Possible action against Syria

[Wyvern]

Let us not forget that this was originally a peaceful protest by ordinary people wanting political representation that was violently put down by Assad and then the fundamental Islamists moved in. Perhaps the best thing this country can do is support the little people.

Solidarity with Syria

There is still an ongoing revolution and broadly speaking, the left/anti-war movement in the West is undermining those struggling to keep it alive by focusing on political posturing and lobbying rather than practical solidarity. An ongoing map of grassroots social resistance as compiled by Amnesty International shows the breadth and creativity of some of these movements mostly unheard of in the West. Together, it's worth noting that participation in these groups outnumbers those participating in armed resistance groups, which challenges the idea that all resistance to dictatorship and imperialism in Syria is militarised.

 

[table38]

All my other opinions on Ed Miliband aside, personally, I'd rather have a leader that listened to public opinion and changed their stances accordingly, rather than one who stood by a position in the face of public hostility.

This IS democracy, after all, no? And democracy is about respecting the wishes of the people, right?

But sometimes leaders have to make unpopular decisions. If they just bottle it and change their minds on a whim to save their political skins, that's not leadership.

 

[jon0844]

Many people now seem to think that we should decide everything that should be done via a poll on a newspaper site, or the general feeling gleaned from social networks - and state this as true democracy.

It would of course mean that newspapers could influence public opinion, while those that shout the loudest online (and perhaps get the support of a celebrity or two) will get their way.

 

[Oswyntail]

Many people now seem to think that we should decide everything that should be done via a poll on a newspaper site, or the general feeling gleaned from social networks - and state this as true democracy.

It would of course mean that newspapers could influence public opinion, while those that shout the loudest online (and perhaps get the support of a celebrity or two) will get their way.

That's now called "Avaaz" or "38 Degrees". Worrying implications for democracy (but that's another thread).

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Many people now seem to think that we should decide everything that should be done via a poll on a newspaper site, or the general feeling gleaned from social networks - and state this as true democracy.

It would of course mean that newspapers could influence public opinion, while those that shout the loudest online (and perhaps get the support of a celebrity or two) will get their way.

I think that newspapers already do influence public opinion (and always have done!)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that France is now said to be "America's oldest ally" which does hark back to historical times of when Great Britain and its unruly overseas colony were at military odds with each other, not forgetting the benefits that accrued to the USA by "The Louisiana Purchase".

 

[jon0844]

I think that newspapers already do influence public opinion (and always have done!)

Of course, but usually that makes a difference at elections. Now it seems the general public want to make decisions our elected politicians used to do on our behalf.

Doing so will naturally run the risk of weak leadership.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that newspapers already do influence public opinion (and always have done!)

I think that this would more refer to the more weaker-minded of their readership who do not have the mental ability to formulate their own considered point of view.

 

[SS4]

Putin has asked Obama to prove his claims that the regime has attacked rebels with chemical weapons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that this would more refer to the more weaker-minded of their readership who do not have the mental ability to formulate their own considered point of view.

Newspapers can (and do) restrict the information required for their readers to formulate a considered point of view to fit their own bias or to serve their own agenda. In this country we, by and large, have a functional spread if people want to look for it but I suspect people pick those sources which agree with them.

With regards to Syria seemingly all the so-called respectable outlets have been anti-Assad until public opinion turned against it that is!

 

[Wyvern]

Of course, but usually that makes a difference at elections. Now it seems the general public want to make decisions our elected politicians used to do on our behalf.

Doing so will naturally run the risk of weak leadership.

It's a shame that we have so little trust in our politicians - less I think than at any time since Blair and the WMD. But the present government seems to be characterised by a long string of broken promises and outright lies - so much so that they have been publicly rebuked on a number of occasions by civil servants who normally stay in the background.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst the matter of Shia v. Sunni Islamic main religious divisions have already been noted on this thread, it must be remembered that the current ruling elite in Syria are from the sect known as the Alawites who have been described as being heretical by Sunni scholars, because of their somewhat adherence to the Shia Muslim beliefs have many unusual differences.

However, when the matter of Shia v. Sunni conflict arose there, it was noticeable that the main Shia power bases of the Shia Iranian theocracy and the Shia Lebanese Hezbollah immediately sided with the Syrian Alawites.

 

[Wyvern]

REUTERS: France will not act alone in Syria, PM to meet parliament heads

French Interior Minister Manuel Valls said on Sunday France would not act alone in Syria but would await a decision by the U.S. Congress on whether to launch an attack against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

"France cannot go it alone," Valls told Europe 1 radio. "We need a coalition."

France's prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, is scheduled to meet with the heads of the two houses of parliament and the opposition on Monday to discuss the Syrian situation ahead of a parliamentary debate on Wednesday.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I really cant work out what America is up to. All that will happen is that a secular state will be replaced by a rabid Muslim one which will mean death to the Xtians and antitheists and surely wont please the US's friends in Israel.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All these problems stemmed from the naive American belief that having seen the end of Communism in the USSR, they decided that "American-style democracy" would be welcomed by the Arab and the Asian Muslim states. Neither the Shia or the Sunni Muslim theocratic leaders will have any truck whatsoever with that particular idea.

 

[Wyvern]

The other thing is that arab countries need a powerful central authority or they split into multiple factions as has been seen in others. Saudi Arabia is a good example, where it was formed in 1932 by Abdul-Aziz pulling together a miscellaneous bunch of different tribes and is maintained by having royal family members in all parts of the country.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nothing new, as expected, came from the Russia/USA meetings at the G20 meeting. Russia totally implacable against military force being used against Syria.

 

[SS4]

Nothing new, as expected, came from the Russia/USA meetings at the G20 meeting. Russia totally implacable against military force being used against Syria.

Since when did that stop the US?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since when did that stop the US?

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Therefore, if either China or Russia decided to take similar offensive action elsewhere in the world, I am sure that the Security Council would be just as helpless.

 

[bb21]

Therefore, if either China or Russia decided to take similar offensive action elsewhere in the world, I am sure that the Security Council would be just as helpless.

I must chuckle at this statement, Paul. Not gonna happen, not in a million years as long as the communists are in power. The government does not have the guts to do anything of the sort, not without US's implicit agreement at least.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I must chuckle at this statement, Paul. Not gonna happen, not in a million years as long as the communists are in power. The government does not have the guts to do anything of the sort, not without US's implicit agreement at least.

I suppose that the annexing of Tibet was the Chinese last foray into such action. I cannot recall the USA intervening then over that matter.

 

[bb21]

I suppose that the annexing of Tibet was the Chinese last foray into such action. I cannot recall the USA intervening then over that matter.

I won't get into too much details but suffice to say that the USA had its hands tied at that time and it was agreed internationally at the time that it was a domestic issue, and it was, officially at least. International interference would not have gained the approval of the ROC, who held China's seat on the UN Security Council at the time and was an important ally the west dare not lose.

Completely different scenario this time round. Again I won't go into too much details but if you can figure out what proportion of top PRC officials have had their offspring and wealth sent abroad to the west (I'll give you a clue - the number is not low), you will understand why China would not be involved in any military action without the US's implicit agreement at least. It's a gamble those top officials can ill-afford to lose.

It is a sad fact, and it makes my blood boil every time I think about it, but it is sadly true.

 

[Wyvern]

No oil in Tibet I dont think.

As for money flowing out of the country, one of the West's major problems is that it is in hock to China. We buy vast amounts of products without selling much to them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Expounding upon the theme of oil from the last posting by Wyvern, the Wahabi stronghold that is Saudi Arabia from whence much of the Islamic fundamentalist message is spread, is a staunch ally of the USA, despite the diametrically opposed theological beliefs that are espoused by its theocratic religious leadership, which does in turn seem to be subverted by the oil wealth accumulation of the ruling royal family there.

 

[bb21]

No oil in Tibet I dont think.

All I can say is lol.

As for money flowing out of the country, one of the West's major problems is that it is in hock to China. We buy vast amounts of products without selling much to them.

While that is true, there is a substantial amount of money flowing out of China through various channels. (That is not to say things balance out, of course not.) For example, tourism, and especially expenditure on luxury goods by the newly enriched middle class. Have you seen how some of them buy things such as Gucci handbags when they flock to the retail outlets? hock: It's almost as if they have never seen things such as handbags or shoes before. They are not bought in ones or twos, or even single figures. They are frequently bought in double-digit quantities, by each person.

Also the amount of wealth these officials and business people I mentioned previously possess cannot be underestimated. One story goes that a businesswoman paid a bail of $2m without even blinking to get her son who was arrested in the US back to China. The authorities deliberately set the bail at that figure as they never thought it would be possible for him to avoid trial on US soil. Everyone was more than a little shocked shall I say when they realised what happened. In another most recent example, an executive of an insurance company escaped with £50m alone stashed away in several overseas bank accounts, and she is only an executive of an insurance company.

