Livestream out of Syria

Danny1982 said:
Look, you don't know what an act of war is, you don't know what pledging allegiance means (pledge allegiance to SAF?! wtf?!). And your information and understanding about Al-Qaeda is massively flawed. Like I said, you're just like McCain.. The know-it-all big mouth when he's in Washington, and when he steps into Syria (the reality), it only takes a couple of hours to show the fool he is.

And those are the people you're siding with now.
Click to expand...

Two points.

Firstly, the irony of the above statement is hysterical. You clearly know relatively little about the subject (compared to the authority with which you attempt to speak) and are desperately trying to cover for being caught out in that by just prattling on with bizarre metaphors, weak platitudes and unwarranted condescension. I don't like doing this because it's perhaps a little cheap, but let's put our cards on the table. I have two degrees in International Politics (with a specialty in Humanitarian Intervention), and also have the same obsession with Middle East affairs and terrorism that most IR students seem to end up with. I fully intend to complete a PhD in IR at some point in the near future (my topic being post-war British foreign policy towards Iran) and so I remain as obsessively committed as ever. Of course, none of that really means I'm any more likely to be right about subjective matters such as the efficacy of an intervention in Syria (just look at Robert Fisk), but it does mean I'm actually reasonably well-read on these issues and I'm not just blathering around nonsense based on a few articles I've read and a handful of tediously 'anti-imperialist' blogs. You said you wanted me to present evidence, but when I offer several examples of military actions by one sovereign state against another which didn't match any reasonable description of 'war' you ignored it. Do you really want to have a properly sourced debate with me about Jihadis in Syria, or do you just want to be able to continue to shout "AL QAEDA IN SYRIA, AL QAEDA IN SYRIA" without justifying it in any way?*

Second, you've yet again shown you don't actually read my posts. I am against British intervention in Syria, and have said so more than once. I'm not 'siding' with anyone in that poor country, I think there's little positive we can do. What I am siding against is nonsensical, anti-western, ignorant, Russian/Baathist propaganda which is regurgitated by useful idiots like you all over the internet. And if you ever compare to John fecking McCain again I'm liable to reach through the internet and smack you.

*This is a serious question, if you're not interested I'll leave you alone.
 
holyland red said:
I suppose it's the numbers of casualties that may have tipped the balance here. There have been evidence for use of chemicals before, but the scale of the recent attack is something the free world probably can't be indifferent about. I'd expect the same response if people were rounded up and shot WW2 style.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that considering the genocide in Rwanda when approx 500,000-1,000,000 were murdered without the US so much as lifting a finger.
 
Kingcon said:
It's a good thing we don't have a Warmongering Republican in office as Syria would be the perfect place to fuel our Military Industrial Complex.
Click to expand...


Yeah that is true. Dubya wouldn't think twice about going in all guns blazing with or without the UN.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah that is true. Dubya wouldn't think twice about going in all guns blazing with or without the UN.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I think you missed the irony in my statement. It doesn't matter who is in office, be it Republican or Democrat they both have gone to war or intervened as they say without congressional approval. The truth is that the President Eisenhower was right, my Country has become a well oiled military machine.

We have no reason to be the world's police.
 
Kingcon said:
I can't agree with that considering the genocide in Rwanda when approx 500,000-1,000,000 were murdered without the US so much as lifting a finger.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for those Rwanda victims there was no footage uplaoded on YouTube back then.

Having said that, I do agree that the West doesn't give a feck about dead Africans or Arabs for that matter. Now that they are stuck with mass murder live on TV Western politicians are finding themselves in a real mess.
 
Kingcon said:
I'm sorry, I think you missed the irony in my statement. It doesn't matter who is in office, be it Republican or Democrat they both have gone to war or intervened as they say without congressional approval. The truth is that the President Eisenhower was right, my Country has become a well oiled military machine.

We have no reason to be the world's police.
Click to expand...


A bit simplistic, but I get your point. Dems are definitely a wee bit more cautious these days after Iraq, Afghanistan, running on ending wars and bringing troops home etc. Also, what happened decades ago is a bit outdated when analyzing the current situation.
 
Proud of the parliaments decision . Phillip Hammond said this would harm our (so called) special relationship , but if that means jumping higher when the Americans say jump, they can keep it.
 
Raoul said:
A bit simplistic, but I get your point. Dems are definitely a wee bit more cautious these days after Iraq, Afghanistan, running on ending wars and bringing troops home etc. Also, what happened decades ago is a bit outdated when analyzing the current situation.
Click to expand...

