Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?

[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.

[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.

[VictorCharlie]

Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.

Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.

America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.

Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality. It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.

[Gandalf]

Chemical weapons that kill 150 or ordinary weapons that kill 50,000? I don't really see the need to distinguish in the way that William Hague does. White phosphorous is not an ordinary weapon when used to kill civilians, though America and Israel would perhaps like it to be. Regardless, Israel did use it. Syria's chemical weapons are still largely in the realm of propaganda than anything tenable.

As for Greenbeanz, I am not trying to score points. I am posting a political thread on a boxing forum, I am expressing my honest point of view. I don't believe that the rebels should be armed. They have eaten a dead soldiers intestines, does that sound like the Robin Hood posse that will eventually want to be warm and cosy with Middle England? It's NONE of our business and we are falling into the same old traps.

If we are to be supporting rebels then I ask for consistency, support the Palestinians and the Bahraini's too. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite nation with a proven track record of telling porkies. We practially ignore countries that DO have nukes and a proven track record of invading its neighbors.Oh, but we like that. We don't even just invade our neighbors we make up things and invade countries far, far away.

The agendas are obvious and people in Britain and America know the score. They are against arming the rebels as polls show. Most of the Middle East is against it too, but the will of the people is once again swept aside by the dictarorial war drum powers of Britain and America. Is the the majority of the world just trying to score points, because if we erase my views and those of Kirkland, we still have everyone here against arming the rebels and the majority of the people around the world too.

[El Kabong]

Yes, and your government has also used nuclear bombs, napalm and phosporous. It doesn't matter what your government tells you is okay as it is clear that your government doesn't care about what is okay. Your government tortures, renditions and lies to invade other countries and that is the sector that you have signed up for. Now how any of that can provide a legal framework for anything is insane. I am am sure Hitler had a legal team telling him he was well within his rights etc.

Law is irrelevant as compared to what is moral. Most people would argue that the war in Iraq was wrong and on that basis alone, it doesn't matter about legality. Most would agree on phosphorous too. A country like America talking about chemicals and getting involved in another countries civil war is a joke and not a funny one.

America is the bogeyman and it doesn't take me to make it that way. I am a marginal person, but practically every English and American person I have read is condemning England and America and at the end of the day you are too. We just disagree on phosphorous which any chemist would tell you has all the hallmarks of a chemical weapon. Legalese doesn't hide basic science.

Despite your 2/3 of non-sequiter and hyperbole if you don't see that there is a fundamental difference in the purpose and capability of WP compared to nerve/blister agents then you are simply being willfully ignorant in order to validate your own world view. I do agree with one point though. Law is irrelevant compared to morality and war has nothing to do with morality. It is about killing and applying rules to how and when two groups of people decide to kill each other is pretty moronic.

Thank you!

[El Kabong]

You know what's ironic?

At the same time that Obama is trying to make it harder for US citizens to buy and own guns he is going to supply Syrian "rebels" with weapons which will no doubt fall directly into the hands of terrorists


Fucking moron of a President

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

Hezbollah have their own aims. Some of those may coincide with Iran but they're not an Iranian proxy.

[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.