Syria

Granariesgirl

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just to be clear, I think we should stay well away from 'regime change' in Syria, precisely because the alternative is worse for both Syrians and Western countries.

I agree with you there, not because Assad isn't a nasty piece of work but because he could keep the country more stable than a bunch of factions - lets not "make" another Iraq, Libya or Egypt full of fighting factions & mad mullahs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That doesn't however mean I think we should let either side get away with use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets.

A punitive strike would be justified, full blown intervention would not.

I almost agree, because if you hit both parties for any violations it would really be about preventing WMD use there... but then where do you draw the line? Do you strike at anyone, anywhere in the world using that stuff? Could be very tricky...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yes, I do think Israel is badly in need of a good spanking, for a number of human rights violations. But it also serves western interests to maintain the status quo in the balance of power in the middle east, so it's not likely to happen any time soon.

The only interests served are those of the USA by keeping AIPAC & other key voting groups happy. I thought Obama would have more balls but he just looks at Bibi & asks "how high?".

The only Permanent Member of the UNSC who vetoes all resolutions on Israel & their appalling record is the USA - without that veto, Israel would really have to straighten up & behave. Maybe the French sold the nuclear weapons technology to Israel but they would see more gain in supporting their old colonies & new oil-rich friends so they would vote to please the majority; & for once the UK doesn't brown-nose the USA & do its bidding... the USA is the key to a peaceful & equitable solution but they don't appear to want one.

BTW - Have you read the Jimmy Carter book on the situation there?

I'm convinced though that Syria & intervention is more to do with a USA face-off with Russia & Iran than with human suffering (though I wish it otherwise). Let's hope the USA is not dragging us all into a second Korea...

vivatifosi

Adding to the recent debate as outlined above, the Sunni and Shia schism is also a big part of this and not something we can get involved in easily without upsetting the other side.

Interesting comment yesterday from former uk ambassador to Russia. Said that Russia's views are very clear... it only acts in its own self interest and other governments know where they stand. Said that the Russians probably in private are saying that they think that the Syrian gov't did the chemical attack, but still consider Assad the least bad option. That they are concerned with Muslim extremists in their own country viz Chechnya. Also said that behind the scenes Russia was the country that told Iran it should release the British sailors captured in the Strait of Hormuz and also the Russians have helped keep supply routes through the Stans open for the west when we've had trouble around the route via Pakistan. Therefore they do intervene, but only when there is not a negative impact on Russia. It was on R4 by the way.

sabretoothtigger

Im surprised UK has so much influence that an 'important ally fails to back USA' After many cuts we could have only really sent along dads army with big sticks


I did see a 4 star general on nn agreeing with my point though, that you either do it properly or not at all. I think he said the weapons would have to wiped out and large parts of the syrias standing army along with it most likely.
The risk being you have merely knocked the bee nest out of the tree to noones benefit. I reckon NATO should go, chemical weapons are a game changer and they cant exist in a unstable situation - its justified. The western public are being short sighted and self centered I think, its a developing problem even if you close the curtains and flick over to the footy match

more stable than a bunch of factions - lets not "make" another Iraq, Libya or Egypt full of fighting factions & mad mullahs

That might be a mistake in that the natural situation is a more divided country. Before Iraq existed it was tribal based, we put it together and eventually saddam came along but its wrong to say this how it was meant to be.
Ive not heard anyone say it but syrias best future may be where each faction is free within their own communitys not ruled over by force. If this means the country is smaller so be it, Sudan did this option in pursuit of peace.
Im not arguing in absolutes, that this is peaceful certainly but you got to choke a little when coming to the conclusion 'Assad is for the best' The surpressed people started this for no slight reason

TruckerT

WMDs, such as nuclear, are meant to be 'deterrents', and gas attacks are rare because they just ain't very reliable. Assad got lucky last month, and killed many hundreds, but he was pleased to demonstrate that some of his own were injured in the course of the attack.

The US Navy which has assembled in the Eastern Mediterranean represents a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Given that the world has survived the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks, as well as the Chernobyl incident, and the more recent Japanese event, then why don't the Western powers just nuke Damascus, and then impose democracy upon an unwilling population?

How can you 'impose' democracy, I hear you ask.

Good Question!

TruckerT

TruckerT

My understanding of the origins of WW1 is limited, but (unlike WW2) I don't believe that there was a single common enemy whose stated aim was to rule the world.

I have posted before that there is a strange similarity between the early years of the 20th century, and the early years of the 21st.

9/11 kicked off a whole new era of international aggression, and now we have the failing Arab spring, the problems with the Euro, and the chaotic state of affairs in the Middle East, especially Syria.

Next year is the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1 - it would be ironic if the occasion were to be marked by another outbreak of mass slaughter and chemical attacks.

TruckerT

TruckerT

Do the christians of Maaloula lead a separate existence from the other religious sects in the region? Did they expect some kind of exemption from the civil war? What part does religion play in the pursuit of war?