Dems can't avoid accountability for our recent Middle East involvement, there were plenty amongst them who voted for it (when a vote was actually taken). As for being more cautious than Republicans, our current President has the chance to prove that theory but I'm not holding my breath.

Biden and Obama have been vocal during the Bush years on the legality of any military involvement without a direct threat to the US being a breach of the Constitiution. Furthermore Biden even called for Impeachemt in Bush's case.

Now they seem all to quite on the subject.
 
Kingcon said:
Dems can't avoid accountability for our recent Middle East involvement, there were plenty amongst them who voted for it (when a vote was actually taken). As for being more cautious than Republicans, our current President has the chance to prove that theory but I'm not holding my breath.

Biden and Obama have been vocal during the Bush years on the legality of any military involvement without a direct threat to the US being a breach of the Constitiution. Furthermore Biden even called for Impeachemt in Bush's case.

Now they seem all to quite on the subject.
Click to expand...


Probably because they are different situations ?
 
Kingcon said:
Intervening into a somber Nations affairs and possibly deposing a dictator? Business as usually for my Government.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but its a bit myopic to look at it that way. The UN system has failed in Syria, as has the responsibility to protect doctrine, and now chemical weapons are at play in an already volatile area. It would be odd that a country like the US or any of the big European players wouldn't somehow be involved, given that there are strategic equities at play.
 
I haven't read this thread in months, but I've been listening to five live for two days now and it's getting me extremely frustrated. They keep drawing parallels to Iraq, however they continually fail to mention Libya. A country that we aided in the face of imminent violence. In Syria however, we're dragging our feet even though hundreds of civilians are being killed and chemical weapons are being used! We had far less reason to aid Libya than we do with Syria.

The reluctance to get involved in Syria is shameful in my opinion and simply reinforces the overall opinion that we used the Libyan Civilians as an excuse to make sure the precious Oil wasn't destroyed. Why are the Media not bothering to draw parallels to all of this? I'd be livid if I was a Syrian at the abandonment by the West.

Am I talking bollocks? Or do I have a point?
 
RedSky At Night said:
I haven't read this thread in months, but I've been listening to five live for two days now and it's getting me extremely frustrated. They keep drawing parallels to Iraq, however they continually fail to mention Lybia. A country that we aided in the face of imminent violence. In Syria however, we're dragging our feet even though hundreds of civilians are being killed and chemical weapons are being used! We had far less reason to aid Lybia than we do with Syria.

The reluctance to get involved in Syria is shameful in my opinion and simply reinforces the overall opinion that we used the Lybian Civilians as an excuse to make sure the precious Oil wasn't destroyed. Why are the Media not bothering to draw parallels to all of this? I'd be livid if I was a Syrian at the abandonment by the West.

Am I talking bollocks? Or do I have a point?
Click to expand...


You're not talking bollocks. Each situation has to be analyzed on its own unique merits. There are people who reject interventionism under any circumstances however, which is a bit unrealistic imo.
 
I'm feeling somewhat ashamed to be British really. I think its shameful that we're not getting involved and makes the entire Libya Crisis a complete scam and farce. They were all quick enough to get involved when the oil fields started to burn.

I'm probably being highly unrealistic and far too compassionate to ever be involved in Politics. I will never vote for that Labour cnut Milliband after his handling on this situation in the past few days. Obvious attempt to gain political advantage by using the crisis in Syria by taking the no war stance. That for me is the lowest of the low.
 
RedSky At Night said:
I'm feeling somewhat ashamed to be British really. I think its shameful that we're not getting involved and makes the entire Libya Crisis a complete scam and farce. They were all quick enough to get involved when the oil fields started to burn.

I'm probably being highly unrealistic and far too compassionate to ever be involved in Politics. I will never vote for that Labour cnut Milliband after his handling on this situation in the past few days. Obvious attempt to gain political advantage by using the crisis in Syria by taking the no war stance. That for me is the lowest of the low.
Click to expand...

You are quite right in how the situation has been cynically used by both politicians and some in the media, i wouldn't dispute that in the least. On the other hand Cameron and members of his cabinet demonstrated their incompetence rather than cynicism.

However i must question your easy comparison with the Libyan intervention and for a number of reasons.

We left a barely sustainable governing structure behind in that country with the various militia causing serious problems to this day, just see the assassinations and violence of a few weeks ago. The complexities of the tribal structure and simple geography do mitigate the spread of these issues however.

A summary of the Libyan conflict might be that the West walked in, tipped the balance of power at the top and then buggered off. What we find ourselves with following a repeat performance in Syria? Chaos, sectarian/religious violence, Al-Nusra and ISIL patrolling the streets, continued terrorism, millions preferring to remain displaced in camps or surrounding countries.

