So..... Syria?

[braineclipse]

Thats not my position at all, I am asking how do you choose which country you are going to liberate over the next? Whats your message to the world if you choose to only liberate Syria "your problems pale to those in Syria" and I am talking before the war BTW. Half of Africa would be pretty upset

You start with those that are possible to change in a good way. You start with those that most align with your own global interests because anything else would not be accepted by the general public of your country. You start with those that are threatening international terrorism, land grabbing, genocide and/or nuclear/WMD proliferation.

These are not difficult questions to answer.

 

[Grays_1890]

You start with those that are possible to change in a good way. You start with those that most align with your own global interests because anything else would not be accepted by the general public of your country. You start with those that are threatening international terrorism, land grabbing, genocide and/or nuclear/WMD proliferation.

These are not difficult questions to answer.

By that logic Zimbabwe would be the number 1 target

 

[parklane1]

Ah.... Come on! Did I say that there was nothing to fear? Did I imply it in any way?

Imagine the end of the cold war as the US collapsing financially and there being the Soviet Union as the lone superpower in the world for 20+ years. Or imagine China (arguably the third realistic candidate) being the lone superpower for 20+ years. You really think that would be no worse than the US over the last couple of decades?

Even as a secondary world power (to the only current superpower in the US) Russia under Putin essentially annexed Crimea. Just noped it out of Ukraine and added it to Russia. Imagine what Putin could get away with had they been the only superpower in the world... When was the last time the US annexed something?

Like I said plenty of very good reasons to be upset at US foreign policy. But it seems entirely naive to think that another lone superpower wouldn't be doing even worse things.

You implied there was only one super power at the moment ( which i disagree with anyway) and then went on to give the impression that IF America was the only super power they could be trusted more then any other ( which again i disagree with).

Now i may have misread what you meant ( after all it does happen to ALL of us) if that is the case then i apoligise.

 

[r-u-s-x]

According to the John Simpson documentary last night, there are only 20 dictatorships left in the world now, compared to 90 in 1970

I think universal liberal democracies is achievable in the next 20-30 years.

Most of that is by spreading the message of freedom and getting the population to insist on non Dictatorship rather than military force?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Why does it matter.

A good act is a good act. As the arbiter of these acts we have the right to choose whichever ones suit us.

There are probably more needy and/or effective charities than the ones I choose to donate to. That doesn't make my donation a bad thing to do, neither does not donating to all of them negate it.

Was it a good act to intervene in Iraq / libia / Egypt (and for the US a whole load of C.American countries) ? I am not sure it was, we do not have a good record of intervening in recent memory only the Balkans can be considered a success

 

[Grays_1890]

Most of that is by spreading the message of freedom and getting the population to insist on non Dictatorship rather than military force?

That numbers more towards the 50 mark anyway

 

[r-u-s-x]

but regardless how many success stories of deposing a dictator rather than soft force?

 

[braineclipse]

You implied there was only one super power at the moment ( which i disagree with anyway) and then went on to give the impression that IF America was the only super power they could be trusted more then any other ( which again i disagree with).

Now i may have misread what you meant ( after all it does happen to ALL of us) if that is the case then i apoligise.

None of which would mean that I implied that there was nothing to fear about US foreign policy.

In terms of military power there is only one super power in the world in my opinion. China and Russia may be gaining on the US, but in the 20 years or so after the fall of the Soviet Union we went from two global superpowers to one. For me that's not particularly controversial, though I suppose it could be discussed further.

Yeah. We'll just have to disagree on the other alternatives. I'm delighted we didn't get to find out what had happened if the Soviet Union had won the cold war though. I actually find it baffling that you can't even imagine how that might have been worse.

 

[braineclipse]

By that logic Zimbabwe would be the number 1 target

Perhaps.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

why aren't people marching round the streets of London protesting about what is going on in Syria? I am not being sarky I do not get it, what is happening is worse then what happened in Iraq I do not understand why people are not protesting.

 

[the dza]

why aren't people marching round the streets of London protesting about what is going on in Syria? I am not being sarky I do not get it, what is happening is worse then what happened in Iraq I do not understand why people are not protesting.

People protested against the Iraq War because we were directly involved in blowing people up based on a dodgy dossier. If we were bombing Syria like the Russians are, we'd see more protests here about it.

I hope you get down the Russian Embassy and make yourself heard.

 

[parklane1]

People protested against the Iraq War because we were directly involved in blowing people up based on a dodgy dossier. If we were bombing Syria like the Russians are, we'd see more protests here about it.

I hope you get down the Russian Embassy and make yourself heard.

I don't know how to use the like button.

 

[scaramanga]

Was it a good act to intervene in Iraq / libia / Egypt (and for the US a whole load of C.American countries) ? I am not sure it was, we do not have a good record of intervening in recent memory only the Balkans can be considered a success

So we shouldn't try because it's difficult?

