Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
AJS- said:
It's fine to overthrow Assad but like Hussein or Gaddafi it doesn't guarantee a stable, liberal society will follow.
I can't get on board with that. The morality angle is laughable. These are the same authoritarian regimes who we work with in order to get what we want, until they threaten that supply in some form. AJS- said:
If it really is all just about building a pipeline and hoping the gas keeps flowing from beneath the barbarous dictatorships up above then it's short sighted in the extreme. I don't really know the economics of building, maintaining and defending a few thousand miles of gas pipeline but I can be pretty sure it would be easier and cheaper in the long run with a stable democracy above than with either a brutal Islamist regime or an Arab nationalist thug.
Government really doesn't seem to care much about what these regimes do in their own countries, so long as petrochemical resources are accessible and the relationship relatively stable. Colonialism and empire are expensive, and imported culture and institutions rarely flourish or supersed indigenous ones in the long term. Your last line seems to suggest you support these sorts of actions, based on some morality angle. What about the morality of invading a weaker country that poses no threat to you, and taking its resources? How do you justify that, other than pretending you are doing it for the good of the people? scherzkeks said:
What about the morality of invading a weaker country that poses no threat to you, and taking its resources? How do you justify that, other than pretending you are doing it for the good of the people?
Is that what you think is happening in Syria or Libya? Do you think Russia is classifying anyone who lives in a area of Syria not controlled by Assad as a terrorist, then bombing them, for entirely altruistic reasons? Is Putin bombing hospitals out of the goodness of his heart?
Also, with America now trying to export petrochem, and being hurt big time by the low price and global over supply, don’t you think that "they just want the oil" clap trap is played out.
Time you found a new angle on why the west is evil and how Putin, as the Messiah, is to be trusted entirely.
Time you found a new angle on why the west is evil and how Putin, as the Messiah, is to be trusted entirely.
There's a case to be made for that. My point was more about overthrowing these regimes badly than the rights and wrongs of being involved at all.
We don't have to be involved to the extent of changing governments but it is quite difficult to have a foreign policy at all without picking some sides in these sort of disputes. And even if we dropped any intervention or opinion at all starting today then there are decades of our policies. Since some in the ME still claim to be buttsore about the crusades I don't think they'll forget that so easily.
In some ways I do think imposing morality on people has a bad name. I think much of the world has been improved by having some empire impose better values and better government on it, including England. There is clearly an appetite for democratic reforms in parts of the ME, and I see pushing those along *in the right way* as being a force for good. Doing it in the wrong way is dangerous and destructive.
Since we seem to be determined to be in it somehow or other I would much rather it was in the right way, and backing Islamist insurgents in Syria against a basically secular regime seems to be the polar opposite of the right way.
We don't have to be involved to the extent of changing governments but it is quite difficult to have a foreign policy at all without picking some sides in these sort of disputes. And even if we dropped any intervention or opinion at all starting today then there are decades of our policies. Since some in the ME still claim to be buttsore about the crusades I don't think they'll forget that so easily.
In some ways I do think imposing morality on people has a bad name. I think much of the world has been improved by having some empire impose better values and better government on it, including England. There is clearly an appetite for democratic reforms in parts of the ME, and I see pushing those along *in the right way* as being a force for good. Doing it in the wrong way is dangerous and destructive.
Since we seem to be determined to be in it somehow or other I would much rather it was in the right way, and backing Islamist insurgents in Syria against a basically secular regime seems to be the polar opposite of the right way.
AJS- said:
Since we seem to be determined to be in it somehow or other I would much rather it was in the right way, and backing Islamist insurgents in Syria against a basically secular regime seems to be the polar opposite of the right way.
And yet, we see the population of Syria fleeing Assad, rather than fleeing rebel groups.Liokault said:
scherzkeks said:
What about the morality of invading a weaker country that poses no threat to you, and taking its resources? How do you justify that, other than pretending you are doing it for the good of the people?
Is that what you think is happening in Syria or Libya? Do you think Russia is classifying anyone who lives in a area of Syria not controlled by Assad as a terrorist, then bombing them, for entirely altruistic reasons? Is Putin bombing hospitals out of the goodness of his heart?
Liokault said:
And yet, we see the population of Syria fleeing Assad, rather than fleeing rebel groups.
So we're told. I think there's a bit more to it than that. Not defending Assad, who seems a thoroughly nasty piece of work, but I don't remember Syria being the main exporter of refugees before the civil war broke out.AJS- said:
There's a case to be made for that. My point was more about overthrowing these regimes badly than the rights and wrongs of being involved at all.
