I am of the opinion that some independence from the US is not necessarily a bad thing. Assad is wily enough to understand that he CAN do what he likes as he has enough weaponry to cause a massive amount of collateral damage which will be unacceptable to us. I don't have any solutions, the situation is so very complex but I can't see a military action achieving anything. There are many people in Iraq saying that we have made things worse for them, so I don't think we should assume that 'the middle east', whatever that may be, will revile us for remaining cautious.
I suspect there will be some escalation once the Americans have started their attack. The Syrians have the military capability to cause problems and Turkey will be in the firing line. As Turkey are our NATO allies we could yet be dragged into a conflict. Iran is an unknown quantity but if they support Assad the whole region could go up. Putin has said any attack would "have consequences" whatever that means ! Hope the politicians get this one right or we could easily be in the shit.
I would want to see UN evidence - not US evidence based on past experience! I don't undertsand what the rush is - let us acquire as much information as we can - think about the repurcussions and make an informed decision on what is best for the Syrian people. Rushing through votes because the US want to rush in to save face is stupid.
Oh Hague reckons that if we don't rush in, th eworld will forget why we are acting. Firstly, you can always remind them - it doesn't have to be a secret but secondly - of course they will know anyway. Instead they will understand that the action was considered and made reluctantly - surely better if it is going to happen at all.
We still have no evidence it was Assad that used the chemical weapons, why so keen to jump in? Would much rather have him in charge than the Al Qaeda rebels, sod what the world thinks if they're that bothered they can jump in this time
I suspect there will be some escalation once the Americans have started their attack. The Syrians have the military capability to cause problems and Turkey will be in the firing line. As Turkey are our NATO allies we could yet be dragged into a conflict. Iran is an unknown quantity but if they support Assad the whole region could go up. Putin has said any attack would "have consequences" whatever that means ! Hope the politicians get this one right or we could easily be in the shit.
I have skimmed this thread all too briefly and picked up a number of thoughts and opinions from posters here... israelli intelligence mentioned... Russia (and China) using a veto... UK parliament actually works... a lot of innocent people suffering and I'm afraid alot more to come... As ever a very broad range and many interesting perspectives but a surprising lack of hyperlinks given the norm...
So time to be counter intuitive and say one simple thing - time to sit down with the Russians and look at the range of political options on the table... IMHO the Russians have used their veto at the UN for a long time for good reason... at the risk of being called a "useful idiot" take a close look at these freedom fighters before you start calling for the enactment of yet another regime change - that is what I am hearing from Moscow. And after 12 months that message is sinking in - I am sure there is a natural urge to distrust the Russians but this is in their backyard and they are bound to understand (and spin) the various nuances. I think Putin is alluding to the fact that any action which weakens Assad will strengthen the opposition so, just as a few retired military bods stated, best look at a strategy before piling in ... else there will be "consequences". To their credit Newsnight and mainstream journalists are actually looking at all sides.
Unfortunately there will be a lot of posturing and hand wringing - and at the same time there is a very complex game being played in domestic politics as both parties seek to distance themselves from the disastrous run up to the Iraq invasion... but for Cameron to start this process before the UN inspectors are even half way through was bizarre... In the end there were only a handful of votes in it but I suspect Blair's intervention might have pushed a few back on the fence!
There is no evidence it was Assad... and perhaps there will never be any linking to him? But a tribunal in the future can resolve that.... I understand that the area where the weapons landed is held by rebels so how would Assad forces suddenly get in and disappear evidence? What is the rush? Let us all hope that the appropriate authorities can do their jobs.
I have a 1,000 page book by Robert Fisk sitting on the book shelf never read - perhaps this will tip me into kicking off and getting through a few hundred pages... and yes his premise is likely to be that not only is there a lot of oil but that all this kicked off from the post WW1 settlement so some would argue that the West do have more than a little responsibility to help manage the situation.
As ever I would say that we all have a responsibility to pay attention, look at all sides and keep an eye on our politicians
I suspect there will be some escalation once the Americans have started their attack. The Syrians have the military capability to cause problems and Turkey will be in the firing line. As Turkey are our NATO allies we could yet be dragged into a conflict. Iran is an unknown quantity but if they support Assad the whole region could go up. Putin has said any attack would "have consequences" whatever that means ! Hope the politicians get this one right or we could easily be in the shit.
I have skimmed this thread all too briefly and picked up a number of thoughts and opinions from posters here... israelli intelligence mentioned... Russia (and China) using a veto... UK parliament actually works... a lot of innocent people suffering and I'm afraid alot more to come... As ever a very broad range and many interesting perspectives but a surprising lack of hyperlinks given the norm...
So time to be counter intuitive and say one simple thing - time to sit down with the Russians and look at the range of political options on the table... IMHO the Russians have used their veto at the UN for a long time for good reason... at the risk of being called a "useful idiot" take a close look at these freedom fighters before you start calling for the enactment of yet another regime change - that is what I am hearing from Moscow. And after 12 months that message is sinking in - I am sure there is a natural urge to distrust the Russians but this is in their backyard and they are bound to understand (and spin) the various nuances. I think Putin is alluding to the fact that any action which weakens Assad will strengthen the opposition so, just as a few retired military bods stated, best look at a strategy before piling in ... else there will be "consequences". To their credit Newsnight and mainstream journalists are actually looking at all sides.
Unfortunately there will be a lot of posturing and hand wringing - and at the same time there is a very complex game being played in domestic politics as both parties seek to distance themselves from the disastrous run up to the Iraq invasion... but for Cameron to start this process before the UN inspectors are even half way through was bizarre... In the end there were only a handful of votes in it but I suspect Blair's intervention might have pushed a few back on the fence!
There is no evidence it was Assad... and perhaps there will never be any linking to him? But a tribunal in the future can resolve that.... I understand that the area where the weapons landed is held by rebels so how would Assad forces suddenly get in and disappear evidence? What is the rush? Let us all hope that the appropriate authorities can do their jobs.
I have a 1,000 page book by Robert Fisk sitting on the book shelf never read - perhaps this will tip me into kicking off and getting through a few hundred pages... and yes his premise is likely to be that not only is there a lot of oil but that all this kicked off from the post WW1 settlement so some would argue that the West do have more than a little responsibility to help manage the situation.
As ever I would say that we all have a responsibility to pay attention, look at all sides and keep an eye on our politicians
I've not heard of Robert Fisk so I cnat say how good or bad a read that is but, there maybe a reason it's still on your shelf The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (TE Lawrence (of Arabia)) is another book that might enlighten. The "West" wrestled control from the Ottomans (Turkey) in WW1, the former colonial power, unfortunately in this region finding a place to start is very difficult indeed having had so much history.
NB Obama is due in Moscow in a few days for talks which is handy, do we suppose that they might start getting a bit more grown up about this? Nar wake up
I just hope if something does happen that the west don't try and insist on enforcing "democracy" there as that is just a sure way to lead to a second civil war within a couple years (Egypt, Iraq a possibility in the next few years). The power vacuum when you take out Assad will be enormous, and an election probably wouldn't give the "right" result for the west (Egypt again) which could further destabilise the nation.
So, what could realistically be done there... Any regime change is likely to lead to more deaths. I'm not claiming to know the answer, or against the theory of us being involved but the whole situation is horrible pretty much regardless of what happens.
I've not heard of Robert Fisk so I cnat say how good or bad a read that is
Robert Fisk is a foreign correspondent/war correspondent who writes for the Independent, which is probably why you've never heard of him. He specialises in writing about the Middle East and he speaks Arabic fluently. More importantly he understands the situation and nuances in the Middle East far better than most politicians. He's also somewhat sceptic of US foreign policy in the region which has won him few friends across the pond.
Until very recently I would have agreed with this, but I now feel that religion is being used as a tool to control the masses by an evil few.
Personally, I feel that Cameron did the right thing taking this to Parliament, even if it was the wrong result for him. Obviously, the scars of the recent past had a large part to play in his decision not to go it alone.
Some posters have expressed their desire to give money to charities to help the suffering population. This is wonderful, but I feel if that is the world's only response it is not enough. Peace and stability should be the aim. I'm not sure bombing will achieve that. I would like to see the UN send in a peace-keeping force, but it is more likely that the US will go in all guns blazing with a few of their friends (but not the UK).
George Galloway has his mad moments, but that speech from him is spot on. We need a response from World Leaders including Russia and China, not the US and their lapdogs.