And how crucial is the use of chemical weapons? Almost all of the killing in Syria is done with conventional weapons, and it has been taking place for more than two years.

I think that Obama seriously believed that his rhetoric about 'red lines' would get him off the hook, because he knows that chemical weapons are out of date and extremely unreliable to use.

But they called his bluff, no expense spared.

If ever there was a time for the US to attack Syria, it is right now, and then there might be some scope for some serious negotiations.

TruckrT

michaels

I am sure this is not a driver of the US policy and 'humanitarian' stance, but it should be noted that having Syria as a seriously weakened but not failed state really suits Israel....

vivatifosi

TruckerT wrote: »

Do the christians of Maaloula lead a separate existence from the other religious sects in the region? Did they expect some kind of exemption from the civil war? What part does religion play in the pursuit of war?

Syrian Christians are for the most part a branch of Eastern Christianity (as are the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches as well as the church in India), which may also help explain Putin's stance. I say mainly, as elsewhere there are other groups too, such as the Catholic church.

Christians from various traditions form a substantial minority across the Levant and North Africa. They are established communities within these countries - not recent immigrants. There are two main branches in the Syrian church and these date back to Syria in the fifth century!

Christian Syrians may have been critical of the Assad regime, however they benefit most from being part of a secular state in which their right to freedom from religious persecution is secured. As we've already seen in Egypt in particular - this is not assured under the Arab Spring movement. They've definitely more to fear than we in the west do of the spread of Al Qaeda, which see them as infidels.

There are approximately 1.8m Christians in Syria (or were before the war, I'm not sure how many have left) - which is 10% of the population. Incidentally, there was also a far smaller Jewish minority in Syria too, based in Damascus, Aleppo and Al Qamishli. I don't know what has happened to them either.

How does this compare to other countries in the area? Working west to east, Tunisia 1% (about 100k); Libya, not known, but the country was 97% Sunni prior to the war there; Egypt "Coptic Christian and other" 6% (about 5 million); Jordan 6% (about 350k); Israel approx 2%; Lebanon 39% (about 1.5 million); Iraq "other religions" 3%.

In short there is a substantial Christian religious minority across the region - probably about 10 million people.

My numbers are taken from the CIA World Fact Book, I have an old edition (2006) but wasn't sure whether the Wiki pages may have been edited.

I think I'll leave the question about how big a part religion is playing in the war to someone else. When it started, nominally this was a movement for greater freedom and economic opportunity. I'm not convinced this is where we are now given the strength of radical Islamic militias in the country and I don't know enough about how that change happened. I am also aware of the broader Sunni vs Shia issue that underlies this to a certain extent (eg in Syria Allawite broadly Shia vs majority Sunni) which Christians are not part of (though they may be seen as supporting the status quo if it is secular). And as for the Druze, I haven't worked out where they fit in at all...

TruckerT

I think the religion word should be replaced by the word 'tribe'. The Western world suffers no longer from tribal differences - we all now worship at the altar of 'democratic capitalism'.

How does the CIA know that there are 1.8m christians in Syria? Do Syrians have to register their religion somewhere? Do you have to be a christian if you want to live in Maaloula? Do all these christians actively 'believe', or were they just labelled at birth?

In the Western world, we sometimes hear about whether or not individuals should be allowed to wear stuff which identifies their 'religion' (I think there was something on the news this weekend about Toronto trying to impose restrictions). And we are not allowed to refer in public to the colour of someone else's skin - check out the media reports of the house fire in Leicester. So far as I understand these things, Leicester is pretty well a Muslim community, in the same way that Maaloula is a Christian one, but no journalist felt able to mention it. Despite the West's claims to embrace multi-culturalism, we actually require everybody to conform to the rules of democratic capitalism.

From Syria, all the media reports talk openly about the religious/tribal differences which exist.

Today's wars mostly take place within or between countries which do not fit into the 'democratic capitalism' mould - the capitalist democracies of the West have given up armed conflict in favour of economic (and military?) cooperation. Unfortunately, we need the oil!

Maybe the West should concentrate on relieving the West's dependence upon middle-eastern oil - renewable energy sources will give all of us a better chance of survival (but I'm not sure how the middle east would be able to cope with such a massive loss of income - I guess it would be a bit like our banking meltdown of 2007/8, but since they only have the one product to offer, it is hard to know how they would recover).

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

....How does the CIA know that there are 1.8m christians in Syria?....

Don't know. It's possible they employ some kind of 'agent' who is responsible for finding these sort of things out. It might not be that complicated. Simply tapping the right words into Goggle can some times produce wonders.

TruckerT wrote: »

... So far as I understand these things, Leicester is pretty well a Muslim community...

Apparently not. Leicester is only 18.6% muslim according to the 2011 census.
http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/council-and-democracy/city-statistics/religion/

P.S. Clapton might have a point.:)