We don't have to be involved to the extent of changing governments but it is quite difficult to have a foreign policy at all without picking some sides in these sort of disputes. And even if we dropped any intervention or opinion at all starting today then there are decades of our policies. Since some in the ME still claim to be buttsore about the crusades I don't think they'll forget that so easily.
In some ways I do think imposing morality on people has a bad name. I think much of the world has been improved by having some empire impose better values and better government on it, including England. There is clearly an appetite for democratic reforms in parts of the ME, and I see pushing those along *in the right way* as being a force for good. Doing it in the wrong way is dangerous and destructive.
Since we seem to be determined to be in it somehow or other I would much rather it was in the right way, and backing Islamist insurgents in Syria against a basically secular regime seems to be the polar opposite of the right way.
Again, in context, this is all moot. If you look where the United States and Britain are active, it is in regions where they have something to gain economically. Self interest drives regime change. We don't have to be involved to the extent of changing governments but it is quite difficult to have a foreign policy at all without picking some sides in these sort of disputes. And even if we dropped any intervention or opinion at all starting today then there are decades of our policies. Since some in the ME still claim to be buttsore about the crusades I don't think they'll forget that so easily.
In some ways I do think imposing morality on people has a bad name. I think much of the world has been improved by having some empire impose better values and better government on it, including England. There is clearly an appetite for democratic reforms in parts of the ME, and I see pushing those along *in the right way* as being a force for good. Doing it in the wrong way is dangerous and destructive.
Since we seem to be determined to be in it somehow or other I would much rather it was in the right way, and backing Islamist insurgents in Syria against a basically secular regime seems to be the polar opposite of the right way.
The moral argument is a distraction. That said it is also quite nebulous. Whose morals? Whose institutions are "right"? What is right here? Why do some think indiginous populations in these countries crave Western instititions? Where are the limits? This is quite a complex issue, and it is a subject for the countries in question to tackle themselves. There is no moral imperative for invading a weaker nation and remaking it in one's image. Those who'd suggest otherwise have other ambitions.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 18th February 10:44
AJS- said:
Liokault said:
And yet, we see the population of Syria fleeing Assad, rather than fleeing rebel groups.
So we're told. I think there's a bit more to it than that. Not defending Assad, who seems a thoroughly nasty piece of work, but I don't remember Syria being the main exporter of refugees before the civil war broke out.scherzkeks said:
Again, in context, this is all moot. If you look where the United States and Britain are active, it is in regions where they have something to gain economically. Self interest drives regime change.
The moral argument is a distraction. That said it is also quite nebulous. Whose morals? Whose institutions are "right"? What is right here? Why do some think indiginous populations in these countries crave Western instititions? Where are the limits? This is quite a complex issue, and it is a subject for the countries in question to tackle themselves. There is no moral imperative for invading a weaker nation and remaking it in one's image. Those who'd suggest otherwise have other ambitions.
Scherz,The moral argument is a distraction. That said it is also quite nebulous. Whose morals? Whose institutions are "right"? What is right here? Why do some think indiginous populations in these countries crave Western instititions? Where are the limits? This is quite a complex issue, and it is a subject for the countries in question to tackle themselves. There is no moral imperative for invading a weaker nation and remaking it in one's image. Those who'd suggest otherwise have other ambitions.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 18th February 10:44
You're talking waffle and you know it.
Why do 'you' think Assad and Puin are bombing primarily civilian targets and behind the front lines of opposition groups (excluding IS)?
Phil
skyrover said:
Liokault said:
scherzkeks said:
What about the morality of invading a weaker country that poses no threat to you, and taking its resources? How do you justify that, other than pretending you are doing it for the good of the people?
Is that what you think is happening in Syria or Libya? Do you think Russia is classifying anyone who lives in a area of Syria not controlled by Assad as a terrorist, then bombing them, for entirely altruistic reasons? Is Putin bombing hospitals out of the goodness of his heart?
Fallujah being "liberated" from the inhabitants.
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Explosive Freedom and democracy is airdropped into Libya, Cameron's great success.
Documented Civilian casualties in a single year in Afghanistan, phew, thank goodness for all those precision weapons!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_cas...