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State (Foreign secretary) is talking far too tough. I hope that he is not putting too many words in Obamas' mouth. Kerry is a failed democratic party Presidential candidate (2004). I hope that he isn't going to use a tough stance against Syria as a stepping stone to his being selected as the next democratic presidential candidate.
Personally, I feel that Cameron did the right thing taking this to Parliament, even if it was the wrong result for him.
As we are a parliamentary democracy Cameron had to debate this issue in parliament, besides misunderstanding the mood of the nation and maybe events on the ground what he really got wrong was the timing. Had he waited until next week and the UN weapons inspectors to report and the UNSC to agree a course of action he could well have swung the vote, especially if there were a few more anti-Assad articles in the media and more critical coverage of the gas attack. Then again if he'd been in control of his party and gotten the vote out he would have walked it. Besides 30 odd rebels who voted against the motion two cabinet ministers apparently strayed out of hearing of the division bell, or maybe this was their way of registering their protest? What does his defeat say about his standing within the Tory party?
Another consequence of the vote is that parliamentary approval would now appear to be necessary before Britain gets involved in overseas wars. That wasn't an automatic assumption before the vote.
Cameron has made a very big mistake here I think. He to me seemed desperate to get a vote through British Parliament before the Americans had made a formal announcement on military action. I think his ego pushed him to want to be the leading politician in any military foray with the Yanks committing after a vote for action here. If he had waited just 24 hours or so before forcing a vote I think that Kerry's speech might just have had an influence in Cameron's favour.
I still think that Britain will be sucked into a conflict because I do not think that a narrow and limited action which Obama has promised can succeed without an escalation in the fighting within the region. I doubt Assad will take his medicine without throwing a few missiles in potentially dangerous areas. Turkey, Lebanon and god forbid Israel.
As for Putin's "consequences", if not military the Russians supply 90% of the gas to Europe. An increase in cost or even worse a gas embargo could cripple Europe.
I think we all need to hope that this pans out well. The alternatives could be devastating.
if not military the Russians supply 90% of the gas to Europe. An increase in cost or even worse a gas embargo could cripple Europe.
It's not that great - but still substantial - ca 30% of gas and oil but you are substantively correct that Europe relies on Russian energy. BTW the Russian company that has the monopoly on Russian gas exports is Chelsea's official energy partner - Gazprom.
The threat works both ways though - Russia needs European revenues so cutting supplies and playing hardball over Syria will hit it in the pocket.
Not saying that the article is wrong, who knows, but I have serious doubts about the intentions of that website in offering a balanced view. Looks just like a vehicle for anti American views to me.
Its time for us (the West) to stop interfering in the Middle East. Our recent crusades to free inocent people's have proved unsatisfactory at best and disasterish on ocasions. We've encouraged the rebels in Syria to fight probably indirectly supplying tham with weapons - William Hauge until recently was trying to lift the arms embargo enabling us to legally arm the rebels. Our stance to the rebels appears to have changed recently with the realisation that they may be worse than the ruling government (the Russians have been claiming this from the outset of the conflict). The Arab league need to do more than wringing their hands and condeming Assad. If Assad is guilty of war crimes he should be brought before the internation criminal court and tried for crimes against humanity in the same way that Sloberdan Malosovic faced justice. President Obama's acusation that a red line has been crossed forces him to take some kind of action or appear weak. Dangerous times for the middle east with a conflict that could easily explode into wars between countries with long standing grieviences.
lets just remember who the rebels are and what putting them on the front foot will mean
As others have pointed we are in a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation.
If we support Assad we are propping up a regime that is committing atrocities on his own people, including the use of poison gas.
If we support the rebels we are supporting a bunch of al Qaeda backed terrorists who are guilty of atrocities of their own.
And let's just forget what a green light to Assad will mean. If he destroys thousands of people in Syria, you really think the middle eastern people will look at the US and UK fondly?
Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. We've spent enough money and wasted enough lives in the region - those of our soldiers and civilians, how many more? Do you really think that military involvement in Syria will be bloodless? Have you thought about the consequences of a rebel victory? Bear in mind what short-term thinking has done in the ME. The west happily supported Saddam Hussein for many years and turned a blind eye to his use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war and on the Kurds and marsh Arabs. Reagan even blamed the Iranians because they were the enemy of the time. Prior to that the CIA and Mi5 overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because they dared to nationalise their own oil. In Afghanistan the US happily armed and financed the Mujahadeen when the Soviets invaded. After they left they evolved into the Taliban and it has taken 12 years and the shedding of more blood and the expenditure of billions and we still can't shift the buggers.
