Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

Arming the "rebels" in syria

114 posts in this topic

The decision of both the UK and US governments to arm the so called "rebels" in Syria has to be the most insane policy yet in the "war on terror." These "rebels" in Syria are al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated and other salafist groups who fought British and mainly US troops on the streets in Iraq and were labelled terrorists and evildoers(George w bush) by both the US and UK governments at the time but are now labelled resistance fighters, even freedom fighters and our allies by the very same people in power both in Washington and London. These "rebels" cut the hearts out of people and eat them whilst videoing themselves to post on websites and have now recently just beheaded a Syrian catholic priest and his two assistants and burned and looted the catholic church, yet we are giving them money, arms and even training them in Jordan(US forces). This will no doubt come back to bite us on the backside as it always does like in Afghanistan and recently in Libya, a classic case of blowback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A terrible decision. Keep the hell out, how long will it be until we have a bombing in retaliation for 'interfering in Syria'?

Just an attempt by Call Me Dave to be this week's Tony Blair and move the focus away from problems at home. Besides I thought we were skint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A terrible decision. Keep the hell out, how long will it be until we have a bombing in retaliation for 'interfering in Syria'?

Just an attempt by Call Me Dave to be this week's Tony Blair and move the focus away from problems at home. Besides I thought we were skint?

Exactly, why is there always money for war and foreign intervention, but no money for job creation and new deal type infactstructure projects here in the UK? Also every UK prime minister from thatcher has been a US lapdog, we are tied to the US militarily and financially. And look how that's working out for us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to meet anybody who thinks this is in any way a good idea. The only two possible reasons for doing it are (1) The Americans think it's a good idea and we must follow and/or (2) BAe need a new market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has foreign intervention ever worked? And this has absolutely nothing to do with the spreading of "freedom" and "democracy" as the politicians and war hawks would like to have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision of both the UK and US governments to arm the so called "rebels" in Syria has to be the most insane policy yet in the "war on terror." These "rebels" in Syria are al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated and other salafist groups who fought British and mainly US troops on the streets in Iraq and were labelled terrorists and evildoers(George w bush) by both the US and UK governments at the time but are now labelled resistance fighters, even freedom fighters and our allies by the very same people in power both in Washington and London. These "rebels" cut the hearts out of people and eat them whilst videoing themselves to post on websites and have now recently just beheaded a Syrian catholic priest and his two assistants and burned and looted the catholic church, yet we are giving them money, arms and even training them in Jordan(US forces). This will no doubt come back to bite us on the backside as it always does like in Afghanistan and recently in Libya, a classic case of blowback.

This is very uninformed.

 

"The rebels" in Syria are a very disunited, diverse group of people. Al Nusra are Al Qaeda under a different name but the other groups are not. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of arming any of the groups but what you have just posted is alarmist nonsense. We wouldn't be arming Al Nusra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has foreign intervention ever worked? And this has absolutely nothing to do with the spreading of "freedom" and "democracy" as the politicians and war hawks would like to have us believe.

Korea.

 

The rebellion started as peaceful protests against a dictatorial regime along the lines of Tunisia and Egypt where rough sorts of democracies have been created. They certainly aren't liberal democracies but they are democracies.

 

The regime then used extreme violence to remove opposition. So yeah nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

 

Oh and Syria has no oil which by your definition means that it's not "a client state".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has foreign intervention ever worked? And this has absolutely nothing to do with the spreading of "freedom" and "democracy" as the politicians and war hawks would like to have us believe.

 

In recent years, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Macedonia; all in Blair's tenure as PM. Read Blair's Wars; an excellent book.

 

However, that isn't the issue here. I wouldn't arm or go anywhere near Syria and I do think we make some terrible decisions when it comes to our foreign policy. I don't agree with your assessment that rebels are Al Qaeda, affliliated or all Salafist.  There are parts of the Free Syrian Army who are without a shadow of doubt those types of individuals and groups; arguably the best units are made up of those groups. There are many groups within the FSA who are good people and are fighting for the good of their country, not some religious crusade to create an Islamic State in Syria. These are the people the US and UK are arming.

 

However, it is entirely naive of the US and UK to think arms will not fall into the hands of the 'other' groups. It certainly happened during the Afghan conflict in 79-88 and will happen in Syria. I wouldn't arm any group anywhere in the world unless we have a specific defence agreement with a sovereign state. This will be a poor decision if/when taken and will cause further and wider issues in my opinion.

 

Besides I thought we were skint?

 

I'd hazardous a guess they'll get equipment that has been mothballed by us or equipment we have captured in Afghan/Iraq. We don't always blow it all up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cameron and his American crony want to get involved, lets see them both put on uniforms and lead from the front

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cameron and his American crony want to get involved, lets see them both put on uniforms and lead from the front

 

Silly statement. Why don't you get into politics and stop Governments making these decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly statement. Why don't you get into politics and stop Governments making these decisions?

Not sure it's that silly. If the 'leaders' had to go into the front line I doubt they would be so keen to go around acting like cock of the estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there must be something we don't know.  I know the US is hyper-sensitive about its foreign military interventions these days after getting burned fingers from over-aggression in Iraq and I can't picture Cameron as a Donald Rumsfeld type war-monger.  So, what is being kept hidden behind the secret classifications?  What makes Syria so special when we've stood back and allowed millions to be murdered in Africa over the last decade?