Seems you are quick to forget our "anti-terrorist", freedom and democracy", "liberation" undertakings. Luckily, we have our "moderate rebels" in Syria to provide the freedom and democracy in Syria, freedom to commit religious genocide, slavery and institute a medieval theocratic society, Al Qaeda / Al Nusra and co. are prefect examples of this new reality.
Transmitter Man said:
scherzkeks said:
Again, in context, this is all moot. If you look where the United States and Britain are active, it is in regions where they have something to gain economically. Self interest drives regime change.
The moral argument is a distraction. That said it is also quite nebulous. Whose morals? Whose institutions are "right"? What is right here? Why do some think indiginous populations in these countries crave Western instititions? Where are the limits? This is quite a complex issue, and it is a subject for the countries in question to tackle themselves. There is no moral imperative for invading a weaker nation and remaking it in one's image. Those who'd suggest otherwise have other ambitions.
Scherz,The moral argument is a distraction. That said it is also quite nebulous. Whose morals? Whose institutions are "right"? What is right here? Why do some think indiginous populations in these countries crave Western instititions? Where are the limits? This is quite a complex issue, and it is a subject for the countries in question to tackle themselves. There is no moral imperative for invading a weaker nation and remaking it in one's image. Those who'd suggest otherwise have other ambitions.
Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 18th February 10:44
You're talking waffle and you know it.
Why do 'you' think Assad and Puin are bombing primarily civilian targets and behind the front lines of opposition groups (excluding IS)?
Phil
Morals? What a load of tosh. If they cared that much there would be no more world hunger and some of the Trillions of dollars spent on defence (or attack one should say)would have been used to find a cure for cancer etc etc ad infinitum.
Sherzkeks
My other ambition is a freer fairer world where people are less likely to be stoned to death or beheaded. I have no problem with saying that western values are superior to this doctrine and where we can effectively promote them we should.
There is no moral imperative to impose our values on other countries but where our interactions with a country will unavoidably favour some faction we should choose our factions carefully.
I am not too proud to say I was broadly in favour of invading Iraq in 2003. Nor to admit that with the benefit of hindsight it was a total cock up. Whether it would be a better country otherwise is anyone's guess. Saddam wouldn't have lasted forever and all those factions were there. It was the way we deposed Saddam and our complete inability to put anything better in his place that were the real problem.
And if not the west then sooner or later Iran, Saudi Arabia or someone would have changed that regime.
Liokault
Since half of them have no documents and statistics from even the freest of 3rd world dictatorships (which Syria never was) are never that reliable, I won't put too much faith in that. Though if there are any reliable sources clearly showing that then I could be persuaded.
My other ambition is a freer fairer world where people are less likely to be stoned to death or beheaded. I have no problem with saying that western values are superior to this doctrine and where we can effectively promote them we should.
There is no moral imperative to impose our values on other countries but where our interactions with a country will unavoidably favour some faction we should choose our factions carefully.
I am not too proud to say I was broadly in favour of invading Iraq in 2003. Nor to admit that with the benefit of hindsight it was a total cock up. Whether it would be a better country otherwise is anyone's guess. Saddam wouldn't have lasted forever and all those factions were there. It was the way we deposed Saddam and our complete inability to put anything better in his place that were the real problem.
And if not the west then sooner or later Iran, Saudi Arabia or someone would have changed that regime.
Liokault
Since half of them have no documents and statistics from even the freest of 3rd world dictatorships (which Syria never was) are never that reliable, I won't put too much faith in that. Though if there are any reliable sources clearly showing that then I could be persuaded.
AJS- said:
Sherzkeks
My other ambition is a freer fairer world where people are less likely to be stoned to death or beheaded. I have no problem with saying that western values are superior to this doctrine and where we can effectively promote them we should.
I don't think anyone would object to that. No comment on Western values though. That term is rather nebulous and broad, and quite honestly, these regions have their own values and should work these things out themselves. My other ambition is a freer fairer world where people are less likely to be stoned to death or beheaded. I have no problem with saying that western values are superior to this doctrine and where we can effectively promote them we should.
AJS- said:
There is no moral imperative to impose our values on other countries but where our interactions with a country will unavoidably favour some faction we should choose our factions carefully.
Certainly.AJS- said:
I am not too proud to say I was broadly in favour of invading Iraq in 2003. Nor to admit that with the benefit of hindsight it was a total cock up. Whether it would be a better country otherwise is anyone's guess. Saddam wouldn't have lasted forever and all those factions were there. It was the way we deposed Saddam and our complete inability to put anything better in his place that were the real problem.
