[Reynard]

Looks like the Syrian situation is deteriorating by the minute and that after the Chinese and Ruskie veto on Friday it has given the president enough waggle room to launch a full scale massacre.

Not good.

After sending in some of our armed forces to bolster the Libyan uprising and help them get rid of the daft Colonel I was just wondering why there doesn't seem to be the same clamour to save civilians in Syria. It's going to be a total bloodbath in the next week or so and its started now. Is it acceptable to sit and watch or is it f**k all to do with us this time? The presidents old man wasn't too shy about authorising total annihilation of men women and children in the early 80s and it looks like weepeas is a chip off the old block.

[ffcsam]

Aye it's a terrible situation out there just now. Some of the images are sickening
As to whether our Forces should go in, I really don't know

[Reynard]

ffcsam, on 06 February 2012 - 15:48, said:

Aye it's a terrible situation out there just now. Some of the images are sickening
As to whether our Forces should go in, I really don't know

I don't think we could go into Syria anyway politically. It would probably cause more bother than it solved but as you say it's a shocker in there just now. Assad seems to have taken the veto as a green light to get tore into anyone he deems has ruffled feathers and is slaying all and sundry. It shows the impotence of the UN once more all the same. Dreadful organisation.

[LinkinFighter]

We probably should do something, its the British way.

[welshbairn]

The danger of escalation is too much for military intervention. Hezbollah could get dragged in, followed by Israel and Iran, and even Turkey. As horrible as it, the Syrians are going to have to sort it out for themselves.

[diamonds2002]

Was Assad not a big ally of the Americans in the region?

[Enrico Annoni]

Can we not just carpet bomb the place?

[ICTChris]

Reynard, on 06 February 2012 - 15:44, said:

Looks like the Syrian situation is deteriorating by the minute and that after the Chinese and Ruskie veto on Friday it has given the president enough waggle room to launch a full scale massacre.

Not good.

After sending in some of our armed forces to bolster the Libyan uprising and help them get rid of the daft Colonel I was just wondering why there doesn't seem to be the same clamour to save civilians in Syria. It's going to be a total bloodbath in the next week or so and its started now. Is it acceptable to sit and watch or is it f**k all to do with us this time? The presidents old man wasn't too shy about authorising total annihilation of men women and children in the early 80s and it looks like weepeas is a chip off the old block.

Syria is an important regional power - it has close links with Hezbollah, who are a powerful component of the politics of Lebanon, have been strongly linked to insurgents in Iraq and are the Iranian regimes biggest allies. To intervene in Syria would be to create a massive regional conflict. There is also the fact that Syria has powerful allies in the international community, chiefly Russia, who have just vetoed a Security Council resolution on the conflict.

Libya was an isolated regime, strategically unimportant to the Middle East or, really, to North Africa. Taking care of Gadaffi and co was pretty simple, certainly compared to any intervention in Syria. You can call this view cynical or hypocrtiical but the fact is you have to treat every situation, every conflict, differently. I remember once going to a Stop The War meeting, in relation to the intervention in Kosova, and hearing a SWP drone asking (rhetorically) "if we intervene in Kosovo why not in Tibet?". Well, maybe because fighting Serbia is slightly easier than launching a long range war with China.

I think what will happen in Syria is that there will be a prolonged collapse of the regime. Turkey and the Arab League are opposed to the regime and, in the face of the destruction of Homs, we'll see more and more feeding of support, logistically and materially, to the rebels.

[Reynard]

ICTChris, on 06 February 2012 - 16:41, said:

Syria is an important regional power - it has close links with Hezbollah, who are a powerful component of the politics of Lebanon, have been strongly linked to insurgents in Iraq and are the Iranian regimes biggest allies. To intervene in Syria would be to create a massive regional conflict. There is also the fact that Syria has powerful allies in the international community, chiefly Russia, who have just vetoed a Security Council resolution on the conflict.

Libya was an isolated regime, strategically unimportant to the Middle East or, really, to North Africa. Taking care of Gadaffi and co was pretty simple, certainly compared to any intervention in Syria. You can call this view cynical or hypocrtiical but the fact is you have to treat every situation, every conflict, differently. I remember once going to a Stop The War meeting, in relation to the intervention in Kosova, and hearing a SWP drone asking (rhetorically) "if we intervene in Kosovo why not in Tibet?". Well, maybe because fighting Serbia is slightly easier than launching a long range war with China.

I think what will happen in Syria is that there will be a prolonged collapse of the regime. Turkey and the Arab League are opposed to the regime and, in the face of the destruction of Homs, we'll see more and more feeding of support, logistically and materially, to the rebels.

Yeah most folk reckon this is how it will play out. It was pretty harsh having to listen to some Syrian random on the news pretty much saying he reckoned he was going to die quite soon if not during the bombardment then afterwards once the troops mop up.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Enrico Annoni, on 06 February 2012 - 16:21, said:

Can we not just carpet bomb the place?

Could we not get the Israelis to do it on their way to Iran?

[kiwififer]

How much oil does Syria have and can BP get at it?

[Granny Danger]

Reynard, on 06 February 2012 - 15:44, said:

Looks like the Syrian situation is deteriorating by the minute and that after the Chinese and Ruskie veto on Friday it has given the president enough waggle room to launch a full scale massacre.

Not good.

After sending in some of our armed forces to bolster the Libyan uprising and help them get rid of the daft Colonel I was just wondering why there doesn't seem to be the same clamour to save civilians in Syria. It's going to be a total bloodbath in the next week or so and its started now. Is it acceptable to sit and watch or is it f**k all to do with us this time? The presidents old man wasn't too shy about authorising total annihilation of men women and children in the early 80s and it looks like weepeas is a chip off the old block.

To important a situation for politicians to sort out (they're all c***s anyway).

I think you should volunteer to go over; I'll contribute to the cost of your flight to Damascus, or better yet Homs (one way of course).

[ICTChris]

kiwififer, on 06 February 2012 - 18:10, said:

How much oil does Syria have and can BP get at it?

They don't have much oil, compared to others in the region, According to wikipedia, they export less oil than Denmark and will soon be a net importer of oil.

[HTG]

ICTChris, on 06 February 2012 - 19:41, said:

They don't have much oil, compared to others in the region, According to wikipedia, they export less oil than Denmark and will soon be a net importer of oil.

So a definite stay out and wring hands then ...

[lau03143]

I'd let them shoot the shit out of each other. Nothing to do with us.

[Reynard]

Granny Danger, on 06 February 2012 - 19:29, said:

To important a situation for politicians to sort out (they're all c***s anyway).

I think you should volunteer to go over; I'll contribute to the cost of your flight to Damascus, or better yet Homs (one way of course).

PM me and I'll send you the address to send it to. I really really promise I'll go.

[Tyler]

Quote

Could we not get the Israelis to do it on their way to Iran?

Speculation.

[Enrico Annoni]

No oil

No Interest

[T_S_A_R]

Reynard, on 06 February 2012 - 15:53, said:

I don't think we could go into Syria anyway politically. It would probably cause more bother than it solved but as you say it's a shocker in there just now. Assad seems to have taken the veto as a green light to get tore into anyone he deems has ruffled feathers and is slaying all and sundry. It shows the impotence of the UN once more all the same. Dreadful organisation.

i don't see you complaining when the usa allows israel to run amok with it's veto.

paxman seems to think he is winston churchill on newsnight here.

[Granny Danger]

Sergeant Wilson, on 06 February 2012 - 17:46, said:

Could we not get the Israelis to do it on their way to Iran?

Worrying how there is so much focus on Syria yet the US and UK governments are being so sanguine about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran.

Also ironic the criticism of the Russian and Chinese veto in the UN given the US continual veto of any condemnation of Israel.

[T_S_A_R]

the russian ambassador just handed paxman his arse.

[Long live the 69]

I genuinely don't have a clue what's happening, can someone enlighten me?

I'm guessing it's an uprising against the regime though..?

[Savage Henry]

Reynard, on 06 February 2012 - 15:44, said:

Looks like the Syrian situation is deteriorating by the minute and that after the Chinese and Ruskie veto on Friday it has given the president enough waggle room to launch a full scale massacre.

Not good.

After sending in some of our armed forces to bolster the Libyan uprising and help them get rid of the daft Colonel I was just wondering why there doesn't seem to be the same clamour to save civilians in Syria. It's going to be a total bloodbath in the next week or so and its started now. Is it acceptable to sit and watch or is it f**k all to do with us this time? The presidents old man wasn't too shy about authorising total annihilation of men women and children in the early 80s and it looks like weepeas is a chip off the old block.

The balance between Iran and Saudi is the whole elephant in the room, as it were, in the Middle East. If Iran goes aggressive, the region is sent into turmoil. If Saudi degenerates, then the world is sent into one long financial oblivion, and possibly worse. The sectarian element in Syria can't be discounted. Libya isn't split between Islamic sects, but Bahrain and Syria are. If the Bahraini rebellion had been successful, that could have started a whole chain from Tehran, through Bahrain and into the east of Saudi. The financial overlords of Western democracies have decided that it's all about keeping the Saudi economy stable, so Western governments have historically turned a blind eye to the repulsive regime there. Libya was every bit as repulsive, but didn't provide us with oil. Libya did, on the other hand, supposedly keep an eye on militant African Islam, but clearly the threat of that was grossly exaggerated if indeed it ever existed.

Long live the 69, on 06 February 2012 - 23:02, said:

I genuinely don't have a clue what's happening, can someone enlighten me?

I'm guessing it's an uprising against the regime though..?

The Arab Spring became an Arab winter which became an Arab Spring 2. This is still the same movement that started off in Tunisia a year ago. Things in Damascus are only just coming to a head now. As with the Libyans, and the Egyptians, and the Tunisians, the majority of the public are calling, peacefully for the most part, for democratic elections - although in Egypt this meant voting for the Muslim Brotherhood. In Syria they just want the same, an end to dictatorial rule. There's long been an impression that in the Middle East people don't want elections, they prefer a benevolent dictatorship such as in Oman, but the truth is, what people seem to be asking for is a Western style of politics, where they can change their leader and not have to suffer forty years of oppression.

Syria is much closer to both Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of what's happening in the Middle East, and what has happened since the seventies and before, is to do with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Reynard]

T_S_A_R, on 06 February 2012 - 22:34, said:

i don't see you complaining when the usa allows israel to run amok with it's veto.

paxman seems to think he is winston churchill on newsnight here.

No you don't do you?

[Mozzamozza]

Enrico Annoni, on 06 February 2012 - 16:21, said:

Can we not just carpet bomb Celtic Park?