Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?

[Kirkland Laing]

In five or ten or twenty years arming them will come back to bite us in the arse and when it does all the clowns like McCain who are advocating arming them will say that nobody could have predicted that arming and training large numbers of jihadi nutcases in the 2010s would cause us problems down the road.

Hey, it worked so well in Afghanistan in the eighties. What could go wrong?

I generally agree with this but then hezbollah got involved and it takes all of my will to not fully endorse throwing our weight behind the rebels.

What's wrong with Hezbollah? They're cuddly freedom fighters. They only exist because Israel invaded their country and wouldn't leave and were starting to annex a big chunk of it that included the water source that provides south Lebanon with its water/agriculture. Hezbollah, peace be upon them, need to keep supply lines to Iran open so they're helping out in Syria. If not Israel eventually invade, steal their water and impoverish them like they're doing to the Palestinians. You can't blame anybody for fighting to defend their country, can you?

Also, too, most of the rebels we'd be arming are Iraq War Re-enactors who you were fighting in Iraq a decade ago. And they'll be fighting against Iraqi Shiite jihadis who have gone to Syria to fight for Assad. Those guys and the Iraqi Shiite government, who are also supporting Assad are people the US army was fighting and dying for to keep in power. That would be fucked up even for American foreign policy.

[El Kabong]

What's wrong with Hezbollah? They're cuddly freedom fighters. They only exist because Israel invaded their country and wouldn't leave and were starting to annex a big chunk of it that included the water source that provides south Lebanon with its water/agriculture. Hezbollah, peace be upon them, need to keep supply lines to Iran open so they're helping out in Syria. If not Israel eventually invade, steal their water and impoverish them like they're doing to the Palestinians. You can't blame anybody for fighting to defend their country, can you?

Also, too, most of the rebels we'd be arming are Iraq War Re-enactors who you were fighting in Iraq a decade ago. And they'll be fighting against Iraqi Shiite jihadis who have gone to Syria to fight for Assad. Those guys and the Iraqi Shiite government, who are also supporting Assad are people the US army was fighting and dying for to keep in power. That would be fucked up even for American foreign policy.

Always blaming Israel is a bit prejudiced Kirkland, they ARE the minority state in that area you know you horrible bigot

[Kirkland Laing]

What's wrong with Hezbollah? They're cuddly freedom fighters. They only exist because Israel invaded their country and wouldn't leave and were starting to annex a big chunk of it that included the water source that provides south Lebanon with its water/agriculture. Hezbollah, peace be upon them, need to keep supply lines to Iran open so they're helping out in Syria. If not Israel eventually invade, steal their water and impoverish them like they're doing to the Palestinians. You can't blame anybody for fighting to defend their country, can you?

Also, too, most of the rebels we'd be arming are Iraq War Re-enactors who you were fighting in Iraq a decade ago. And they'll be fighting against Iraqi Shiite jihadis who have gone to Syria to fight for Assad. Those guys and the Iraqi Shiite government, who are also supporting Assad are people the US army was fighting and dying for to keep in power. That would be fucked up even for American foreign policy.

Always blaming Israel is a bit prejudiced Kirkland, they ARE the minority state in that area you know you horrible bigot

Why did Hezbollah come into existence? Why do they remain in existence?

And I'm fine leaving the bigotry to you Lyle.

[El Kabong]

Why did Hezbollah come into existence? Why do they remain in existence?

And I'm fine leaving the bigotry to you Lyle.

Because Israel had enough of the PLO in South Lebanon lofting rockets into Israel so they decided to do something about it and when the little Lezbos got the crap slapped out of them they cried foul as per usual....."B-b-b-but we can't defeat Israel "

They remain in existence because they much like the other "Palestinians" are the lynch pin behind Arab and Persian unification.

Of course, there's NEVER been a liberal bigot you're a pathetic little bastard you know that? Of course you'd have to because you know EVERYTHING

[Kirkland Laing]

Why did Hezbollah come into existence? Why do they remain in existence?