This statement (much like "bad intelligence")is often uttered by people who previously supported the war, and is one of those things that has been propagated by the prowar media. I don't see how anything else would have been possible. The war had nothing to do with trying to improve conditions for anyone in Iraq and everything with punishing SH for upsetting the apple cart. The US has no interests in any ME nation that does not have access to or influence over petrochemicals. The war was a sham and a boon to the contracting industry. The nature of it all was clear at the start when it was sold to us under the guise that SH had anything to do with the terrorist organization the US had declared "war" on.
AJS- said:
And if not the west then sooner or later Iran, Saudi Arabia or someone would have changed that regime.
Speculation, and (no offense) IMO a way to feel better about it all. Edited by scherzkeks on Thursday 18th February 15:47
Turkey is really trying hard for a Polish aggression, Gulf of Tonkin or WMD moment.
I guess if it is possible to dubiously connect Saddam H to Al Qaeda, pre Iraq invasion, then connecting the YPG to Syrian government is entirely achievable, if you repeat the lie enough times, with a tame media.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/turkey-bl...
I guess if it is possible to dubiously connect Saddam H to Al Qaeda, pre Iraq invasion, then connecting the YPG to Syrian government is entirely achievable, if you repeat the lie enough times, with a tame media.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/turkey-bl...
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Turkey is really trying hard for a Polish aggression, Gulf of Tonkin or WMD moment.
I guess if it is possible to dubiously connect Saddam H to Al Qaeda, pre Iraq invasion, then connecting the YPG to Syrian government is entirely achievable, if you repeat the lie enough times, with a tame media.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/turkey-bl...
For all your talk of tame press, the only totally, unquestioningly partisan people posting on this thread are you and other pro putin folk. I guess if it is possible to dubiously connect Saddam H to Al Qaeda, pre Iraq invasion, then connecting the YPG to Syrian government is entirely achievable, if you repeat the lie enough times, with a tame media.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-18/turkey-bl...
Is it only tame press if it's counter to your view?
Have we established that putin is helping Assad simply out of the goodness of his heart yet.
Well, somehow Russia has ended up allied with the elected, essentially secular, government of Syria and aiming to meet the aspirations of the Kurdish people for their own state.
Meanwhile the leading liberal democracies of Western Europe have ended up supporting Jihadists, giving Turkey a blank cheque to do whatever it takes to crush the Kurds, and working towards the creation of Saudi client states across the region. Oh yes, and prolonging the war in Syria for another decade, with predictable results for the Syrian people and unpredictable for the rest of the world.
Meanwhile the leading liberal democracies of Western Europe have ended up supporting Jihadists, giving Turkey a blank cheque to do whatever it takes to crush the Kurds, and working towards the creation of Saudi client states across the region. Oh yes, and prolonging the war in Syria for another decade, with predictable results for the Syrian people and unpredictable for the rest of the world.
Scherzkeks
I think there are some western values which are fairly well defined. Slaughtering innocent civilians, beheading people for apostasy or witchcraft, stoning adulterers and locking up and imposing taxes on religious minorities are all things which are unacceptable. We can't outlaw these practices overnight, but where we can stamp these things out by encouraging more secular, moderate governments I believe we should. And I believe that is better than letting these countries fester with their own 'values' or worse encouraging them. As we did in Iraq and Afghanistan by endorsing sharia constitutions and tribal, Islamist governments; or during the Arab Spring when we backed all the wrong people in Egypt and Libya and ended up with worse governments than the ones removed.
Regarding Iraq I think it could have been done a lot better. Possibly by breaking the country up into smaller states along the tribal and ethnic lines, but certainly by insisting on a secular, moderate government which would uphold the rights of women and minorities. By ensuring that the oil wealth was re-invested into Iraq and not syphoned off by corrupt officials. We could have used our military presence there to help Iraqi police and military enforce. Instead we seemed to use them as a sort of security service for oil companies, and an occasional participant in a pointless and intractable inter-ethnic war. That would take good intentions, intelligence and political will. All things that are lacking.
I don't really need to feel better about supporting it at the time. I did so on the naive (it was my final year at university) premise that liberated from Saddam Hussein and the UN sanctions Iraq would join the free world in the way that Eastern Europe had done. I even thought that a few favourable contracts handed out to big western companies might be a good way of ensuring a chunk of the money was put into rebuilding the country.
I completely underestimated the capacity of the Iraqi people for self-destruction, and the cynical profiteering of our own governments. Even though I already disliked Blair at the time and never really bought the 45 minutes to nuke Cyprus line.
