Wars. If only people would sit down...

[DullDebbie]

and talk over a nice cup of tea. I'm not sure why MN felt iot necessary to end Gecko's Marine thread.

But what type?

Rooibois, Earl Grey or PG Tips?

There's only one way to settle the question claig - FIGHT!

Claig - spare me your C+P'ing.

"Destroying the unity of the Syrian state".

You have no idea. None. You have no idea why the Syrians rose up against Assad, have you?

You are mistaken if you think Hizbollah only entered the conflict to oppose Al Qaeda, they've been there from day one. Unlike, the Jihadi elements, who by your own C+Ping, didn't enter the conflict until hostilities had been going on for at least a year. You also haven't countered my point that the majority of the rebels are Syrian and the majority of them are in the FSA.

As for the always mentioned cannibalism - that was one person who was widely condemned! Shall I consider all UK forces in Afghanistan to be murderers following the action of the recently convicted marine? No. I'm not finding any solid evidence of widespread massacres of Christians either.

Of course, there have been many, many massacres by the Syrian Army and the regime Shabiha, but you haven't seen fit to mention that have you? Particularly all the air strikes they've carried out on civilian areas in aircraft supplied those "peace-brokers", the Russians.

As for that Guardian article claiming it's all secretly about gas and oil, I cannot tell you how insulting such conspiracy theories are to the Syrian people. This is their revolution, they have 40 years worth of reasons to want the Assad regime gone.

"Claig - spare me your C+P'ing."

I'm not doing it for you, you probably can't understand it. I am doing it for other readers.

"Destroying the unity of the Syrian state".

You have no idea. None. You have no idea why the Syrians rose up against Assad, have you?"

It has been one state for many years now and teh aim is to balkanize it just as was done with Yugoslavia in order to weaken it.

The BBC told us that the uprising started after Assad cracked down heavy-handedly on a protest after Assad has sacked the governor of a province. I C+Ped it for you.

"You are mistaken if you think Hizbollah only entered the conflict to oppose Al Qaeda, they've been there from day one."

Of course they didn't do it just to stop Al Qaeda. Assad could stop those muppets himself.

But Hizbollah weren't there in large numbers from "day one" or warmongering newspapers and TV channels would have told us about it and there would have been more pressure on Assad.

'You also haven't countered my point that the majority of the rebels are Syrian and the majority of them are in the FSA.'

No I haven't countered it because you are probably right about that, but we have had reports of some of them joining and fighting with Al Qaeda.

"Shall I consider all UK forces in Afghanistan to be murderers following the action of the recently convicted marine? No."

No, and as well as not being murderers, none of them have eaten anybody's heart or lung either.

' I'm not finding any solid evidence of widespread massacres of Christians either.'
There have already been massacres of Christians and murdering of priests. If Al Qaeda and the fundamentalist Jihadis win the war, then I think there could be more of these atrocities against innocent Christians by religious fanatics.

"Of course, there have been many, many massacres by the Syrian Army and the regime Shabiha, but you haven't seen fit to mention that have you? Particularly all the air strikes they've carried out on civilian areas in aircraft supplied those "peace-brokers", the Russians."

I haven't heard of any Syrian army units or soldiers descending to the barbarism of eating people's hearts or lungs. Unfortunately, air strikes are part of wars and civil wars, just as we bombed Serb civilians when we went to war.

"I cannot tell you how insulting such conspiracy theories are to the Syrian people. This is their revolution, they have 40 years worth of reasons to want the Assad regime gone."

Are Assad's supporters and the Christians etc not also Syrian people and do you really think Assad is so stupid not to realise what this war is really all about and why the Saudis are funding it and what they seek to get from it?

This is a revolution of some of the Syrian people backed by Saudi Arabia and aided by foreign mercenaries, Jihadis and Al Qaeda and they have been asking for teh West to intervene and strike and arm them. Assad and his supporters are not foreigners in their land and they have nowhere else to go or to go back to - unlike the mercenaries and Jihadis and Al Qaeda elements - and they are fighting for their survival against Saudi funded forces among others.

Claig - I have visited Syria several times, have lots of family there, lots of friends from there, have followed news and politics from there for years and am reasonably well versed in the history of the country and you claim the only reason I disagree with you, is because I don't understand you?

Your argument about Hizbollah is facile, Nasrallah has been openly speaking about the conflict and supporting the regime since 2011 and it is almost certain that Hizbollah have been in Syria since then. Not everything is a media conspiracy.

The straightforward reason why there has been limited involvement from the West is fear of a Proxy war and not wanting to engage Iran on anything other than their own terms. Syria is not a great enough prize to fight Iran for, compared to another situation where the West could come away with pro-Western regime change occurring in Iran.

As for Balkanisation, there have been mutterings from the regime about that being a solution, they've already picked out parts of the country that they want, there has been nothing from any Syrian rebels supporting such a move.