Perhaps it is time for the Middle East to start looking to themselves to sort out the problems in their backyard rather than looking to us and blaming the west.
I see Kerry is referring to France as the oldest ally of the USA. Hmmn, are those the same cheese-eating surrender monkey allies of a few years ago?
Kerry and Obama need as many friends as they can gather because a growing number of the American and French public are unhappy with the prospect of their countries involved in another middle east war.
I see Kerry is referring to France as the oldest ally of the USA. Hmmn, are those the same cheese-eating surrender monkey allies of a few years ago?
Different set of people in Washington now - the Republicans who banged the war drums loudest for the Iraq invasion are now opposing Obama and US intervention in Syria.
Kerry is simply bearing out Kissinger's maxim that the US doesn't have any permanent allies or even permanent enemies but only has interests.
it was Obama`s pressure on Cameron that made callMe dave recall Parliament, Obama is out of the USA next week for nearly 2 weeks---Norway and then Russia. Obama wanted the Brits onside and to steam n before he left the USA. CallMeDave asked for the USA to supply their evidence pre the vote ----they didnt and he lost the vote.
One of the top papers in New York had the whole of the front page with the only headline " The Brits Arnt Coming".
Public opinion in the USA is the same here ----they dont want another war.
Thank you (and Blackforest) I did read that, I haven't read the Independent since it was taken over by the Mirror (oh for days of Sarah Hogg). It is, as you say an insightful read. Channel four news have been pushing the sectarian angle as well, a view point that I think holds water. He never mentioned our 'allies' the Saudis in that report, preferring instead to mention the Sunni's. I do so want the world to wake up to the (I was going to say duplicitous) multiplicitous nature of their involvement in all of this and more.
As for Russia cutting off the gas, it's worth knowing that they need the income from that as much as we need the gas, so while a demonstration may take place I'm not sure they could afford to close it down for long. The exact same language was used by the Russians (well the exact translation, I don't speak Russian) when they cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine.
Comments
Plus not once has there been a call for 'regime change' or Assad to go, which is very telling.
Oh Hague reckons that if we don't rush in, th eworld will forget why we are acting. Firstly, you can always remind them - it doesn't have to be a secret but secondly - of course they will know anyway. Instead they will understand that the action was considered and made reluctantly - surely better if it is going to happen at all.
So time to be counter intuitive and say one simple thing - time to sit down with the Russians and look at the range of political options on the table... IMHO the Russians have used their veto at the UN for a long time for good reason... at the risk of being called a "useful idiot" take a close look at these freedom fighters before you start calling for the enactment of yet another regime change - that is what I am hearing from Moscow. And after 12 months that message is sinking in - I am sure there is a natural urge to distrust the Russians but this is in their backyard and they are bound to understand (and spin) the various nuances. I think Putin is alluding to the fact that any action which weakens Assad will strengthen the opposition so, just as a few retired military bods stated, best look at a strategy before piling in ... else there will be "consequences". To their credit Newsnight and mainstream journalists are actually looking at all sides.
Unfortunately there will be a lot of posturing and hand wringing - and at the same time there is a very complex game being played in domestic politics as both parties seek to distance themselves from the disastrous run up to the Iraq invasion... but for Cameron to start this process before the UN inspectors are even half way through was bizarre... In the end there were only a handful of votes in it but I suspect Blair's intervention might have pushed a few back on the fence!
There is no evidence it was Assad... and perhaps there will never be any linking to him? But a tribunal in the future can resolve that.... I understand that the area where the weapons landed is held by rebels so how would Assad forces suddenly get in and disappear evidence? What is the rush? Let us all hope that the appropriate authorities can do their jobs.
I have a 1,000 page book by Robert Fisk sitting on the book shelf never read - perhaps this will tip me into kicking off and getting through a few hundred pages... and yes his premise is likely to be that not only is there a lot of oil but that all this kicked off from the post WW1 settlement so some would argue that the West do have more than a little responsibility to help manage the situation.
