Funny enough, it was Secretary of State John Kerry who suggested handing over the weapons but I don't think it was intended as a serious suggestion
----------------------------

John Kerry, who participated in the Vietnam slaughter in which chemical agents were used...
------------------

IMO one of the worst things that could happen. It will galvanise the Middle East into a larger conflict with Israel. You don't want to go there.
------------------------

If we are serious about helping the rebels - and there's a whole set of implications with regards to that which i wont go into yet - then one method that wouldn't involve a) violence on our part or b) escalating violence by arming the rebels, would be as i mentioned. Syria and Israel wouldn't fight - Assad may not be very pleasant but he isn't suicidal either. It would force the regime into the south, relieving pressure on the rebels. The best outcome is applying pressure with a review to making it possible for Assad to step down.
-------------------------

Red Russian, i'll do a separate post on what you've written...

In my opinion we should just send over Jack Bauer and he will sort it all out.

Redastomatoes- FreeShinji! cleverson forever!

"What scares me more than getting it wrong is doing nothing."

---------------------

I despair.

And to think people like this have an equal say (ostensibly anyway) into how our society is maintained. That is assuming, of course, that this particular individual is old enough to vote.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Red Russian

It was a slightly rhetorical question, I think you're bang on about Iran being the motive.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Red Russian,

He also reckons that nothing can happen in the Middle East without the secret consent of the big powers, above all the US. While I totally agree with him that geopolitics is the elephant in the room, I'm a little sceptical that the USA has the puppet master's power to conduct events. The USA has influence and it has the power to take down any regime but I don't think it engineer outcomes in most cases.
-----------------------------------------

Essentially this is causing that 'dilly-dallying'. The US (and UK) has been very slowly losing it's grip on strategic areas. As you say, not in the sense of not having the power and influence to oust a no longer reliable and favoured regime, but to control what happens next. Iraq was a wake up call in that regard - the plan being to simply install a more subservient and obedient regime was met with mass uprisings from the Iraqi people who wanted a say in their politics now that Saddam was gone. It's not clear what would happen should the Assad regime fall to the rebels. The only way it will fall - or at least the most likely - would be a bombing campaign. At present, the US are quite happy to sit back and watch while Assad becomes bogged down and vilified even further. Obviously once the death toll starts getting high and accusations of CWs being used start sounding out, it creates a problem for the west as they have to appear to their publics as wanting to do something about it. 'We' have to appear as the good guys (when of course, we are not). Also, i did get back to you on that media thread you started, if you fancy a belated look.

Iran is definately the motive. If you just looked at the map of the middle east and look at where all the US bases are, they are positioning themselves to attack Iran from all angles.

Its no longer a matter of if but when the attack will happen.

As for the UK,parliament made the right decision,but in terms of morality,we have stepped in to aid in the past(Iraq,libyra etc)how would it look if we suddenly refuse to step in?
-----------------------------

We didn't 'step in' to help in those examples you listed.

Iraq and Libya were almost exclusively about oil, as well as ousting regimes that were no longer of any use to use.

To give a brief history - we supported Saddam during his worst crimes, including the use of chemical weapons. We lost favour with him after he invaded Kuwait (essentially, we didn't want him controlling Kuwaiti oil). We then applied - after the bombing - 'genocidal' sanctions (quoting Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) on Iraq that resulted in the deaths of a million people, including half a million children under 5. The invasion was a sickening war crime, that displaced 4.5 million people and has caused the deaths of upwards a million people. After the sanctions during the 90's, Saddam had to start nationalising oil reserves (which decreases the profits that flow to the west).

On the latter point, see Libya.

The point i'm making, Lord VIK, is that that our intentions are not - and have never been - benign. The invasions and bombings that you mentioned are born out of pure self interest on the part of elites.

BerbaKing11, why do you think the US does not attack Mugabe in Zimbabwe?

He is an evil dictator, tortures his own people and damaging the country everyday. How come the US do not intervene in Zimbabwe where there is unbelievable amount of cruelty to people?

The US seem its their duty to help the people of Syria but what about other countries like Zimbabwe?

I read yesterday that there's a big Arms Fair on in London at the moment and representives of the Assad regime are being openly courted by salesmen from the big arms manufacturers.

Hypocricy is rife.

It's a good question.

The US and UK has no real interest in human rights. Defending people is simply not a policy goal for elites. with regards to Zimbabwe, we have no interests there. There's no resources to exploit and control and the region is no longer of much geo-strategic interest to UK/US elites.

Remember, we support tyranny. And when we aren't supporting it, we're usually the ones reigning down terror on the third world. It's self interest, profit making, control etc... etc... Like I say, we no interests in Zimbabwe.

So since we are all cynical, the best thing to do is do nothing? My conscience cannot accept it. I do not care why they go in as long as the right thing is done.

Self interest, self preservation & trying to lay claim to a larger set of resources, and power, disguised as defending human rights & the people.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

We stood by and watched the genocide in the Balkans with a "nothing to do with us" attitude, same in the present day with Zimbabwe. We can ignore what's happening in Europe or in a Commonwealth country yet we're suddenly the World Police when it comes to affairs in countries we have little to no historical connection and are thousands of miles away.

So since we are all cynical, the best thing to do is do nothing? My conscience cannot accept it.
----

Nor mine to be truthful.

But the truth is, any US/UK intervention isn't really of benefit to the common man/woman of Syria. Its purely geopolitics at work.

But what would "doing something" achieve?

It sounds terrible even saying this, but Assad is probably safer in charge for the World's national security than having rebels with large Al Qaeda presence in charge.

I am not saying that the West should not seek to stop Assad, but how are they thinking this through? It could exacerbate Syria's problems if the rebels take charge.

Pretty much what I thought as Zimbabwe does not have any valuables to exploit.

I would not be surprised once IRAN has been conquered and the US has control whole of the middle east, Saudi Arabia will be the final jigsaw in the puzzle as then they would control all the oil reserves.

I guess the question is, what happens when the US controls the Middle East, where does that leave us.

I'm 100% sure the alliance with the US will last.

As long as they have a use for us.

So since we are all cynical, the best thing to do is do nothing? My conscience cannot accept it. I do not care why they go in as long as the right thing is done.
--------------------------

Stating that the US and UK have motives that don't align with the rhetoric is not cynicism, it's fact. We have a pretty substantial and rich documentary record that backs this up (declassified government files etc.. etc...). I've spent the last 4 years of my life completely - and totally geekily - learning this stuff. Unfortunately, not many people really no anything meaningful about UK/US foreign policy or the economic system that governs it. it's good to see a few well informed responses on here though - a football forum, no less!

In answer to the second part, Tomatoes... There are options to help. I've already mentioned how Israel could mobilise forces along the Golan Heights. The problem is your presuppose that we have any right - morally or otherwise - to do anything. Remember, 'we' - US/UK - do the vast majority of the killing, violence, terrorism (state sterrorism), arms dealing, supporting brutal regimes, overthrowing democratically elected governments, military bases etc etc...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator