General Chat

Thanks Rollo. Only reason I quoted that passage from JP is that it seems a simple analysis of where Syria is now. And it seems to be similar to what I read in the i (Independent) on Friday. I also watched an interview on Breakfast News this morning with an Arabic political commentator and that seemed very even-handed.

Not sure even the deepest analysis helps, unfortunately. We are where we are, and these problems keep bubbling away. Meanwhile, huge numbers of Syrian citizens (is it 1.9m?) are now refugees.

I wouldn't go reading the Jerusalem Post to get any idea of what is happening in Syria. Apart from anything else the J.P assumes that what Israel wants, hopes for or fears is the same as for the USA and Europe. This is a wildly wrong assumption.

If people are shooting at you, dropping bombs on your home then you'll not be too fussy where any help comes from so long as they can shoot straight.

Well it would do given its connection with the Wall Street Journal, wouldn't it?

Have just looked again through this thread, and comment by OFITG at 12.19 (right at the beginning of thread) is very good, I think.

Like many in the West, we just want to stop it. We want to see no more children caught up in these atrocities. But we don't understand the history, the culture. Just read this from Jerusalem Post:

"In Syria, there is no choice between “good” and “bad.”

The Assad regime is bad, but the opposition that is in its formative stage is shaping up to be quite bad as well, perhaps even worse from a Western perspective.

A coalition of al-Qaida-affiliated gangs is gaining control of more and more territory in Syria, including some of the country’s larger cities. Assad’s fall would lead to a situation whereby the West will find itself faced with a threat that is no less scary – a regime led by extremist Sunni militias that will have neither the ability nor the inclination to engage the US and the West – and, by extension, certainly Israel – in dialogue."

Although Obama is talking of redline decisions and US troops are moving in on Syria, I now feel jaw-jaw with Russians and Assad regime may not yet have been exhausted. And I write that, knowing that more innocents will be murdered this week.:-(

Very true words indeed Maggiewinchester (and glad you didn't take offence)

No offence taken Errol. It's not just you - but hey, life isn't a rehearsal so I don't bother bearing grudges.
Certainly wouldn't try to tell you what to think, or where to post - similar situation to invading other countries, (ie - I - the great 'I' have decide you are not behaving the way 'we' think is acceptable, you have nothing to say about the subject because I am always right - I have my fingers in my ears and am going 'Laa laaa laa' and you should do what I say) but on a much smaller scale!!
:-D :-D :-D

John I have as much right to post on this thread as anyone else and you certainly do not have the right to dictate who can and who cannot post, again.

I have stated my feelings about the use of drones if you read back and have also made valid points about making comparisons.

This is a debate. If you don't like others' opinions then do not join in the debate - quite simple really.

Just leave it, Errol, if you have nothing to say about a subject ;-) No idea who you are having a go at in your usual attempt to take the highest moral ground, but intellectual catchweight contests are not very entertaining and just divert the thread.

Maggiewinchester - sorry - I was not making reference to your comments. I just found the comments by a preceding poster a little distasteful.

I wasn't comparing the two, I was putting myself in the feet of others.
During the IRA atrocities, we were trying to sort out the problem, meanwhile, associations in America were funding the IRA.
Which side was right?

My argument is, Western governments, or representatives thereof, seem to wade in without considering the pro's & cons.
We've tried to help Iraq, with little result, Afghanistan is still in turmoil, with many ancient historic sites destroyed by the Americans.
When we leave these countries, things will go back to what they were.
They need to sort themselves out, we can't make them think and live like we do. They have different values.

This country is cutting it's defence force, there are people so short of money, they have to use food banks, and Cameron is having talks with Obama about Syria.

Meanwhile, Cameron's government is castigating immigrants - regardless of status. Refugees are having a hard time at the moment. Who will be responsible for Syrian refugees?

Strange that others' have said similar to me, but my view is 'wrong' :-D

I think it is wrong and somewhat misguided to compare what is going on in Syria currently with what happened in Northern Ireland.

I also think that using levity over the atrocities that occurred in Poland etc is a little sick.

Quite an interesting hypothetical, Maggie.

Plenty of countries want to wade in and sort out problems once children are being mutilated and murdered. And quite chilling when you bring that into our area of the world like Northern Ireland.

Neighbouring countries would be best to wade in - like Iraq into Kuwait, like Germany into Poland, like USA into Cuba. Or perhaps not :-( :-(

It was, as you state, Janet, hypothetical.
I don't condone any so-called 'superpower' invading another country to 'sort it out'.
We should put ourselves in the others' position before wading in.

Just to confirm I too don't condone the hypothetical statement made by MW-j

I really don't think the indiscriminate use of drones and chemicals on innocent civilians should ever be condoned irrespective of whether it hastens peace or not.

And we still do not have a united Ireland.

"How would we have felt if Russia had come in (invaded?) during the IRA atrocities and, to sort it out, just blasted Ireland with drones and chemicals"...in answer to MaggieWinchester....

.........probably it would have united Ireland faster than any government or peace deal. -j

RolloTheRed - I agree with quite a lot of what you say and I know that the conflicts in many of these countries are historical and go back centuries to a time well before the West intervened.

The point I was trying to make, I admit that I maybe did not make it very well, is that the ideological one size democracy fits all that the West seems to have adopted in modern times, is not going to resolve the problems, if anything I think it has contributed to the problems.

Rollo. I just think it is too simplistic to suggest it is any religion that causes these problems. Or that the inter-necine warring needs to go on and on.

There are problems like this in non-Muslim countries. It tends to be people who lust for power or cannot let go of power. And many of the population support them.

Britain and USA have always thought they had all the answers to Vanuatu, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Mindinao (remember that there are over 10m professing Christians in Philippines)

And what happens if Britain cannot control its own. We have to call in Mitchell from USA to try to sort it. And what if Canada cannot control Quebec? Or USA Alaska?

I just feel we need to realise people are at the root of all this. Everyone is an individual, every one has different thought processes. And every one has the same basic needs - which Maslow said were love, safety (edit - forgot food and warmth) and sex. White, black, yellow, green - we all want the same. And we all hopefully accept authority for good and bad and want them to lead us, rather than line their pockets and those of their familiies.

Dermot - yes the US did use chemical warfare in Vietnam, and the third generation are still suffering, with birth defects, cancer etc.
I personally find it very imperialistic of the West to believe they should go in and 'sort out' everyone else's problems.
Vietnam is a good example, and the west hasn't done too well in Afghanistan either?
How would we have felt if Russia had come in (invaded?) during the IRA atrocities and, to sort it out, just blasted Ireland with drones and chemicals?

Here is a sad list of Arabic / Islamic countries and provinces which have had serious military interventions / civil war & turmoil over the last 50 years.

Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Kurdistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, the Oman, the Lebanon, Bahrain, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, Indonesia, Philippines (Mindinao). Sudan, Chad, Cameroons, Nigeria. Eritrea, Somalia.

In all of these every day life for the many is nasty, brutish and often short.
All of them are run by the army and secret police whatever fig leaf of democracy they may have so that even the rich dread the 3am knock at the door.

Why does John believe Syria will be an exception ?

Is John aware that Assad has form for this sort of thing?
Here is where a close friend ( a teacher ) found herself in 1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

Dreams are nice but they are just dreams.