Of the state of play in regard to the opposing forces is quite different to Libya too, Assad is in a much stronger position than Gaddafi in part due to the resources he already had and external aid, equally the rebels are receiving enough funding and resources to battle the government over a long period. All the while these so-called backers are taking little chunks out of Syria and exploiting the displaced population.

It is a terribly ugly and complicated situation which Cameron's kindergarten plan had barely an answer to.

What were the mission objectives exactly, where was the strategy? It has been described as an attack to deter Assad from further use of WMD as opposed to regime change, do you believe that the attack could remain so contained?

The Prime Minister may indeed have the best of intentions doing however he didn't offer sufficient detail to convince either parliament or the public.
 
UN inspectors leaving, yanks to give a statement in half an hour and waters off the Syrian Coast now full of ships ready to bomb the place. Surely they are getting ready for a bombardment by sea and air?
 
Raoul said:
Fair enough, but its a bit myopic to look at it that way. The UN system has failed in Syria, as has the responsibility to protect doctrine, and now chemical weapons are at play in an already volatile area. It would be odd that a country like the US or any of the big European players wouldn't somehow be involved, given that there are strategic equities at play.
Click to expand...

If my explanation was lacking in intellectual insight then Obama's idea of bombing strategic military targets to defer Assad from further chemical weapons use without UN backing is genius to you?

This is a lose/lose situation for the US....

If the rebels with ties to Al-Queda (currently not on our friends list) they will only strengthen their regime. This will also further damage an already fragile relationship with Russia.

If Assad wins, considering we've looked to have backed the rebels then it will only strengthen Iran and Hezbollah foothold in the region.

Thus we are better off staying out of the conflict entirely. We talk of a limited action with cruise missile strikes and no-fly zones but our involvement hardly ever stays limited once it starts.

No fly zones would surely raise the risk of planes being shot down and thus rescue teams being sent in. We could inflict damage with cruise missiles but will this deter chemical weapons use, hardly. This won't protect the civilian population or push Assad out.

The main issue is regime change and this isn't an easy problem to fix as the possible successor is just as imperfect. The conflict would enter the US into a civil war that we have no business referring. There is no endgame here. Just as there wasn't one in Afghanistan and Iraq, two theaters of war our current President wasn't too keen of BEFORE he entered office.

Above all the majority of the American people are tired of war and don't want to enter into another. This region is volatile and has been for centuries. We have too many issues on our own soil to address. Unless the rest of the world wants to join forces then I don't see why we should lead the charge.
 
iSparky said:
UN inspectors leaving, yanks to give a statement in half an hour and waters off the Syrian Coast now full of ships ready to bomb the place. Surely they are getting ready for a bombardment by sea and air?
Click to expand...

Sadly yes. Myself would much prefer the US sit this one out. If enough other nations want to do something, they can feel free to do what they want. Getting quite tired off all these interventions/invasions.

Turkey is a NATO member, with many military bases that in the past have been used by other NATO countries (see Desert Storm), so really not that difficult for France, UK, Germany, Italy, etc etc to move some jets and personnel to Turkey and handle the situation.

In the meantime if the Syrian Govt and the Syrian Rebels want to gas each other, that is their stupid decision to make.

I know this sounds a bit heartless, but really have reached the end of my rope on all these World Police actions by my nations government Time for someone else to foot the bill and do the job if something like this needs to be done. And if nobody else wants to do it, then I guess it was not that big of an issue in the first place.
 
I don't blame any American for not wanting to get involved in Syria. As bad as the crimes over there are people always seem to think the Americans are obliged to pick up the slack. I'm sure people in America are sick of war by now but at least they are not talking about putting troops on the ground which is something.
 
Well according to this john Kerry speech they know a hell of a lot about what has been going on there. It sounds like he is gearing up to say they are going in.
 
Raoul said:
A bit simplistic, but I get your point. Dems are definitely a wee bit more cautious these days after Iraq, Afghanistan, running on ending wars and bringing troops home etc. Also, what happened decades ago is a bit outdated when analyzing the current situation.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious post? Dems are being cautious? When? Biden and Kerry have both said they're behind him. Obama is basically saying he is going to bomb Syria with or with global support militarily and without taking it to the UN. Bush while bullheaded at least went to the UN twice. He at least tried to give the appearance he gave a damn, even if he didn't.
 
Cali Red said:
Is this a serious post? Dems are being cautious? When? Biden and Kerry have both said they're behind him. Obama is basically saying he is going to bomb Syria with or with global support militarily and without taking it to the UN. Bush while bullheaded at least went to the UN twice. He at least tried to give the appearance he gave a damn, even if he didn't.
Click to expand...

Except that the Obama administration has been dealing directly with the UN on Syria for two years. The UN has rendered itself a bit meaningless on Syria due to security council gridlock.
 
Raoul said:
Except that the Obama administration has been dealing directly with the UN on Syria for two years. The UN has rendered itself a bit meaningless on Syria due to security council gridlock.
Click to expand...
The security council is deadlocked under every president so that excuse is irrelevant. Syria could probably drop nukes on their people and China and/or Russia (and maybe France) would still want to "wait and see".

And I'm not trying to be flip here, but what resolution has the US lead with the UN against Syria over the last two years. I haven't heard any administration or political figure talk about violating any resolution.
 
He's a Democrat, he'll be reluctant to put boots on the ground but a campaign of airstrikes will be right up his alley. Much like Clinton did in the former Yugoslavia. So Obomba will blast Syria back to the stone age and then implore the UN or NATO to collectively send troops in to keep the peace.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
He's a Democrat, he'll be reluctant to put boots on the ground but a campaign of airstrikes will be right up his alley. Much like Clinton did in the former Yugoslavia. So Obomba will blast Syria back to the stone age and then implore the UN or NATO to collectively send troops in to keep the peace.
Click to expand...
Is that somehow better? We start the war and then ask others to clean up the mess? Or are we trying to break Syria apart a la Clinton with Yugoslavia?
 
Interesting from Kerry, basically supporting the UN but at the same time saying that it will not hang around for their reports and they can't share any more than the yanks already have.

Saying that they won't turn a blind eye to what is happening, no boots on the ground but pretty much indirectly giving the strong impression they are going in but just not when.
 
Cali Red said:
The security council is deadlocked under every president so that excuse is irrelevant. Syria could probably drop nukes on their people and China and/or Russia (and maybe France) would still want to "wait and see".

And I'm not trying to be flip here, but what resolution has the US lead with the UN against Syria over the last two years. I haven't heard any administration or political figure talk about violating any resolution.
Click to expand...

Well no, it's not irrelevant. In fact, it shows that efforts towards a multilateral approach have been tried repeatedly over the past two years, which sort of contradicts what you previously said.
 
Cali Red said:
Is that somehow better? We start the war and then ask others to clean up the mess? Or are we trying to break Syria apart a la Clinton with Yugoslavia?
Click to expand...

No, I hope there wasn't any suggestion in my post that ensuring thousands of innocent people die via foreign intervention in a domestic situation was a good thing. I'm a confirmed devotee of the Westphalian system of international relations and would rather the west refrained from either option.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
He's a Democrat, he'll be reluctant to put boots on the ground but a campaign of airstrikes will be right up his alley. Much like Clinton did in the former Yugoslavia. So Obomba will blast Syria back to the stone age and then implore the UN or NATO to collectively send troops in to keep the peace.
Click to expand...

Post-war peacekeeping has unfortunately not entered the thinking of of anyone, now or at any time during the history of this conflict.

Iraq, Afghanistan and defence cuts have combined to break the strength of the British Army as it was at the beginning of the 2000s, i would have to question both the will and capacity to form a coalition for UN force in Syria at the present time.

The Syrians and Russia have had plenty of time to prepare for this strike if it occurs. I wonder if the lack of a wider alliance might cause the Americans to lean toward highly symbolic targets, giving the appearance of a more serious assault.
 
So is it looking likely that the US are going in? Just heard Kerry on the news and it seems that way.
 
Disappointed in the Houses of Parliaments. We should have prevented this massacre when it started last year.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Post-war peacekeeping has unfortunately not entered the thinking of of anyone, now or at any time during the history of this conflict.

Iraq, Afghanistan and defence cuts have combined to break the strength of the British Army as it was at the beginning of the 2000s, i would have to question both the will and capacity to form a coalition for UN force in Syria at the present time.

The Syrians and Russia have had plenty of time to prepare for this strike if it occurs. I wonder if the lack of a wider alliance might cause the Americans to lean toward highly symbolic targets, giving the appearance of a more serious assault.
Click to expand...

Just going on past events, Nick. If the US is reluctant to send troops in they punish Assad via air-strikes. Eventually troops have to go in but in a scenario where the US has bombed the living daylights out the country then someone will have to supply troops to keep the fighting from starting again.
 
I'm not up to speed on Syria, so can someone prove this rightwinger's post as truth, part truth, or bullshit, por favor?

---So, is the President going to go it alone on Sryia? How the heck did we end up fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda???---
 
You must log in or register to reply here.