There are thousands of communist party officials who have money stashed away abroad and I hate to think how much wealth they own in total.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how much China sees of its suplus capital reserves being invested in the African continent to enable it to extract the raw minerals that it needs to keep its economy growing ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I see that as a follow-up warning to the USA, Russia has now said that "unspecified military support" will be given to Syria by Russia should the USA take any military action against Syria.

Make of this as you will.

 

[ainsworth74]

I see that as a follow-up warning to the USA, Russia has now said that "unspecified military support" will be given to Syria by Russia should the USA take any military action against Syria.

Make of this as you will.

Well for one Putin isn't going to start a war with NATO over Syria. All that means is that Russia will probably start supplying Syria with cut price top of the range equipment (perhaps not the cutting edge but at least at the higher end of their portfolio of weaponry) and lots of it.

 

[Drsatan]

Well for one Putin isn't going to start a war with NATO over Syria. All that means is that Russia will probably start supplying Syria with cut price top of the range equipment (perhaps not the cutting edge but at least at the higher end of their portfolio of weaponry) and lots of it.

What will probably happen is that Russia might sell some second hand S300 anti aircraft missile systems, or even some newer S400 air defence systems, possibly at a reduced 'friendship' price because Syria is practically bankrupt. I can imagine Russia will sell more anti-ship missiles to Syria to deter an invasion from the sea.

What's more worrying is whether Iran will retaliate if military action is taken against Syria. Blocking the straits of Hormuz to US shipping would be a lot more dangerous than Syria shooting down a USAF F-16.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What's more worrying is whether Iran will retaliate if military action is taken against Syria. Blocking the straits of Hormuz to US shipping would be a lot more dangerous than Syria shooting down a USAF F-16.

If Iran, as a large Shia theocracy, were to block entry to and from the straits of Hormuz, how would the Wahabi Sunni state of Saudi Arabia react to try to ensure that its oil exports were not affected ? Saudi Arabia have had no shortage of money in recent times to purchase the top of the range weaponry of all types.

 

[ainsworth74]

What will probably happen is that Russia might sell some second hand S300 anti aircraft missile systems, or even some newer S400 air defence systems, possibly at a reduced 'friendship' price because Syria is practically bankrupt. I can imagine Russia will sell more anti-ship missiles to Syria to deter an invasion from the sea.

Yup that would be my assumption also and they might sell them a few other bit's a pieces (armour and artillery perhaps, very useful for dealing with rebels). Besides I'm sure Russia would like to see how some of it's more recent kit performs against some modern Western equipment.

If Iran, as a large Shia theocracy, were to block entry to and from the straits of Hormuz, how would the Wahabi Sunni state of Saudi Arabia react to try to ensure that its oil exports were not affected ? Saudi Arabia have had no shortage of money in recent times to purchase the top of the range weaponry of all types.

Saudi defence spending is number seven in the world and as you might imagine they have bought themselves quite a few shiny toys for that money so from a purely academic point of view a conflict between the two would be interesting. That being said I'm not sure that Iran would risk closing the Straits over Syria. The costs to them would be immense (the US has been spoiling for a fight against Iran on and off for a number of years now) for very little actual gain. Iran may make a big song and dance about supporting their ally but when it comes down to it I suspect their own self-interest will prevent them doing anything too rash.

 

[Wyvern]

May be that's the American plan - to draw Iran into the war and get at the oil. Let's face it America isnt that bothered about chemical weapons or they'd stop using white phosphorus and depleted uranium. However there are apparently signs of oil on the Golan Heights which, no doubt, Israel would ike to get their hands on.

 

[anthony263]

May be that's the American plan - to draw Iran into the war and get at the oil. Let's face it America isnt that bothered about chemical weapons or they'd stop using white phosphorus and depleted uranium. However there are apparently signs of oil on the Golan Heights which, no doubt, Israel would ike to get their hands on.

The US in my opinion is itching for a fight and no doubt are watching Iran (Who I think are the Americans true targets) Israel I think are also waiting since they know something has got to give soon.

Hopefully the UK government will keep itself out of this conflict although some how I doubt it especially if Syria/Iran make the blunder of attacking Turkey then Nato will be jumping into the battle (Perfect excuse though to justify a war in Syria)

Anyway North Korea must be lonely not getting any attention from the americans