And I'm fine leaving the bigotry to you Lyle.

Because Israel had enough of the PLO in South Lebanon lofting rockets into Israel so they decided to do something about it and when the little Lezbos got the crap slapped out of them they cried foul as per usual....."B-b-b-but we can't defeat Israel "

They remain in existence because they much like the other "Palestinians" are the lynch pin behind Arab and Persian unification.

Of course, there's NEVER been a liberal bigot you're a pathetic little bastard you know that? Of course you'd have to because you know EVERYTHING

Calm down, Uncle Daddy. As usual you're just ranting away here. This is too nonsensical to try and answer but where and how are Sunni Arabs and Shiite Persians trying to unify?

[VictorCharlie]

My issue with Hezbollah isn't that they oppose Israel (the anti-semitic rhetoric isn't endearing though) but rather that they are simply a proxy of Iran and not necessarily the legitemate military of Lebanon. If we agree that the US should stop meddling in other countries then this should hold true for Iran as well. Regardless, when it comes to Israel VS Hezbollah no one is innocent or the good guy. Anyway as responded to your first post I agree the right thing to do is not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

[Beanz]

Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.

[El Kabong]

Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.

I certainly don't give a fuck what happens in Syria it's THEIR Civil War.....why give weapons (and money which we don't fucking have) to some dopes with the same views on the Western World as the Assad regime

If we help then we're helping people who want to kill us and many will die in their wake and if we don't help the other group that wants to kill us will win and many will die in their wake....it's a no win situation.

[Kirkland Laing]

Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.

It's nice that we care about civilians being killed now. We put sanctions on Iraq that killed over a million civilians, mainly children. We're backing regimes in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain and the other Gulf emirates who ruthlessly supress and kill any kind of civilian opposition. Circulating a petition in Saudi asking for democratic elections will get you thirty years if you're lucky. Doctors in Bahrain treating pro-democracy protestors have been executed in their offices or thrown in jail without trial. We'll stand any level of killing and repression from any dictator in the region who we support, including Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s, so don't say I'm point scoring or any other bullshit when I point out facts.

Once agin -- we don't give a flying fuck, not a moment's thought to civilian repression and death in the Middle East. We only notice it's happening when we want to use it as an excuse to intervene over there. Right now there are civilians being slaughtered in half a dozen conflicts in Africa. When was the last time you saw coverage of one of those conflicts, hmm? When was the last time an African conflict was wall-to-wall coverage on the teevee?


And you seriously want to give weapons to the rebels? Most of those guy swe were calling Al Quaeda terrorists and fighting them in Iraq a decade ago. They just killed a 14 year old boy for being disrespectful to Islam and that's only one story that's made it through into our free press. Neither side in this are angels and neither side is good news for us, just one side hates Iran too so some idiots on our side think it's a good idea to support them.

[Beanz]

Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.

It's nice that we care about civilians being killed now. We put sanctions on Iraq that killed over a million civilians, mainly children. We're backing regimes in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain and the other Gulf emirates who ruthlessly supress and kill any kind of civilian opposition. Circulating a petition in Saudi asking for democratic elections will get you thirty years if you're lucky. Doctors in Bahrain treating pro-democracy protestors have been executed in their offices or thrown in jail without trial. We'll stand any level of killing and repression from any dictator in the region who we support, including Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s, so don't say I'm point scoring or any other bullshit when I point out facts.

Once agin -- we don't give a flying fuck, not a moment's thought to civilian repression and death in the Middle East. We only notice it's happening when we want to use it as an excuse to intervene over there. Right now there are civilians being slaughtered in half a dozen conflicts in Africa. When was the last time you saw coverage of one of those conflicts, hmm? When was the last time an African conflict was wall-to-wall coverage on the teevee?


And you seriously want to give weapons to the rebels? Most of those guy swe were calling Al Quaeda terrorists and fighting them in Iraq a decade ago. They just killed a 14 year old boy for being disrespectful to Islam and that's only one story that's made it through into our free press. Neither side in this are angels and neither side is good news for us, just one side hates Iran too so some idiots on our side think it's a good idea to support them.

I never suggested arming the rebels. You are point scoring, it's not bullshit. Yourself and Miles are no different to Lyle. You have an entrenched position, you have already made up your mind and are much more interested in pointing out the flaws in others arguments than providing any alternatives. Yours is the politics of inaction. You act like an apologist for dictators that kill their own civilians and then reserve the right to apply a different criteria for judging Western elements. The whole regions problems are complex and rooted in the balance not only between Sunni and Shia but between democrats and theisits, moderates and extremists, Jews ,Christians and Muslims. Yet you can only offer a rebuttal that blames interventions by the west as though those weilding power within the middle east from Imans, to Ayatollahs and Presidents and extremists should just be allowed to kill their own as long as its not an outside power that causes that death.

Miles and yourself go on and on, endlessly about Britain and the States having an expansionist Imperialist, nationalistic agenda and yet you both wash your hands of the difficult alternative. If you want an internationalist society where countries respect others and do not only operate under self interest, then other peoples problems are not something you can just ignore. If you care about ideals and human rights then it means nothing if you think they only apply to you. That is the naive reasoning of a college kid still wet behind the ears, not a responsible, reasoning adult whose experience has taught them that real life is concerned with making difficult uncomfortable decisions.

[Kirkland Laing]

Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.

It's nice that we care about civilians being killed now. We put sanctions on Iraq that killed over a million civilians, mainly children. We're backing regimes in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain and the other Gulf emirates who ruthlessly supress and kill any kind of civilian opposition. Circulating a petition in Saudi asking for democratic elections will get you thirty years if you're lucky. Doctors in Bahrain treating pro-democracy protestors have been executed in their offices or thrown in jail without trial. We'll stand any level of killing and repression from any dictator in the region who we support, including Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s, so don't say I'm point scoring or any other bullshit when I point out facts.

Once agin -- we don't give a flying fuck, not a moment's thought to civilian repression and death in the Middle East. We only notice it's happening when we want to use it as an excuse to intervene over there. Right now there are civilians being slaughtered in half a dozen conflicts in Africa. When was the last time you saw coverage of one of those conflicts, hmm? When was the last time an African conflict was wall-to-wall coverage on the teevee?


And you seriously want to give weapons to the rebels? Most of those guy swe were calling Al Quaeda terrorists and fighting them in Iraq a decade ago. They just killed a 14 year old boy for being disrespectful to Islam and that's only one story that's made it through into our free press. Neither side in this are angels and neither side is good news for us, just one side hates Iran too so some idiots on our side think it's a good idea to support them.

I never suggested arming the rebels. You are point scoring, it's not bullshit. Yourself and Miles are no different to Lyle. You have an entrenched position, you have already made up your mind and are much more interested in pointing out the flaws in others arguments than providing any alternatives. Yours is the politics of inaction. You act like an apologist for dictators that kill their own civilians and then reserve the right to apply a different criteria for judging Western elements. The whole regions problems are complex and rooted in the balance not only between Sunni and Shia but between democrats and theisits, moderates and extremists, Jews ,Christians and Muslims. Yet you can only offer a rebuttal that blames interventions by the west as though those weilding power within the middle east from Imans, to Ayatollahs and Presidents and extremists should just be allowed to kill their own as long as its not an outside power that causes that death.

Miles and yourself go on and on, endlessly about Britain and the States having an expansionist Imperialist, nationalistic agenda and yet you both wash your hands of the difficult alternative. If you want an internationalist society where countries respect others and do not only operate under self interest, then other peoples problems are not something you can just ignore. If you care about ideals and human rights then it means nothing if you think they only apply to you. That is the naive reasoning of a college kid still wet behind the ears, not a responsible, reasoning adult whose experience has taught them that real life is concerned with making difficult uncomfortable decisions.

You're saying that we can't remain inactive in the face of all this slaughter. Fine, let's forget all the other past and current situations where we're remaining/remained active or all the situations where we are or were actively propping up/arming dictatorships or actively killing people from the region ourselves. Actually, no, fuck it. Seeing as I'm answering your question (below) how the fuck can you suddenly a. get bothered about one situation in the Middle East considering our history there and b. manage to decide the good guys are the rebels, people we were fighting a few years back and the bad guys are the Assad regime, people we were dealing with to various extents up until the latest civil war started. Also, too, how come we completely ignored similar mass slaughter by Bashar Assad's dad Hafez when he was Syrian leader because he was on our side at the time? Why are we making a big deal of it now alliances have changed in the region, hmmm?

Now, to answer your question. As far as the west is concerned the action they want to take is to remove the Assad regime. Negotiations don't begin until Assad agrees to go into exile somewhere. Now the Assad regime just sren't going to do that. Whether they're democratic or not, the Assad regime is the sovereign government of Syria in the same way Putin and the Chinese Communist Party run their respective countries. And we've arrogantly decided to arm a bunch of jihadi nutcases to overthrow a sovereign government because we don't like that government's alliances. Neither the jihadi rebels or the Assad regime aregreat options for Syria. Neither one is going to turn Syria into a democratic paradise. The rebels want to turn the country into an Islamic state, something much worse than the current regime. So our proposed action is to attempt to unlawfully overthrow a sovereign government, something we've done in the past in the region that has caused us great problems afterward, and to strategically ally ourselves with the people we're simultaneuosly calling the greatest threat to our way of life. Can you see there are one or two ethical and practical problems with what we're trying to do, actual legitimate gripes I might have with what we're trying to do that aren't just "point scoring"?

[Beanz]

I am not suggesting arming the rebels, but Lyle you too are oversimplifying the situation. It's a bit of jump to suggest that all the rebels are crushed civilians pushing for a democracy, just as it not true to assume that they are all Islamic extremists with visions of a more hardcore regime than Assads. A Government is killing it's own civilians and outside influences are helping them do it. There is where pressure should be applied, diplomatically.

[El Kabong]

I am not suggesting arming the rebels, but Lyle you too are oversimplifying the situation. It's a bit of jump to suggest that all the rebels are crushed civilians pushing for a democracy, just as it not true to assume that they are all Islamic extremists with visions of a more hardcore regime than Assads. A Government is killing it's own civilians and outside influences are helping them do it. There is where pressure should be applied, diplomatically.

Uh huh, just like it was in Sudan and Rwanda? I mean come on if everybody is going to start sticking noses in other peoples business then you best do it for everyone.

The rebels have been accused of using chemical weapons too

[Beanz]

That's the point though. If people shouldn't stick their nose in then that should apply to Russia too. Just as much as people who are worried about the innocent civilians killed in Iraq etc should have the courage to follow that through and have demanded people intervened in Rwanda. There are no easy answers and I do give a fuck about innocent people being killed. Them not being English is not important.

[El Kabong]

That's the point though. If people shouldn't stick their nose in then that should apply to Russia too. Just as much as people who are worried about the innocent civilians killed in Iraq etc should have the courage to follow that through and have demanded people intervened in Rwanda. There are no easy answers and I do give a fuck about innocent people being killed. Them not being English is not important.

The simple fact that they will instantly turn our weapons and money against us is reason enough to let them die...it's happened time and time again! No more, we shouldn't waste resources we don't have to help people who eventually want to kill us. That's either side of this cluster fuck too! Assad sucks but his opposition aren't any better....it's like Chelsea playing Man U....I don't give 2 shits who wins I just hope they hurt each other really bad.