Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 1:26 pm  

Barnabus wrote:

I didn't give my opinion on what I would do, just interested to hear what you think should be done? You didn't aswer it directly, but I assume (please correct me if I've assumed incorrectly) that the comment about interfering in other nations politics, would mean you' don't think anything should be done?

In asking what someone would suggest who has just said there should be no military intervention, you effectively suggest that you cannot see any other option.

I think that we – and other nations – should be very careful about what we consider.

I mentioned Iran: we (and others) helped to keep the Shah in power for decades in Persia (as it was at the time), helping remove his political opponents – and then looked shocked when the actual people of that country finally shifted him with support from ultra nationalistic/religious groups, because other oppositions had pretty much been wiped out.

We (and others) helped keep Saddam in power for years – partly because he and Iran hated each other.

There's a picture forming here, I think.

24-hour media and telecommunications technology mean that we're much 'closer' to atrocities when they happen (and when that same media selects one for our entertainment – see FA's link to conflicts that are currently going on). So it's obviously easier to start demanding something be done when an atrocity occurs in such a chosen country. But history should teach us the result of intervention. Look at Afghanistan for another example. So easy to look at the Taliban and say: 'let's go and save those women'. The reality is far more complex. And it is highly doubtful that in doing so, we have made anything better – certainly not in more than the short term.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 1:37 pm  

Mintball wrote:

In asking what someone would suggest who has just said there should be no military intervention, you effectively suggest that you cannot see any other option.

I think that we – and other nations – should be very careful about what we consider.

I mentioned Iran: we (and others) helped to keep the Shah in power for decades in Persia (as it was at the time), helping remove his political opponents – and then looked shocked when the actual people of that country finally shifted him with support from ultra nationalistic/religious groups, because other oppositions had pretty much been wiped out.

We (and others) helped keep Saddam in power for years – partly because he and Iran hated each other.

There's a picture forming here, I think.

24-hour media and telecommunications technology mean that we're much 'closer' to atrocities when they happen (and when that same media selects one for our entertainment – see FA's link to conflicts that are currently going on). So it's obviously easier to start demanding something be done when an atrocity occurs in such a chosen country. But history should teach us the result of intervention. Look at Afghanistan for another example. So easy to look at the Taliban and say: 'let's go and save those women'. The reality is far more complex. And it is highly doubtful that in doing so, we have made anything better – certainly not in more than the short term.

I agree Mintball and I'm aware of our country's history of involvement in the region. I'm not an advocate for military action in Syria, neither was I for the other countires you mentioned.

I asked what you'd suggest after your quite flippant remark to Standee (and the same with me too further down), about invasions & bombing campaigns, despite neither of us mentioning anything of the sort.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 1:41 pm  

The problem is, we've been obsessed for some years with the military solution as the default solution – Blair, with his delusions of Gladstonianism – loved it.

We need to be more creative in dealing with anything that we decide to get involved in – and we need to be very care about being selective about what conflicts we get involved in. At present, this is almost like saying that Syrian children are worth more than children in other countries ravaged by conflict – simply because we currently know something of what is happening there and are reacting in an emotional manner.

[Kosh]

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 4:18 pm  

Mintball wrote:

We need to be more creative in dealing with anything that we decide to get involved in – and we need to be very care about being selective about what conflicts we get involved in. At present, this is almost like saying that Syrian children are worth more than children in other countries ravaged by conflict – simply because we currently know something of what is happening there and are reacting in an emotional manner.

TBH anyone who doesn't have an emotional reaction to the latest news from Syria is probably dead inside.

And no, I don't have any answers either.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 4:30 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Surely in situations like this, arranging accidents for the people in power would be the quickest option? Why go through an invasion when you can just assassinate key people to bring about the changes you want?

When the Shah of Iran was deposed, I cheered.
Then I saw what took his place.

Just deposing or bumping someone off can just leave a vacuum into which we just don't know what will rush.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 4:42 pm  

Kosh wrote:

TBH anyone who doesn't have an emotional reaction to the latest news from Syria is probably dead inside.

And no, I don't have any answers either.

TBH I have a 1 and a 2 year old and when I saw the footage I honestly though 'oh but for the grace of god go me and my kids' and I got upset at the thought.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 9:21 pm  

Kosh wrote:

TBH anyone who doesn't have an emotional reaction to the latest news from Syria is probably dead inside.

And no, I don't have any answers either.

And I have not suggested that I know what the answer, as I quite clearly don't. But I know what it isn't.

And yes, you're right about the obvious and natural response to the recent footage and, indeed, the facts that we are hearing.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 9:42 pm  

The solution is easy - if the "West" has a moral, humaniarian interest in the people of Syria but the Russians and Chinese have other interests (as portrayed in our media), then global agreement could easily be reached. The West could say to Russia and China that they can have whatever influence over post-Assad Syria as they want if they help get rid of him. That way every one is a winner - the West's high morality is sated as is the Russian and Chinese desire for power, influence and resources.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 9:48 pm  

Dally wrote:

The solution is easy - if the "West" has a moral, humaniarian interest in the people of Syria but the Russians and Chinese have other interests (as portrayed in our media), then global agreement could easily be reached. The West could say to Russia and China that they can have whatever influence over post-Assad Syria as they want if they help get rid of him. That way every one is a winner - the West's high morality is sated as is the Russian and Chinese desire for power, influence and resources.

Thank you.

A post that reveals again (were it needed) that you really do not have a clue.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 10:01 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I mentioned Iran: we (and others) helped to keep the Shah in power for decades in Persia (as it was at the time), helping remove his political opponents – and then looked shocked when the actual people of that country finally shifted him with support from ultra nationalistic/religious groups, because other oppositions had pretty much been wiped out.

We (and others) helped keep Saddam in power for years – partly because he and Iran hated each other.

.

Hit the nail on the head here Mintball.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Despots, tyrants, mass murderers...call them what you will. The West's attitude has always been along the lines of 'it's ok as long as they're our despots, tyrants and mass murderers.'

In reference to the op, you therefore have to extend the question, adding 'how the hell do the Western politicians who put the tyrants in power, arming them to the teeth and selling them the intelligence and expertise to target and use those arms sleep at night?'