Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Latest attack in Syria

427 replies

Jammybean · 21/08/2013 22:11

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

OP posts:
mathanxiety · 31/08/2013 21:17

MiniTheMinx --

If a popular uprising of whatever flavour, with unknown demands take place in somewhere like the UK, should the state act to defend itself?

I would suggest that is would, and that it could very easily progress from being a few rubber bullets if the activists were themselves being armed. As it is the anti-terror laws are being used to infiltrate and collect evidence about political groups. The anti-terror laws would be used to put down a political uprising where that threatened the state making claims upon its sovereignty. Would America be allowing other nations to arm the rebels? would they be supplying intelligence to us? Would they intervene and if so to what end?

All of this has already happened, in the case of Northern Ireland, which was the situation in which the anti-terror laws were gestated. Britain actively put down open insurrection by armed terrorists with a separatist (and Marxist) agenda in NI with the active co-operation of the US government. This happened under successive Labour and Tory governments through the 70s and 80s and into the 90s. A thirty year war on terror was waged with bullets and anti-terror laws and internment and refusal to negotiate with hunger strikers right in Britain's own back garden

mathanxiety · 31/08/2013 21:18

(which is to say, I agree with your points, Mini)

holidaybug · 31/08/2013 21:19

'Ever heard of the Nayirah Testimony'

This was Kuwaiti propaganda - it wasn't US or UK propoganda and it was corroborated by Amnesty International. The US and UK were duped as were others.

Anyway, getting back to the point, would you believe the Assad regime over the UK and US?

mathanxiety · 31/08/2013 21:21

And I agree with Cote that secularism in Turkey is threatened.

mathanxiety · 31/08/2013 21:23

Would you have believed the Iraqi regime (and the Russians iirc) on the matter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, over the word of the US and the UK?

And yet who was right?

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 21:24

We have allied with fundamentalists before, and it has never ended well.

holidaybug · 31/08/2013 21:35

Yes, Iraq was a shambles but we need to move on from that and trust that the lessons have been learned.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 21:40

Afghanistan is the first one I remember, the mujahideen. What a disaster that turned out to be. Libya is the most recent.

Rooners · 31/08/2013 21:44

Obama is going to congress with it, congress reconvenes 9th Sept.

hmmm.

holidaybug · 31/08/2013 21:46

It crossed my mind whether the proximity to September 11th had anything to do with Obama's decision to put it past Congress. Maybe I'm way off the mark though.

Rooners · 31/08/2013 21:48

Oh loads of stuff like this happens at the beginning of sept. Second world war, great fire of london, anything else?

holidaybug · 31/08/2013 21:51

A coincidence probably but the timing may help Obama

Rooners · 31/08/2013 21:56

Oh I see, sorry I need to go to bed. I get what you mean.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 31/08/2013 22:01

I'm sure 9/11 timing has nothing to do with this other than it is around about then that congress reconvenes.

Obama's speech was very considered and very powerful IMO. A brave decision and so very different from Bush.

holidaybug · 31/08/2013 22:05

Brave or safe ... not so sure.

mathanxiety · 31/08/2013 22:08

Afghanistan was a good example of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' turning out horribly for the US. They should have worked out what Mujahideen meant before they decided to arm and train them. And they should have looked beyond their smug assumptions of their own righteousness and the idea that God smiles on the US and all her doings.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 31/08/2013 22:24

I think brave because I really think he has strong convictions about this. He made a really strong case for intervention and it may well go the same way as here.

WetAugust · 31/08/2013 22:29

So Obama steps back from the brink.

This is getting very interesting.

niceguy2 · 31/08/2013 22:53

Yes, Iraq was a shambles but we need to move on from that and trust that the lessons have been learned.

I hope so too. The lessons I learned are:

  1. The secret intelligence services don't always have spies in the right places and can also use google to gather 'evidence' like any school child does for their homework.

  2. Don't go invading other countries without a solid plan about what to do afterwards!! We toppled Sadam quickly then there was this period where it was clear that no-one had thought what to do after.

  3. As with Iraq, Afghanistan, even Kosovo. You cannot force a country to do anything unless you put boots on the ground.

  4. Know who the bad guys are and who you want to support. Afghanistan is a hodge podge of tribes who support whomever they like that week. Over ten years on and the 'Afghan' president is in charge of very little outside Kabul.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 31/08/2013 23:01

I guess what the US and perhaps some of the other International community are not after a regime change but are about making a clear(ish) statement about chemical weapons being utterly against international law, because once you ignore what is a really clear and utterly blatant use of chemical warfare then you are in a whole new ball game.

Solopower1 · 01/09/2013 08:28

It's very good news that Obama is going to Congress before committing the country to war! Let's hope he sets a precedent. Congress (mainly Republican) has fought against him throughout his presidency. Now they will be forced to back him if they want intervention (which I think the majority of them do). It's a brave decision, and a very wise one - and we led the way. The French are also going to debate it on Wednesday. I think this is very good for democracy (in the UK, France and US), and might make world leaders less hasty to go to war. The Arab League Foreign Ministers are also going to discuss this (though surely not for the first time??).

Even if this makes the UK reconsider its decision, at least it will mean there is more chance of us having clear objectives.

And this looks to me more like a strengthening of the 'special relationship' between the US and UK, rather than the reverse. (Though not sure whether that is a good or bad thing).

Solopower1 · 01/09/2013 08:38

In fact it looks like the ordinary British voter having some say over US foreign policy. Or am I letting my enthusiasm run away with me?

Wouldn't it be wonderful, though, if the people who were affected by US policies - ie most the rest of the world - had some influence, however minimal??

Rooners · 01/09/2013 08:44

This is a stupid and naive question I'm about to ask.

What would happen if we all pulled out of supporting or supplying arms to all of these states.

What then?

Animation · 01/09/2013 08:46

"Oh loads of stuff like this happens at the beginning of sept. Second world war, great fire of london, anything else?"

Rooners - yes I thought that - so many wars have begun end of August/Septembet time.

Solopower1 · 01/09/2013 09:19

Rooners - yes. Once again the interests of arms manufacturers (and the jobs they provide and the taxes they pay) come ahead of preventing conflicts and saving lives in far away countries of which we know nothing.

I don't think any national government will ever have the vision to put long term policies to create the pre-conditions for world peace over short term national 'gain', as they perceive it. And if they did, they wouldn't have the public behind them.

So we are condemned to rotate forever in this danse macabre ...