As ever I would say that we all have a responsibility to pay attention, look at all sides and keep an eye on our politicians
NB Obama is due in Moscow in a few days for talks which is handy, do we suppose that they might start getting a bit more grown up about this? Nar wake up
So, what could realistically be done there... Any regime change is likely to lead to more deaths. I'm not claiming to know the answer, or against the theory of us being involved but the whole situation is horrible pretty much regardless of what happens.
Bring back the empire I say! Haha.
Robert Fisk is a foreign correspondent/war correspondent who writes for the Independent, which is probably why you've never heard of him. He specialises in writing about the Middle East and he speaks Arabic fluently. More importantly he understands the situation and nuances in the Middle East far better than most politicians. He's also somewhat sceptic of US foreign policy in the region which has won him few friends across the pond.
Personally, I feel that Cameron did the right thing taking this to Parliament, even if it was the wrong result for him. Obviously, the scars of the recent past had a large part to play in his decision not to go it alone.
Some posters have expressed their desire to give money to charities to help the suffering population. This is wonderful, but I feel if that is the world's only response it is not enough. Peace and stability should be the aim. I'm not sure bombing will achieve that. I would like to see the UN send in a peace-keeping force, but it is more likely that the US will go in all guns blazing with a few of their friends (but not the UK).
George Galloway has his mad moments, but that speech from him is spot on. We need a response from World Leaders including Russia and China, not the US and their lapdogs.
I hope that he is not putting too many words in Obamas' mouth. Kerry is a failed democratic party Presidential candidate (2004). I hope that he isn't going to use a tough stance against Syria as a stepping stone to his being selected as the next democratic presidential candidate.
As we are a parliamentary democracy Cameron had to debate this issue in parliament, besides misunderstanding the mood of the nation and maybe events on the ground what he really got wrong was the timing. Had he waited until next week and the UN weapons inspectors to report and the UNSC to agree a course of action he could well have swung the vote, especially if there were a few more anti-Assad articles in the media and more critical coverage of the gas attack. Then again if he'd been in control of his party and gotten the vote out he would have walked it. Besides 30 odd rebels who voted against the motion two cabinet ministers apparently strayed out of hearing of the division bell, or maybe this was their way of registering their protest? What does his defeat say about his standing within the Tory party?
Another consequence of the vote is that parliamentary approval would now appear to be necessary before Britain gets involved in overseas wars. That wasn't an automatic assumption before the vote.
I still think that Britain will be sucked into a conflict because I do not think that a narrow and limited action which Obama has promised can succeed without an escalation in the fighting within the region. I doubt Assad will take his medicine without throwing a few missiles in potentially dangerous areas. Turkey, Lebanon and god forbid Israel.
As for Putin's "consequences", if not military the Russians supply 90% of the gas to Europe. An increase in cost or even worse a gas embargo could cripple Europe.
I think we all need to hope that this pans out well. The alternatives could be devastating.
It's not that great - but still substantial - ca 30% of gas and oil but you are substantively correct that Europe relies on Russian energy. BTW the Russian company that has the monopoly on Russian gas exports is Chelsea's official energy partner - Gazprom.
The threat works both ways though - Russia needs European revenues so cutting supplies and playing hardball over Syria will hit it in the pocket.
We've encouraged the rebels in Syria to fight probably indirectly supplying tham with weapons - William Hauge until recently was trying to lift the arms embargo enabling us to legally arm the rebels. Our stance to the rebels appears to have changed recently with the realisation that they may be worse than the ruling government (the Russians have been claiming this from the outset of the conflict).
The Arab league need to do more than wringing their hands and condeming Assad. If Assad is guilty of war crimes he should be brought before the internation criminal court and tried for crimes against humanity in the same way that Sloberdan Malosovic faced justice.
President Obama's acusation that a red line has been crossed forces him to take some kind of action or appear weak.
Dangerous times for the middle east with a conflict that could easily explode into wars between countries with long standing grieviences.
Kerry is simply bearing out Kissinger's maxim that the US doesn't have any permanent allies or even permanent enemies but only has interests.
One of the top papers in New York had the whole of the front page with the only headline " The Brits Arnt Coming".
Public opinion in the USA is the same here ----they dont want another war.
As for Russia cutting off the gas, it's worth knowing that they need the income from that as much as we need the gas, so while a demonstration may take place I'm not sure they could afford to close it down for long. The exact same language was used by the Russians (well the exact translation, I don't speak Russian) when they cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine.