So..... Syria?

[Gutter Boy]

The USA don't care about saving lives, neither do the Russians. The US wants Assad out, the Russians and Iranians want him to stay. With Russian and Iranian support, Assad is going nowhere so, imo, the only thing that can be done is for the US to stop supporting rebel groups and Assad to win the war decisively. When the war is over, negotiate the peace. A horrible qunt wins, but that's just the world. And sometimes, as recent history shows, there are always qunts who are even more horrible waiting in the wings.

@scaramanga you talk a lot of sh1te on this subject and we did it to death in the politics thread iirc.

Look what happened in Egypt. The West didn't step in to protect the democratically elected government from a military coup, because the coup leaders were authoritarian and more compliant to western interests. It's been America's foreign policy in South America for decades too - support the authoritarians over non-capitalists.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Look what happened in Egypt. The West didn't step in to protect the democratically elected government from a military coup, because the coup leaders were authoritarian and more compliant to western interests. It's been America's foreign policy in South America for decades too - support the authoritarians over non-capitalists.

Indeed, everything else is mostly background noise

 

[parklane1]

The yanks never step in anywhere unless there is something in it for them.

 

[braineclipse]

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for being upset at US foreign policy. But I have to say that of the potential candidates I'm glad we ended up with them as the lone superpower in the world for a while.

 

[Rorschach]

This is awful. Emotive reportage but still heartbreaking

https://twitter.com/x/status/809870599333945344

I have not followed the war in Syria that closely, and I feel a bit guilty that I have let it bypass me - a lot easier than trying to get to grips with the nuances of the politics and the situation in general.
I'm not naive and I know there is not a simple solution. But ffs, in this day and age, it is just outrageous to see people - children - having to endure that level of suffering and be caught in the middle of something they can't influence.

That is heartbreaking.

What a stupid and angry bunch of animals the human race turned out to be.

 

[thfcsteff]

What's talking bricke about trying to save lives?

There was plenty of opportunity to stop Assad in his tracks, I believe we had a moral obligation to do so.

How naive. Where is out 'moral obligation' when it comes to places such as Nigeria, The Congo, Saudi Arabia, etc? Let's face facts. A disgraceful amount of lives have been lost in Syria due to yet another burst of proxy warring by western rivals on 'neutral' Middle Eastern turf where lives are 'less important' to us. Let's not forget that as big a bastard as Assad is, many of the 'rebel fighters' are lined to Al Queda and similar, thus once the dust settle they are not exactly going to bring love, light and peace. We have fudged with the region repeatedly for decades and when it suits us, we use the suffering, the dying and the dead to mobilize more support for 'action'. Let's be honest with ourselves; the west does not give flying fudge about lives in the region, only the potential board shuffles/potential victories achievable in our proxy war(s). To think anything else is, IMO, selectively naive.

I do, however, like your idea of parsing off religious nutters to go and barney in some big field!

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

That video with the little girl finally made me do something.

https://www.unicef.org.uk/donate/

I suggest you lot go on here and give whatever you can, I usually only donate to the lifeboat association. That video really brings home what is happening out there, there is always someone worse of in the world then you.

 

[scaramanga]

How naive. Where is out 'moral obligation' when it comes to places such as Nigeria, The Congo, Saudi Arabia, etc? Let's face facts. A disgraceful amount of lives have been lost in Syria due to yet another burst of proxy warring by western rivals on 'neutral' Middle Eastern turf where lives are 'less important' to us. Let's not forget that as big a bastard as Assad is, many of the 'rebel fighters' are lined to Al Queda and similar, thus once the dust settle they are not exactly going to bring love, light and peace. We have fudged with the region repeatedly for decades and when it suits us, we use the suffering, the dying and the dead to mobilize more support for 'action'. Let's be honest with ourselves; the west does not give flying fudge about lives in the region, only the potential board shuffles/potential victories achievable in our proxy war(s). To think anything else is, IMO, selectively naive.

I do, however, like your idea of parsing off religious nutters to go and barney in some big field!

As I've already asked someone else tonight, why does not doing right in some places restrict us from doing right in others?

When we had a chance to stop Assad, there was very little involvement from the likes of Al Queda, the vacuum that was created from Assad wiping out so many of his opponents has allowed that type in.

That's why situations like this need to be dealt with quickly and decisively. Fannying around playing politics has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that blood is on the hands of Ed Miliband (ironically autocorrected to militant) and all who used that vote as a cheap stunt to distance themselves from Blair.

 

[thfcsteff]

As I've already asked someone else tonight, why does not doing right in some places restrict us from doing right in others?

When we had a chance to stop Assad, there was very little involvement from the likes of Al Queda, the vacuum that was created from Assad wiping out so many of his opponents has allowed that type in.

That's why situations like this need to be dealt with quickly and decisively. Fannying around playing politics has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that blood is on the hands of Ed Miliband (ironically autocorrected to militant) and all who used that vote as a cheap stunt to distance themselves from Blair.

It does not. But I think it is naive not to recognize that agenda drives such actions more than any implied altruism. Not suggesting you don't know that, but many are unaware.
That blood started staining fingers way earlier...waaaaay earlier...

 

[r-u-s-x]

As I've already asked someone else tonight, why does not doing right in some places restrict us from doing right in others?

When we had a chance to stop Assad, there was very little involvement from the likes of Al Queda, the vacuum that was created from Assad wiping out so many of his opponents has allowed that type in.

That's why situations like this need to be dealt with quickly and decisively. Fannying around playing politics has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that blood is on the hands of Ed Miliband (ironically autocorrected to militant) and all who used that vote as a cheap stunt to distance themselves from Blair.

disregarding the fact he is a tyrant dictator would supporting Assad have been the option that caused less bloodshed? I think it probably would have been, we have no problem supporting the Saudi's in Yemen so it is not a moral objection.

 

[braineclipse]

It does not. But I think it is naive not to recognize that agenda drives such actions more than any implied altruism. Not suggesting you don't know that, but many are unaware.
That blood started staining fingers way earlier...waaaaay earlier...

We must find ways to solve problems in a way that fits both national agendas and helps people. It's naive to ask for the solutions based on altruism alone. Not suggesting you don't know that, but many are unaware. Many more than those who do not recognize that agenda drives geopolitics. In my opinion at least.

You're right. Probably this can be traced back to some caveman disagreement about a woman forty thousand years ago, we should blame those guys. Or we should try to figure out what to do with the situation we find ourselves in at the moment.

disregarding the fact he is a tyrant dictator would supporting Assad have been the option that caused less bloodshed? I think it probably would have been, we have no problem supporting the Saudi's in Yemen so it is not a moral objection.

How must a country act internationally then if they have a moral objection to tyrant dictators? Or is it perhaps possible to have such a moral objection whilst also accepting that there are many factors involved in international politics that have to be accounted for?

 

[Grays_1890]

disregarding the fact he is a tyrant dictator would supporting Assad have been the option that caused less bloodshed? I think it probably would have been, we have no problem supporting the Saudi's in Yemen so it is not a moral objection.

Its a far from perfect solution but sometimes countries are how they are culturally and such leaders as mental as they are keep a peace that the West can not. The Middle East in many ways and in many places is still Bedouin, same as Africa is tribal and have many dictators at the same level of evil as Assad. Cuba to a lesser extent, he was hardly a bundle of fun and the UAE would not be what it is if Sheikh Mohamed was not in effect paying off the people for harmony!!!

 

[parklane1]

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for being upset at US foreign policy. But I have to say that of the potential candidates I'm glad we ended up with them as the lone superpower in the world for a while.

And as long as all the countries do as they say/want there is nothing to fear?, lets not be naive here America and Russia are as bad as one another when they see something in it for them.

 

[braineclipse]

And as long as all the countries do as they say/want there is nothing to fear?, lets not be naive here America and Russia are as bad as one another when they see something in it for them.

Ah.... Come on! Did I say that there was nothing to fear? Did I imply it in any way?

Imagine the end of the cold war as the US collapsing financially and there being the Soviet Union as the lone superpower in the world for 20+ years. Or imagine China (arguably the third realistic candidate) being the lone superpower for 20+ years. You really think that would be no worse than the US over the last couple of decades?

Even as a secondary world power (to the only current superpower in the US) Russia under Putin essentially annexed Crimea. Just noped it out of Ukraine and added it to Russia. Imagine what Putin could get away with had they been the only superpower in the world... When was the last time the US annexed something?

Like I said plenty of very good reasons to be upset at US foreign policy. But it seems entirely naive to think that another lone superpower wouldn't be doing even worse things.

 

[scaramanga]

disregarding the fact he is a tyrant dictator would supporting Assad have been the option that caused less bloodshed? I think it probably would have been, we have no problem supporting the Saudi's in Yemen so it is not a moral objection.

I'm not sure it would have been the best in the long term and I don't think one can sensibly disregard that he's a tyrant dictator.

Again, I don't believe that not taking action elsewhere is reason to not do so anywhere.

 

[Grays_1890]

Again, I don't believe that not taking action elsewhere is reason to not do so anywhere.

True but on the flip side do you not owe it to the world to take on all if you are taking on one? Hardly fair to ignore other countries held in the grip of a tyrant is it?

 

[braineclipse]

True but on the flip side do you not owe it to the world to take on all if you are taking on one? Hardly fair to ignore other countries held in the grip of a tyrant is it?

So don't liberate one country from a dictator unless you can liberate all? That's your position?

You don't owe it to the world any more than if you're doing nothing. If you do one good thing do you owe it to the world to do countless more acts of good?

I would say the west does owe the world at least some action considering some of the things that have been going on in the last couple of centuries, but that's a different question.

 

[Grays_1890]

So don't liberate one country from a dictator unless you can liberate all? That's your position?

Thats not my position at all, I am asking how do you choose which country you are going to liberate over the next? Whats your message to the world if you choose to only liberate Syria "your problems pale to those in Syria" and I am talking before the war BTW. Half of Africa would be pretty upset

 

[Gutter Boy]

So don't liberate one country from a dictator unless you can liberate all? That's your position?

You don't owe it to the world any more than if you're doing nothing. If you do one good thing do you owe it to the world to do countless more acts of good?

I would say the west does owe the world at least some action considering some of the things that have been going on in the last couple of centuries, but that's a different question.

According to the John Simpson documentary last night, there are only 20 dictatorships left in the world now, compared to 90 in 1970

I think universal liberal democracies is achievable in the next 20-30 years.

 

[scaramanga]

Thats not my position at all, I am asking how do you choose which country you are going to liberate over the next? Whats your message to the world if you choose to only liberate Syria "your problems pale to those in Syria" and I am talking before the war BTW. Half of Africa would be pretty upset

Why does it matter.

A good act is a good act. As the arbiter of these acts we have the right to choose whichever ones suit us.

There are probably more needy and/or effective charities than the ones I choose to donate to. That doesn't make my donation a bad thing to do, neither does not donating to all of them negate it.