blonde poker forum

So the US have decided to up their involvement by providing more arms to the opposition/rebels in light of the evidence that the government have used chemical weapons on its people.

Well over 100,000 have been killed in this civil war, and hundreds of thousands made homeless and fleeing as refugees to neighbouring countries.

Should the west get involved by providing weapons, or should they intervene with an actual presence of troops?  We intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sierra Leone.  We didn't with Rwanda, and for years we didn't intervene in Bosnia (whilst Bosnians were being slaughtered by Serbian forces).  What makes one civil war different to another in terms of whether the west intervene.  The fact that the Russians are on the side of the government in Syria is probably a major factor as well. 

I've heard 'expert' commentators say that this uprising is merely part of a larger 'war' that is coming between Sunni and Shia across the whole of the Middle East.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding the war, yet we don't seem to be doing anything as far as they're concerned.

When I say 'we' I mean the UK, the US, the UN and the West in general.  Obviously, these wars affect us, and there's also the 'duty' to protect the innocent people in Syria and elsewhere from being slaughtered. Do we sit back and watch them die, or do we intervene?

:dontask:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Personally I think we should concentrate on getting the UK sorted out first but I won't be complaining whatever happens.

You can talk about this stuff 'til you're blue in the face but it won't change a thing.

stand well back

Hezbollah is the militia currently winning the war back for Assad's "government" since they entered the war in Syria a few months ago, and they are substantially backed by Iran.

Any Western intervention in what is perceived to be the Sunni v's Shia confrontation could have dire cosequences.

While the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War' is mostly Tom Hanks fluff, the actual story of Charlie Wilson and the Soviet/Afghan war is very interesting and shows the positives and the disastrous negatives of funding rebel forces in a foreign state, especially if you pull the funding of the infrastructure, education, sanitation, food, shelter etc and just throw money at people who want guns, power and to rule.  We'll probably make the same mistakes yet again here.  As always.  When media attention goes away from a problem it doesn't mean the problem isn't there, but Western governments don't see poll points in unexposed tragedy.


The first part I can see being true.  It's been coming for a while.  Obviously religion and creed is being used on both sides by select people who want power and control, seeing the deaths of others as needed collateral damage.  It has been the way for millennia.

The second part does fascinate me.  The West seem desperate to not offend at least four Middle East and Asian countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and obviously China).  For at least the first three there are clear links to influential people in those countries and to the top end of US Government past and present.

I don't think any of the Western countries, even if we all pulled together (which has proven to be a political impossibility historically and I see no sign that can change) have the resources to effect a full and positive change all the way through to the end game.  Money, tanks and possibly troops will be thrown at the problem.  Another ten to the penny leader will take over, be declared the country's saviour.  The problem will be announced fixed.  Credit will be claimed.  And the real problems will still be there and the innocent people will still be fucked, just a postponed fucked.

religion lol

Any excuse to avoid work  ::)  ;D

...and the innocent people being slaughtered?  Same as what happened in Rwanda and Bosnia for several years before we got involved.

Not saying the answer is for military intervention by the West, but standing by and watching the murder of innocent men, women and children isn't right, is it?

This.  You can also can Cambodia and Zimbabwe to that list IMO.  The problem isn't intervening, it's intervening in the wrong way.  To ensure stability in a foreign country it requires vast amount of investment in the infrastructure, resources, troops, a plan to be counted in decades rather than years and a combination of wisdom and dumb luck to find a just, fair and capable provision government.  The West have the resources, but lack the cooperation or inclination to do any of this.

I really would like to see what geo thinks on this ?

Lee, Assad is backed by extremists. His regime was also ridiculously over the top in terms of how they dealt with the protests in the early days. Hardly a moderate response bombing civilian neighbourhoods.

Using chemical weapons doesn't really change things, but it does show a lack of humanity in no uncertain terms.

Obv Assad is a bellend, but the rebels have many arseholes as well.

Agreed. Which is why arming them is surely the nut worst strategy?

Yep, my opinion is stay well out of it.

People die every day, but we're not going to run out of people any time soon.

At what point should other countries, say under the auspices of the UN, intervene?

lol, I know I shouldn't laugh but....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

As Tank put it on Facebook:

"Democracy just worked?"

The debate is covered very well here

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/)

Tell Tank I miss him.

Geo thinks TommyD has a good understanding of this.

Really good explanation.

For Dan, there was a hell of a lot of further killing in Bosnia after UN intervention and they watched and let it happen.

Do I think we should help the innocents? absolutely, however how do we achieve this without assisting some of the most vile people on one side or the other?

Geo

Think its between Juve and Napoli this year. Milan outside chance.

Surprised that gag hasn't been done earlier.  Personally, I'd like to see Napoli do well this year.

damned is you do, damned if you don't.

When they invade Israel for their chemical attacks then I will support an attack on Syria, alas that's never gonna happen.

How does Syria get solved without an intervention?

(genuine question)

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Does intervention need to be in the form of military aggression?

Not necessarily

I am just wondering how the situation resolves without the UN having to get involved?

Not making a political point here


the latest is

"US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Syrian government forces killed 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week.

Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror".

He did not mention military strikes, and said the government would consult Congress leaders over the next step.

The government of President Bashar al-Assad has denied carrying out the attack and blames rebel forces.

UN chemical weapons inspectors are investigating evidence for the chemical attacks and will present their evidence to the UN after they leave Damascus on Saturday. "

Why are we (or moreso the usa)intervening?

Seems like there are many more appropriate nations to be at the head of the queue. Team America, world police.

The nerve gas attack stinks to me! Way too convenient, and no solid evidence all of a sudden after immense international pressure. I know Assad is a mentalist, but of all the things he could due, surely that would be up there with the most stupid? Conventional killing seems to have been serving him just fine to date.  

Too many respected voices say military intervention is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I think the UN And "talking" will get is nowhere and certainly won't stop the killing anytime soon. I'm just not sure dropping bombs will stop the killing either

Or any Arab country that has a Sunni/Shia juxtaposition being held in check underneath a dictatorship which obviously has it's own agenda.

I do actually feel that there might well be a better case for Western intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds than there ever was in Iraq on dubitable grounds.

ok never seen this thread when i posted this on my diary
the fact is now that even if the inspectors come back with concrete proof we cant intervene  to stop future use of chemical weapons which are horrific 

I Hope that Tony Blair is happy with his legacy now that the UK are too afraid too intervene after chemical weapons have been used too kill innocent men women and children. This will give tyrants and terrorists all over the world the carte blanche too do what they want with some really terrifying evil weapons.
But its ok Tony your legacy is in tact even if we didn't become ther 53rd state of the USA

What are the 51st and 52nd states?

Take away Russia/China from the equation, we'd be in there like a shot?!

Why does it take chemical weapons for the West to "ramp up" the intervention debate, when it sits and watches 90k+ innocent people being killed over the past 2-3 years.  I ended up turning over the news when it showed various politic personnel spout on about "we condemn..."  "we appeal for the Assad regime to stop..."

Talking, to my knowledge, has never stopped a nut-job from stopping what he/she beings doing.  They get caught or are killed.  Threat all you wish, talk all you wish, he'll not stop until he's dead.

canada and mexico

chemical weapons are a totally different ball game

I have fairly mixed thoughts on this but I have to admit that I don't really get how chemical weapons become the line which leads to intervention.  We are happy to stand by and see thousands of people massacred on each side but then if they use mustard gas it is out of order.  It is as though we are now ranking the way people are killed with some of them being acceptable.  Seems pretty ridiculous to me on the one hand to have effectively ignored Rwanda but to get involved in Syria now.

still shouldn't take this to start thinking of intervening.  Shouldn't be a case of..well your killing your own people, children and all, please stop....oh hang on, now you're using a bigger gun..now we can't have that

The famous red line.....yet we still condemn and talk....

found this useful

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

Garry Kasparov's view:

Intervention is not magic. I am not naive. But when the people of the free world stop trying to help those in the unfree world it is tragic. It requires the courage to say certain beliefs are worth fighting for, anywhere, and to risk failure by fighting for them over and over.

The UK vote for action on Syria failed by 13 votes; it needed only seven members to switch. The combination of annoyance over interrupted vacations and Tony Blair was enough! Bringing back the memories of Blair, Bush, Powell, and WMD claims in Iraq ten years ago was too much. But here there is no mystery, chemicals were *used*. There's no guarantee things would improve with military intervention in Syria, but there is a guarantee they will get much worse without it. Now watching Fox with Rumsfeld & Bolton saying Obama shouldn't act in Syria! This is how domestic partisanship destroys global credibility. They are so motivated to attack Obama they ignore how they pushed to enter Iraq with far less WMD evidence than Obama has now in Syria.

And for the "realist" isolationists who say "America first" or "UK first", fine. But problems you ignore have a way of coming to your door. Many are asking me why the USA has to be the "world police." Do you still think America was a beacon of hope to so many because of bluejeans and McDonalds? I am not American but as a child of the USSR I can tell you how much it mattered to us knowing someone out there cared for these things. Read US history, the words of US leaders from both parties, about why fighting tyranny globally matters to all. That is why America matters.

Politically there is never an "acceptable" plan, all options will have negatives and it is easier to do nothing. But you must do what you can. You cannot hide from the world in London or New York. Better to have consequences of actions with a moral basis than inaction of cowardice. "We must not now, as we once did, acquiesce to tyranny while there are those, at greater risk than ourselves, who dare to resist." That is from a speech by US Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, about the USSR in 1972. Worthwhile reading! http://www.hmjackson.org/downloads/speech.pdf

The free world has unparalleled economic and military powers and it stands by while innocents die, despite saying "never again" each time. History is longer than the news cycle or term of office. We always look back and say "Why didn't we act, or act earlier?" Or the worst, "Why did we not at least try?" Instead we find excuses in the moment and whitewash history for our shame.

Rwanda has been mentioned a couple of times. In Rwanda, nearly 1m people were killed in 100 days in an attempt to wipe out a race, which was 75-85% successful. I guess people are trying to make the point that world leaders didn't act then when they should have, but the Syrian situation has nothing in common with what happened in Rwanda.

It's referenced because of the apparent arbitrary nature of when the'West' intervenes.

Maybe an alternative comparison would be Iraq and Saddam. There wasn't an immediate military response when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds was there, something that was recognised as genocide? Weren't there years of sanctions and attempted diplomatic pressure before the use of military aggression.

History doesn't write a favourable account on many scores with regards to Iraq.

This is an interesting article from back in March.

http://www.ibtimes.com/25-years-after-worst-chemical-weapon-massacre-history-saddam-husseins-attack-halabja-iraq-city

The arbitrary nature of intervention can be seen by the support of Assad by Russia who obviously have a vested interest there, as did the UK and the US in the Iran-Iraq war, or of course the US and Israel.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to do what it wants.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10272953/Kim-Jong-uns-ex-lover-executed-by-firing-squad.html

Truly a frightening regime.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/twerking-pop-stars-and-errant-footballers-i-can-give-an-opinion-on-syria-leaves-me-stumped-8791572.html

I know you shouldn't really laugh but "Her popularity reportedly peaked in 2005 with the song "Excellent Horse-Like Lady."

Just read the article and it's hard to believe that it's even real!

North Korea's Communist dictator reportedly purged his own step-mother, Kim Ok, from her post as a senior official in the Workers' Party Finance and Accounting Department as he sought to tighten his grip on power within the country.

She was luckier than Kim Chol, vice minister of the army, who was executed with a mortar round in October 2012.

Kim Chol was reportedly executed for drinking and carousing during the official mourning period after Kim Jong-il's death.

On the explicit orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media, Kim Chol was forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and "obliterated."


My head just asploded reading that, fortunately not in the same way Kim's did...

Another reason / proof that the west picks its fights very carefully.

It's quite shaming really that we as the west, do very little for the worlds deprived and innocent, and probably more shaming that people like me, just moan about it on forums (not even the correct forums)and yet do nothnig about it myself.  Yet in the countries where it happens, the people that have so little, not only in possessions, worth, money, or prospects, let alone a voice that is often heard, they are fighting for the right to simply breathe and exist.

It annoys me so much (when i think about it, however obviously not enough) that the worlds rich, wealthiest and best positioned countries talk a wonderful game, a political game, and yet with a true willingness, a genuine caring aspect we could I believe eradicate most of the worlds biggest problems.

But until we prioritise homeless, starvation, illness over space exploration and defence, nothing will ever really change.

Hehe

I have never know a more an ego maniac leader than Cameron! Such an "entitled" prick it hurts! He talks about the house of commons like its a few people backing up his decisions. We are about as democratic as Syria under that prick!

(obv given he lost this vote its a terrible thread to make this point - I get that)

Not sure there is any need for that language

In fact this article debunks any such notions

Cameron said

"While there was a vote on the decision to go to war in Iraq – albeit very late in the process – there was no vote on the action in Kosovo. If elected, I am determined to lead this country as a democratically accountable Prime Minister, and to abandon the personal, Presidential style that has taken hold under New Labour… Giving Parliament a greater role in the exercise of these powers would be an important and tangible way of making government more accountable."

very good article, concerning Obama's decision today

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/barack-obamas-decision-to-recall-congress-pays-david-cameron-the-highest-compliment/

see the bold bit

see the NHS

realise you are being lied to

As a leader he isn't there to give personal support to the USA once he has been defeated in the commons, he is there to represent the people

did you read the article, in the Spectator?

Or is your view just set? Very complex situation and not sure its as black and white as you make out

im not just referring to the Syria situation obviously, but rest assured he would have done the thing which would have made him most popular, have no doubts about that

you aren't making sense Guy. Going to parliament and losing a vote in the midst of proposing a course of action that c20% of the public support in all polling was done to be popular?

He might be very wrong, but it wasn't exactly the easiest route to take was it?

He didn't really have the option not to go to parliament. Although he didn't "have" to, he would never have survived not having done so.

Just for clarity I will say it again, I AM NOT JUSTTALKING ABOUT SYRIA. If you want me to start a Cameron thread and post pretty much every interview he does and point out his arrogance I gladly will

Not really, this is a Syria thread. Just didn't think moaning about his arrogance/need to be popular was adding a great deal to the subject, really.

well it was reference to his personal opinion which he chose to tweet. Which he should be able to keep to himself. But he is so arrogant he cant. Parliament has spoken, they don't agree with him. Now pipe down you jumped up, ego maniac

lol, I really need to shut up.

The Prime Minister, of whichever party, cannot tweet his government or personal view the same as anyone else (you/me/miliband/gary lineker etc)?

Course he can. Obama made a major decision, he tweeted he was pleased with the decision. Why is this jumped up or egomaniac?

well I guess we will just have to disagree on the matter. If he wants to tweet about football, go ahead, however I disagree he should continue voice personal opinions on policy  as a leader

Spectator article blows smoke up Tory PM's arse - hold the front page.

The reason Obama is going to Congress is to cover his arse. Britain doesn't want to know. Russia will ensure that the UN Security Council won't vote for it. If it all goes tits up he needs to be able to say 'Well, Congress voted for it'.

I've read a few things about Obama - saying he's in a lose-lose situation with Syria and he's going to be seen as a villain if he uses military force on Syria now, or if he doesn't.

He'd probably get more sympathy from some quarters if he'd followed through with his promise to close Guantanamo Bay (amongst other things).

Idiot's guide to Syria:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

I refer the gentleman to tony blair

This is true. Due to The last governments ineptitude regarding weapons of mass destruction and smoking guns Cameron has no chance of getting any more Non UN action through parliament.

This.

After Iraq, I'm not sure Cameron had much choice either tbh. He gets way too much credit from this article imo.

Politicians can be slippery customers and I never quite know what they're thinking so it's refreshing for the prime minister to offer his direct personal opinions about policy.

A big criticism with the Iraq war was people acted in haste and didn't wait for UN approval etc so I think Obama is quite right to cover his arse and be more cautious. I fully support the decision in parliament for a variety of reasons and think it's time for countries with significantly better resources than us to pick up the global sheriff baton.

Not sure they did act in haste with Iraq (certainly not anywhere like as quickly as they're looking to act in Syria), and they're not going to get UN approval for action in Syria either.  Of course, I'm not saying they acted correctly with Iraq by not getting UN approval.  But if that was their 'crime' them, surely it's one they're repeating with Syria (with or without parliamentary or congressional support)?

Who made America the worlds selective police force?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc

It's interesting the way this has played out.

Essentially, we know that only 39 MPs definitely voted with their conscience.

Labour voted against en bloc despite the fact that we know from previous situations that a large number of them are quite happy to vote for intervention,bombing, murder, war just so long as it advances their career or they perceive it will advance their party.

I guess we know that some labour and some additional Tory MPs also voted with their consciences which happened to coincide with their party perspective.

In an attempt to diminish Cameron a large number of Labour MPs diminished themselves by voting purely on party lines, unless they suddenly all had some kind of damascene thing