 

The only thing I can see is that it's so close to Israel, even then I'd be surprised if the Israelis would want the "rebels" to be the winning force.  Better the devil you know and all that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there must be something we don't know.  I know the US is hyper-sensitive about its foreign military interventions these days after getting burned fingers from over-aggression in Iraq and I can't picture Cameron as a Donald Rumsfeld type war-monger.  So, what is being kept hidden behind the secret classifications?  What makes Syria so special when we've stood back and allowed millions to be murdered in Africa over the last decade?

 

The only thing I can see is that it's so close to Israel, even then I'd be surprised if the Israelis would want the "rebels" to be the winning force.  Better the devil you know and all that sort of thing.

It's all about Israel and Iran, Syria is iran's #1 Arab ally in which Iran funnels weapons through to reach Hezbollah in Lebanon and the US and UK can't resist the chance of knocking out an ally of Iran. As for Israel I totally agree with you that Assad will be a thousand times better than any "rebel" government, Assad and his father before him has kept the Israeli occupied golan heights quiet for decades, can't see the "rebels" doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there must be something we don't know.  I know the US is hyper-sensitive about its foreign military interventions these days after getting burned fingers from over-aggression in Iraq and I can't picture Cameron as a Donald Rumsfeld type war-monger.  So, what is being kept hidden behind the secret classifications?  What makes Syria so special when we've stood back and allowed millions to be murdered in Africa over the last decade?

 

The only thing I can see is that it's so close to Israel, even then I'd be surprised if the Israelis would want the "rebels" to be the winning force.  Better the devil you know and all that sort of thing.

I'd say that a significant number of Westerners saw the 1989 uprisings in Eastern Europe and can make a connection between these events and the Arab spring. Arab liberals like to portray these events as the long awaited liberal Muslim revolution that will solve the Middle East's problems (and ours). Western liberals merely parrot the opinions of Arab liberals. Anyone else is clearly a racist and / or Islamophobe and should be ignored.

 

The reality is obviously more complex than the narrative that most Westerners had bought into up to this point and we are starting to see a shift. Journalists have actually examined what happened in Egypt / Libya etc after the democratic vote was held and didn't like what they saw. Hence we are now being given a rather more critical view of the Arab spring based on facts rather than repeating the wishful thinking of various Arab exiles.

 

Africa is a different kettle of fish. The standard Western view is that one tribe slaughters another tribe. A change in government is just an opportunity for the slaughtered to become the slaughterers. Ironically this would be rather true of Syria, it certainly was of Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about Israel and Iran, Syria is iran's #1 Arab ally in which Iran funnels weapons through to reach Hezbollah in Lebanon and the US and UK can't resist the chance of knocking out an ally of Iran. As for Israel I totally agree with you that Assad will be a thousand times better than any "rebel" government, Assad and his father before him has kept the Israeli occupied golan heights quiet for decades, can't see the "rebels" doing the same.

Iran has the following Arab allies: Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (de facto since Hezbollah run Lebanon). It's odd that if we are so keen on knocking out an ally of Iran that we choose to train Iraqi security forces.

 

Israel's problem is Hezbollah not the Golan Heights. Hezbollah have intervened in Syria or behalf of Assad. Any new regime would cut off ties to them as a minimum. The Syrian army are in no position to do anything about the Golan Heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea.

 

The rebellion started as peaceful protests against a dictatorial regime along the lines of Tunisia and Egypt where rough sorts of democracies have been created. They certainly aren't liberal democracies but they are democracies.

 

The regime then used extreme violence to remove opposition. So yeah nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

 

Oh and Syria has no oil which by your definition means that it's not "a client state".

Korea? Last time I checked Korea was still a divided country and the nuclear armed north was threatening all out war with the south and it's allies. I see you're still struggling with what the definition of a client state is, the fact that Syria doesn't have oil has nothing to do with Syria not being a US client state, neither has Jordan and its a US client state. Syria isn't a US client state because it refuses not to abandon the palestian and lebanese struggle and resistance and be hostile towards Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel's problem is Hezbollah not the Golan Heights. Hezbollah have intervened in Syria or behalf of Assad. Any new regime would cut off ties to them as a minimum. The Syrian army are in no position to do anything about the Golan Heights.

 

That is certainly true. Since the start of demonstrations in Syria, the Assad Regime has been a shadow of its former self and is being propped arguably by Russia, not Iran whose main focus is Hezbollah. Of course, that is very much in simplistic terms and the situation is more interwoven than that statement makes out. However, Hezbollah is the MAIN THREAT to Israel and has been for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea? Last time I checked Korea was still a divided country and the nuclear armed north was threatening all out war with the south and it's allies.

 

Intervention in Korea was a success as it achieved what it set out to do; stop the North Korean invasion of the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea? Last time I checked Korea was still a divided country and the nuclear armed north was threatening all out war with the south and it's allies. I see you're still struggling with what the definition of a client state is, the fact that Syria doesn't have oil has nothing to do with Syria not being a US client state, neither has Jordan and its a US client state. Syria isn't a US client state because it refuses not to abandon the palestian and lebanese struggle and resistance and be hostile towards Iran.

I suggest you read up on Korean history. It was de facto partitioned in 1945 by the UN. The war started because the Soviet backed North Koreans invaded South Korea. The UN "invasion" more or less maintained the 1945 situation. It would be like East Germany invading West Germany with the West winning and staying non-communist and democratic. Sound like a defeat to you?

 

I see so "client state" now means "backs Palestine against Israel, Shi'ite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, Druze and Christians in Lebanon, and views Iran in a positive light". By which I'd conclude that Saudi Arabia isn't a client state and neither are any of the gulf states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intervention in Korea was a success as it achieved what it set out to do; stop the North Korean invasion of the South.

I'd argue that the US, UK and UN forces intervention in Korea in the 50's is a classic reason why we shouldn't get involved in other peoples civil wars and politics. That conflict is still on going and unresolved and can flare up at anytime, as the last few months has proved with north Korea threatening all out war with the south and it's allies and the US has sworn to protect and go to war for south Korea. Korea and Vietnam are/where just proxy wars between the "west" and china and the soviet union(as was), millions die and even more are displaced and for what? So that the US and UK arms manufacturers can make huge profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the US, UK and UN forces intervention in Korea in the 50's is a classic reason why we shouldn't get involved in other peoples civil wars and politics. That conflict is still on going and unresolved and can flare up at anytime, as the last few months has proved with north Korea threatening all out war with the south and it's allies and the US has sworn to protect and go to war for south Korea. Korea and Vietnam are/where just proxy wars between the "west" and china and the soviet union(as was), millions die and even more are displaced and for what? So that the US and UK arms manufacturers can make huge profits.

No, so that South Koreans can live in a first world democracy with human rights rather than starving to death by the millions in a totalitarian hellhole like North Korea.

 

North Korea like to sabre rattle when China threatens to cut off their aid. South Korea is their favourite victim but they are more than capable of targetting Japan; and would certainly do if North Korea controlled the entire Korean peninsula.

 

Still they aren't a "client state" so all's well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read up on Korean history. It was de facto partitioned in 1945 by the UN. The war started because the Soviet backed North Koreans invaded South Korea. The UN "invasion" more or less maintained the 1945 situation. It would be like East Germany invading West Germany with the West winning and staying non-communist and democratic. Sound like a defeat to you?

 

I see so "client state" now means "backs Palestine against Israel, Shi'ite Muslims against Sunni Muslims, Druze and Christians in Lebanon, and views Iran in a positive light". By which I'd conclude that Saudi Arabia isn't a client state and neither are any of the gulf states.

Who said anything about defeat? The Korean war ended in a stalemate, a draw in which no side lost or won. Also you really need to get away from defining a US client state based on whether a country has oil or not and whether they are Sunni or Shia, Jordan doesn't have oil but is a US client state while Syria also doesn't have oil but isn't a US client state and Iran is a Shiite country but not a client state while Bahrain is predominantly Shia and is a US client state. I hope that clears it up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about defeat? The Korean war ended in a stalemate, a draw in which no side lost or won. Also you really need to get away from defining a US client state based on whether a country has oil or not and whether they are Sunni or Shia, Jordan doesn't have oil but is a US client state while Syria also doesn't have oil but isn't a US client state and Iran is a Shiite country but not a client state while Bahrain is predominantly Shia and is a US client state. I hope that clears it up for you.

So what defines "client state"? You seem to make it up as you go along.

 

The Korean war ended with the North Korean occupation of South Korea repulsed. South Korea ended up as a first world country with a democracy and human rights whereas with no intervention it would have been exactly the same as North Korea. Now you want to pretend that there no difference between 1st world democracy and totalitarian state with millions starving to death for your own political reasons but to the rest of the world something important was achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what defines "client state"? You seem to make it up as you go along.

 

The Korean war ended with the North Korean occupation of South Korea repulsed. South Korea ended up as a first world country with a democracy and human rights whereas with no intervention it would have been exactly the same as North Korea. Now you want to pretend that there no difference between 1st world democracy and totalitarian state with millions starving to death for your own political reasons but to the rest of the world something important was achieved.

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only one making it up as you go along is you, client states based on whether a country has oil or not or whether they are Sunni or Shia. I'll try one last time to try and explain what a US client state looks like. Egypt under Sadat then Mubarak was a US client state as sadat signed a "peace" deal(surrender) with Israel thus throwing the Palestinians under the bus in return for US military and economic support/aid. Also Egypt sold Israel gas at a hugely knocked down price and during operation "cast lead" closed the rafah crossing thus denying Palestinian women and children an escape route during the Israeli bombing onslaught all on the orders from Washington.

You have not defined "client state", you've just said that Egypt is one.

 

If "client state" means "takes orders from the US" then Jordan clearly isn't one because it resisted all attempts by the US to sign it up for the first gulf war (even Egypt was a member of the US-led coalition).

 

If "client state" means "screws over the Palestinians" then the vast majority of Arab states aren't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.