much more dangerous.
>>
Again, not necessarily.
You could not have left the Taliban as it was...and since then Al- Qaeda has been considerably weakened. I really do not think it reasonable for a country to openly harbour terrorists, who drove two planes into two buildings killing nearly 5,000 people, and not expect some come back from such an enormous and powerful country as the US. It would have been weak of the US to have done nothing.
Yes there are still some considerable difficulties and it has stirred hard line Islamists up..but the reality was doing nothing was not an option.
|
>> the principle is sound.
Simplistically the principle is that a group of people in a democracy voted for some other people who then decided to invade another country full of other people who were not part of that democracy, did not say that they wanted to be invaded, and were put through hardship and suffering unwillingly.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 10 Jun 13 at 23:37
|
>> >> the principle is sound.
>>
>> Simplistically the principle is that a group of people in a democracy voted for some
>> other people who then decided to invade another country full of other people who were
>> not part of that democracy, did not say that they wanted to be invaded, and
>> were put through hardship and suffering unwillingly......
......... because their undemocratic leaders were doing things that were bad enough and could affect the rest of us and it was considered intervention was necessary.
Leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan, encouraging Al-Qaeda, wasn't really an option was it?
|
The Cold (Economic) war killed Communism. OK Vietnam didn't go to plan but the economic cost did not cripple the USA.
At the end of the day it was always down to money, don't know how Islam or in future resources as they become more scarce will fit into that though.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 11 Jun 13 at 10:02
|
>>Leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan,
And the Taliban grew in strength and came to power how?
And do you think 9/11 was an out of the blue initiation of violence?
Again, I am not saying these people and groups are nice, right or pleasant. But the evolution of today's situation is not as straight forward as you seem to think.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 11 Jun 13 at 11:19
|
>> But
>> the evolution of today's situation is not as straight forward as you seem to think.
>>
I don't think any of it is straightforward...just looking at the bigger picture and offering a balance to the 'the US shouldn't have interfered'.
I happen to think they should and am glad they did.
Going further than that, I'd like to see an empowered UN, rather than the hopeless toothless tiger it actually is*...so that down trodden people the world over have some come back, rather than those whose plight directly impacts the US or those who live over valuable minerals.
* I accept that it is a hopeless dream
The fact is, the Rwanda's and Zimbabwe's and many, many more are a disgrace to the human race....yet the decent allow the despot to get away with it...because, 'it's none of our business'. Well it is or ought to be.
|
>> Leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan, encouraging Al-Qaeda, wasn't really an option was it?
Yes it was.
They were no real threat there, communications and logistics in and out is difficult for them, and they would have been easy to monitor. Leave them alone and they get complacent.
Now we are pulling out, how would you score the success? Its ZERO i'm afraid. Changed and achieved NOTHING.
|
>> Now we are pulling out, how would you score the success? Its ZERO i'm afraid.
>> Changed and achieved NOTHING.
>>
You need to widen your outlook. Afghanistan itself = failure, agreed.
But how many top knobs in AQ are still alive? How well joined are numerous states in the battle against Islamic extremism,...etc, etc.
One battle lost doesn't mean the war is lost. You might well intentionally enter an iffy battle on purpose with the whole war in mind. Look at your history books.
|
>>
>> >> Now we are pulling out, how would you score the success? Its ZERO i'm
>> afraid.
>> >> Changed and achieved NOTHING.
>> >>
>>
>> You need to widen your outlook. Afghanistan itself = failure, agreed.
>>
>> But how many top knobs in AQ are still alive? How well joined are numerous
>> states in the battle against Islamic extremism,...etc, etc.
The big knob was caught outside Afghanistan, none of the intel came out of that theatre either.
>> One battle lost doesn't mean the war is lost. You might well intentionally enter an
>> iffy battle on purpose with the whole war in mind.
Dont think the military leaders consider that a good plan.
>> Look at your history books.
I am, and I have. They really don't support your argument.
Take the cold war for example. Won by economics. WW2? won by economics.
China has realised that. Thats the war they are fighting now. And technology. Most of our defence budget should be directed in the prevention of hacking and other electronic / commercial battle fronts.
Invading foreign parts will NEVER EVER win the war on terrorism. Make it worse, gives them cause.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 11 Jun 13 at 13:01
|
Yes, yes, yes....but sometimes you have to take a hit for the greater good and all that...when doing nothing isn't an option.
Afghanistan currently has the Taliban severely restricted and AQ isn't that welcome...with a side line of women actually being treated as almost human beings in some places and kids going to school.
Some of that is a result.
The basic people just want to get on with their (harsh) lives. they don't want foreign soldiers there..or the Taliban. Which is the worst option?
|
>> Yes, yes, yes....but sometimes you have to take a hit for the greater good and
>> all that...when doing nothing isn't an option.
>>
>> Afghanistan currently has the Taliban severely restricted and AQ isn't that welcome...with a side line
>> of women actually being treated as almost human beings in some places and kids going
>> to school.
>>
>> Some of that is a result.
>>
>> The basic people just want to get on with their (harsh) lives. they don't want
>> foreign soldiers there..or the Taliban. Which is the worst option?
They are getting the Taliban back. And they will be nastier this time round.
|
|
I have to agree with you Zero I often wonder if this confrontation is for the sake of it maybe resources don't know.
|
>> They are getting the Taliban back. And they will be nastier this time round.
>>
Someone being nasty should never be left to carry on regardless. Should we have left Hitler alone?
|
Make it worse, gives them cause.
>>
>>
They had a cause before we pitched up in Afghan. Us going in there happen because of an action of our inaction. Plenty before had from groups linked to AQ, embassy bombings, USS Cole and others no doubt. The invastion of Afghanistan in 2001 wasn't the start of their issues with the west. Just living the way we do is enough for them.
|
>> Just living the way we do is enough for them.
Not so sooty. But of course you are quite right to point out that Afghanistan and Iraq didn't cause this Islamist hostility, although of course they help to maintain it.
The root cause of Islamism is Israel/Palestine, Israeli expansionism and racism supported uncritically by the US and its many toadies. This is quite rightly seen as grossly unjust and dismissive of the rights of Palestinians who have been displaced and shoved around ever since the establishment of the State of Israel. People can quibble about details but that is really the size of it. It's very easy for Islamists to maintain that the US (and its many toadies) are simply hostile to Islam and trying to destroy it.
|
The Middle east will find never any peace until the Palestinian problem is resolved and give them some land to live on.
I can't understand the jews they suffered during WW2 and now they make the Palestinians suffer.God's people should know better.
|
>> >> Just living the way we do is enough for them.
>>
>> Not so sooty.
is Israel/Palestine, Israeli expansionism and racism supported uncritically by the
>> US and its many toadies.
That's a part of it yes. But AC really there are some elements within the AQ or it's afilated groups where it is enough. No doubt other elements spur them on, but our lifestyle is so opposed to their idea of how would should live it, it becomes the key part of their motivation. Are they all like that? No, but it is there.
|
>> really there are some elements within the AQ or it's afilated groups where it is enough.
Yes, it's true that extreme backward-looking fundamentalists adopt a morally supercilious line towards ordinary westerners and their insouciant, immoral lifestyles. But such people are quite rare in Islam as they are in other religions. What really feeds Islamist attitudes - what can be shared with the majority of non-fundamentalist Muslims - is awareness of that original running sore in the Middle East.
Still a running sore to this day... I have said before that it sometimes looks as if permanent instability suits all the major players and is maintained for that reason. Humans are a cartload of monkeys, especially the great and good.
|
>>Humans are a cartload of monkeys, especially the great and good
Not surprising really being as we are descended from apes :)
|
Seems like the pressure is increasing on the US to act.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22908836
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22551892
I believe the US has already sent a USMC to Jordan, I wonder what BO's next move is?
|
Syria - Better the devil you know? - Bromptonaut