 

[r-u-s-x]

So we shouldn't try because it's difficult?

If you keep fudging up why do exactly the same and expect a different consequence?

We should be aware that things are not as black and white as you make them out and sometimes intervention is just as bad as non intervention. If we are going to do anything we should be aware of the long term costs and responsibilities that follow. Not putting words in your mouth but from your responses on other subjects not sure you would be up for the long term cost both in cash and opportunity cost (army cant be spread too thin).

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

People protested against the Iraq War because we were directly involved in blowing people up based on a dodgy dossier. If we were bombing Syria like the Russians are, we'd see more protests here about it.

I hope you get down the Russian Embassy and make yourself heard.

Yeah I honestly think I will, I am some pretty hard medication at the moment for something that has only cropped up in the last month, I am not using that as an excuse just saying it as it is.

I am appalled at what is happening to those poor children out there, but i am wondering why so many people particularly the muslim community were so against the Iraq war saying how bad it was with a remember quotes like "when one muslim dies we all die" so sure it is not us bombing them but why aren't they more angry? I know a few of the Hollywood lot of gone out to Syria, but really seeing the news reports I can not understand why people are not more angry.

Maybe we have all become more accustomed to tragedy and it is just because I have been home more recently got more time on my hands and watched more t.v. news then I do usually that I have become shocked by it all.

 

[Bullet]

You start with those that are possible to change in a good way. You start with those that most align with your own global interests because anything else would not be accepted by the general public of your country. You start with those that are threatening international terrorism, land grabbing, genocide and/or nuclear/WMD proliferation.

You start with the ones the Yanks want to attack, with lots of oil.

 

[braineclipse]

If you keep fudging up why do exactly the same and expect a different consequence?

We should be aware that things are not as black and white as you make them out and sometimes intervention is just as bad as non intervention. If we are going to do anything we should be aware of the long term costs and responsibilities that follow. Not putting words in your mouth but from your responses on other subjects not sure you would be up for the long term cost both in cash and opportunity cost (army cant be spread too thin).

Couldn't the same question be asked to those who are consistently against military interventions.

I think the conversation should be more about when and how to intervene instead of if it's the right or wrong in general.

You start with the ones the Yanks want to attack, with lots of oil.

Sure. Securing one of the most important natural resources, vital for global energy production and the global economy is going to be a significant part of the global interests of any country.

 

[the dza]

Couldn't the same question be asked to those who are consistently against military interventions.

I think the conversation should be more about when and how to intervene instead of if it's the right or wrong in general.



Sure. Securing one of the most important natural resources, vital for global energy production and the global economy is going to be a significant part of the global interests of any country.

And also, why intervention has to mean regime change. The first Gulf War saw a fairly low risk intervention on the part of The West, with the clear objective of protecting Kuwait. Job done, Kuwait protected, Saddam left in place but given a bitch slap, with regional stability not compromised.

Perhaps the same could have been done with Gaddafi. Perhaps, if there was no insistence on regime change in Syria, there may have been an early and successful intervention. And this is where we come back to why our governments have no problem getting along with horrible regimes who do horrible things in some countries but not in others. Tyranny doesn't seem to come into it so much as the tyrant's compliance with Western interests. At this point, the hypocrisy of self-styled interventionists like George Osbourne and Tony Blair becomes clear.

 

[LutonSpurs]

It's a complex issue. But we have been screaming democracy and liberty for years and when a popular revolution began in Syria and he gunned down crowds of protestors we did nothing. When Gaddafi did it we all went in and consolidated our interests.

Syria was not complicated. There was very little ISIS or AQ initially and if a no fly zone had been established early on, huge swathes of the population would be alive and many more not displaced. Now the people are dead and their relatives are angry and being radicalised as nobody else other than Jihadi nutters seem to care.

Going forward these is no good solution. Iran, Hezbollah and a Russia have made a serious pact. They defecto control Iraq. Are pushing Shia sects in Yemen and a messy battle between Arabs and Shia is happening. Syria is full of hardcore Jihadis who are for the most part not ISIS but are still pretty nuts. Who takes over if he goes?

Ultimately human life has come second to a political game of chess and it's awful.

 

[scaramanga]

If you keep fudging up why do exactly the same and expect a different consequence?

We should be aware that things are not as black and white as you make them out and sometimes intervention is just as bad as non intervention. If we are going to do anything we should be aware of the long term costs and responsibilities that follow. Not putting words in your mouth but from your responses on other subjects not sure you would be up for the long term cost both in cash and opportunity cost (army cant be spread too thin).

I think intervention in Iraq was probably better than not doing so - even if you disagree I suspect you can see it as a possibility considering life before the invasion.

I'd also like to think that we can learn lessons and improve on what we do/how we do it. There's also the contagion factor to consider - if nobody is removing tyrannical dictators, where's the cost to becoming a tyrannical dictator?