Even if securing oil resources, manipulating the price or whatever was the primary objective I would have thought, and still think, the opportunity was there to do things much better.
I think there are some western values which are fairly well defined. Slaughtering innocent civilians, beheading people for apostasy or witchcraft, stoning adulterers and locking up and imposing taxes on religious minorities are all things which are unacceptable. We can't outlaw these practices overnight, but where we can stamp these things out by encouraging more secular, moderate governments I believe we should. And I believe that is better than letting these countries fester with their own 'values' or worse encouraging them. As we did in Iraq and Afghanistan by endorsing sharia constitutions and tribal, Islamist governments; or during the Arab Spring when we backed all the wrong people in Egypt and Libya and ended up with worse governments than the ones removed.
Regarding Iraq I think it could have been done a lot better. Possibly by breaking the country up into smaller states along the tribal and ethnic lines, but certainly by insisting on a secular, moderate government which would uphold the rights of women and minorities. By ensuring that the oil wealth was re-invested into Iraq and not syphoned off by corrupt officials. We could have used our military presence there to help Iraqi police and military enforce. Instead we seemed to use them as a sort of security service for oil companies, and an occasional participant in a pointless and intractable inter-ethnic war. That would take good intentions, intelligence and political will. All things that are lacking.
I don't really need to feel better about supporting it at the time. I did so on the naive (it was my final year at university) premise that liberated from Saddam Hussein and the UN sanctions Iraq would join the free world in the way that Eastern Europe had done. I even thought that a few favourable contracts handed out to big western companies might be a good way of ensuring a chunk of the money was put into rebuilding the country.
I completely underestimated the capacity of the Iraqi people for self-destruction, and the cynical profiteering of our own governments. Even though I already disliked Blair at the time and never really bought the 45 minutes to nuke Cyprus line.
Even if securing oil resources, manipulating the price or whatever was the primary objective I would have thought, and still think, the opportunity was there to do things much better.
Octoposse said:
Well, somehow Russia has ended up allied with the elected, essentially secular, government of Syria and aiming to meet the aspirations of the Kurdish people for their own state.
Meanwhile the leading liberal democracies of Western Europe have ended up supporting Jihadists, giving Turkey a blank cheque to do whatever it takes to crush the Kurds, and working towards the creation of Saudi client states across the region. Oh yes, and prolonging the war in Syria for another decade, with predictable results for the Syrian people and unpredictable for the rest of the world.
OP,Meanwhile the leading liberal democracies of Western Europe have ended up supporting Jihadists, giving Turkey a blank cheque to do whatever it takes to crush the Kurds, and working towards the creation of Saudi client states across the region. Oh yes, and prolonging the war in Syria for another decade, with predictable results for the Syrian people and unpredictable for the rest of the world.
People keep mentioned the non-fact of Assad's secular state.
This was I can assure you only on the outside and for the image of Syria to the outside world.
His Alawite section, a Shia offshoot are but a small minority in the country and only had 'his own' in charge of the whole country, that is bar a few Sunni Arabs who became wealthy from doing business with the regime.
Assad learned a lot from his father and the many atrocities he brought on the Syrian people.
Since the Iran Iraq war when Syria sided with Iran they have been supported by them and many would say manipulated - they need a lifeline to their proxy Hezbollah. Since Assad's fathers time Syria has been one of Russia's best arms customers. Both Iran & Russia have these reason to keep the status quo.
I was with two Syrian refugees yesterday evening here in Cyprus having coffee. They are both from Deraa in the south of the country where this conflict kicked off. One has a cousin of schoolboy age who got injured from a barrel bomb dropped by an Assad helicopter. He was taken by locals and with the assistance of the UN into Israel for treatment. They both said they would rather be ruled by Israel than Assad even though when they were at school they were taught that they were the great Satan on their doorstep just across the border.
What has been puzzling me and possibly one or two others here is just whether you're pro Putin or anti-west and for what reason. Why do you close your eyes to the atrocities carried out by this dictator?
Maybe you have some Russian blood in your family tree.
All my neighbors here are Russian aside from one Lebanese and quite simply they are blind to how Putin is taking their own country back to the bad old days.
Putin is an example of the height of hypocrisy when he rants about inviolate national sovereignty.
We live in the times of the short aberration known as the rise and fall of Vlad the last invader!
Phil
Edited by Transmitter Man on Friday 19th February 05:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff