Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?

[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"?