Not started this thread to start a ruck but I have a genuine question. What for the love of god is the "humanitarian" difference between not helping those poor people in Homs and other Syrian towns and cities and giving the help we did to the freedom fighters in Libya. It's beyond my understanding.
Comments
EDIT: sorry for the one word answer, but that is the reason
yer I guess that doesnt help either
A colleague for 25 years and one of the most extraordinary journalists I've ever known.
Even though she constantly put herself in the firing line and so there was always the risk that one day this might happen, I'm shocked almost beyond words.
The world has to do something about what is happening in Syria. It shouldn't take the death of a westerner/non-Muslim to bring it about, but perhaps this will be the catalyst for stronger action.
If Glenn Mulcaire was a News International sleaze bag, 'MC' was the jewel in News International's crown.
RIP, Marie.
''A decent man doing a difficult job,''
Pass the sick bag,,,
http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/views/robert-fisk-ethnic-conflict-spreads-over-the-mountains-6847889.html?origin=internalSearch
Syria's army is potentially around 650,000, with Alawites being the majority of it's professional army and relatively modern in it's equipment. The Libyan army was poorly equipped and rendered weak by Gaddaffi: around 50,000 soldiers. Intervention is nothing to do with Oil, its is the fact that it is a highly complex situation with indeterminate outcomes. Both the US and Israel want a stable Syria. Lebanon is in crisis and would not want the Sunnis even better armed than they are. It was incredibly lucky that Libya ended to the favour of western wishes, and that was also down to the abject weakness of the Libyan military. The US funds some Syrian opposition media outlets, and no doubt would get involved with advice and arms if the situation swung towards opposition elements within Syria.
Anyone who singularly states that involvement in Syria is down to the lack of oil is seriously misguided. Turkey, Iran, Israel and Lebanon would be forced to take active roles in managing the Sunni-Shia conflict. No one has the money, political will, public backing, state-building strategy to influence events. UN directive or not, things will have to get a lot worse before other nation states get involved and only a lunatic would now. A minority ethnic one party state does not move out of civil war cleanly.
Im not sure anyone has said that. The fact is, you hit Syria and Russia step in. WW3 could start and Russia cut off oil supplies to the west. Do you think we invaded Lybia, Iraq or even Afghanistan to free the people ? ifso, I think its yourself that is the missguided one.
It is most unlikely Turkey would send ground troops in; but if the Syrian National Council was based internally to Syria and controlled essentially a separate area then they could easily use Chapter VII without a resolution - this is a hypothetical situation. As it stands there will be no UN resolution forming a basis for UN military resolution, it is and was a UN resolution following an Arab League proposal for Assad to pass power to his deputy and for swift elections to follow. I believe this has passed now in the UN General Assembly.
Iraq held many more lucrative Oil contracts for Russia, and it did not lead to WW3. Afghanistan had nothing to do with oil, and certainly was not motivated by the possibility of mineral exploration that occurred many years after the invasion brought some stability and access to some areas.
I think that even in the Neo-Con dominated, febrile free market acoloyte era, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed to operations that they thought they could achieve with some ease and certainly exploit afterwards via privatisation and access to free-markets. That is why they had little interest in hanging around in Afghanistan at first, as there was no economy to exploit. So in a word answers do not come near to any reality in the world. Though they may suit for puerile media outlets.
The answer to the question: Too many conflicting interests amongst the superpowers to allow for anything as trifling as humanitarian issues to be of any great significance.
So as you can see in this case we are stuck until China and Russia change their minds.
I was at an Amnesty rally in Trafalgar square in which I met Syrian people who have family and friends over there. They were waving the former flag of Syria which has become a symbol for the protesters. Some of them had not heard from their loved ones and were so desperate to get back to Syria to find them. They were also so desperate for intervention from the UN. Of course as what has been put above we know why the UN "peace-keeper" force and the world has not got involved.
Firstly because of the ludicrous decision by the Russian government because they want to keep their old allies Syria. They also have a huge arms deal with the country, $1.5billion. Oh and of course they want to keep their oh so precious port in Tartus. In Russia there has been protests against this decision but the Kremlin stand by it.
Second, probably bigger problem is our old friend Iran. Who have made it perfectly clear, especially to the USA, if anyone gets involved in helping the anti government movement then they will likely get involved themselves, of course in slightly different words. Iran are also worried about Israel, who they don't trust at all and losing Syria would be losing one of their only allies in the Arab world.
China's stance is basically 'just let them get on with it'. Always the humanitarians.
It looks as if a civil war will happen. The protesters have numbers but hardly any weapons. The government thanks to the Russians have a fair few weapons. Lets hope a cease fire will happen so maybe talks can be had. But by the looks of it I think both Assad (president of Syria) and the protesters feels its gone past that. Lets hope not.
Tortured dissidents from the past decade, however, might feel differently?
enough is enough - who fucking put us in charge anway - get out of Iraq, Afghan and anyhere else - what is it to do with us? Look after this country first i say and reduce the offence budget to fuckign near zero and spend it on hospitals and schools.
Pol Pot was kind to hamsters?
I do not think there is anything we can do ....
What does not sit well with me is that over the years prior to all these uprisings -which is now regular in the Asia Africa and middle East -All these countries were not slow in condemming and burning/cursing the Union Jack along with the stars and stripes--can you remember how much the Iraq and Libya people hated us !!!!
The celebrations in Libya and london when the bomber was freed
The Celebration in Iraq when we were targeted by the bombers
BUT when the shit hit the fan who did they come pleading to -Good old GB
--Syria will be the same --
Lets sort our own backyard out first --before we send our own sons to that God forsaken hole
yes, i think Peter Mandelsons fondness for Ass may have clouded his judgement somewhat.
I posted a quote from Mandelson without comment - are you saying his statement was a good one by comparing it with a disgraceful alliance with Pinochet? No you are highlighting just what a stupid statement it was, so YOU are also having a pop at 'Labour', arent you?
PS I resisted pointing out that, without Pinochet's support, we would have lost many many more ships and no doubt hundreds of soldiers lives in the Falklands war, because it would have looked to blinkered party faithful types that I was supporting Thatcher's stance with that dictator. Which I wasnt.
You trying to retaliate with Thatcher comments is pointless to me as I see her as a terribly and in many cases disasterously, devisive influence in our country for a decade. However, myopically blaming her for every ill in 21st century Britain is just plain nonsense.
.