'you claim the only reason I disagree with you, is because I don't understand you?'

I didn't say anything about you disagreeing with me. You had a dig about my C+Ping, so I said you didn't like it because you probably didn't understand it.

'Your argument about Hizbollah is facile, Nasrallah has been openly speaking about the conflict and supporting the regime since 2011 and it is almost certain that Hizbollah have been in Syria since then. Not everything is a media conspiracy.'

Of course he has been supporting Assad, because he is a Shiite and is with Iran and against Saudi Arabia, but he didn't send his fighters in large numbers from day one or our BBC and some of our intervention supporting politicians would have mentioned it constantly as a justification for greater intervention by us against the wishes of the British people.

"The straightforward reason why there has been limited involvement from the West is fear of a Proxy war and not wanting to engage Iran on anything other than their own terms"

No, I think the real reason is because of Russia which is a much more serious enemy than Iran and an enemy that can fight in many more theatres than Iran can.

'As for Balkanisation, there have been mutterings from the regime about that being a solution, they've already picked out parts of the country that they want, there has been nothing from any Syrian rebels supporting such a move.'

You don't really believe that Syrian rebels are dictating or deciding what the aims of this war are do you? The rebels who ask for us to help and intervene. The objectives of this war are decided way above a local chief's head - by Saudi paymasters and other strategists who are paying for the arms and fighters and who have already decided what they want. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are not already talking to the Russians and Assad what their shifting aims are through intermediaries, just as we negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan whilst simulataneously fighting them.

The Libyan rebels didn't decide what the outcome of their war would be. They asked for our help and we used our air power and they did as they were told. The piper calls the tune.

And on the other side, Assad has to listen to Russia just as Milosevic had to, and if Russia decides to drop Syria as it dropped Milosevic then with the amount of money that Saudi Arabia can throw at the war, then Assad would be in very serious trouble which is why Saudi Arabia tried to cut a deal with Russia to drop Syria.

But as long as Russia supports Syria, then Assad will have to do what Russia wants, just as the Syrian rebels will have to do what Saudi Arabia etc wants.

Saudi aren't backing the FSA claig. Most FSA weaponry has been obtained from whenever they have taken over any regime weapons dumps.

However, if the Libyan rebels did as they were told, why is Libya not stable (in certain regions) now, when it would certainly be in Western interests for it to be so? From all the examples you've given upthread it should be very clear, that events and organisations are not as easily manipulated from outside as some think and certainly that any manipulation may well have very unintended consequences.

Before deciding you know exactly what is going to happen in Syria, it is also worth considering what the Syrian economy consists of (clue: not oil) and who are the actual prime movers behind that economy (clue 2: not the regime, although that's certainly where they got their money from). You seem to view anyone outside of the west as a puppet for manipulation, when things are far more complex then that.

'why is Libya not stable (in certain regions) now, when it would certainly be in Western interests for it to be so?'

Don't you understand that the whole Arab Spring has been a CIA policy to destabilize all Arab countries "reshape the Middle East"? The aim is destabilization, not stability and strength. The aim is to weaken them and set them back and set them at each other's throats.

The aim is to balkanize and weaken Syria and set them at each other's throats in order to weaken them for decades as they are placed in debt to pay to rebuild a destroyed country, just as was done in Iraq, where we are told that oops there was no real plan as to what would happen after the victory. The strategists apparently forgot about that bit.

'events and organisations are not as easily manipulated from outside as some think and certainly that any manipulation may well have very unintended consequences'

The CIA are masters of manipulation and have years of practice and very clever people who study these things, but yes, they can't get everything right and there are always unintended consequences, which is why I suspect that the strike on Syria was called off, because the risk of unintended consequences was too great and it might have escalated to a war with Russia.

Oh Claig. The Arab countries under their previous/current regimes were already as weak as witch piss. The Arab League has as much teeth as mouldy bread. Syria having friends the West didn't approve of didn't make it a strong country, or in any way feared. There are also plenty more countries the west could do far more profitable rebuilding in then Syria, Zimbabwe being a prime example.

If it's all a plot, why did they forgot what to do post Iraq? You aren't making any sense, so I will bow out now. This is all just speculation a bit of side-reading to you, it is significantly more than that to me.

'You seem to view anyone outside of the west as a puppet for manipulation, when things are far more complex then that.'

Power is about getting your objectives. If it can be done without war then so much the better and that is where manipulation comes into it and where coups and uprisings and revolutions and Arab Springs and Orange Revolutions are engineered and that is a better way of reaching objectives because fewer people die than in open wars. America is the power and it not only manipulates non-Western countries, but it also manipulates Western ones and it also spies and intercepts the phone calls of Western politicians such as Angela Merkel, even though they are allies. That is only natural and is how the world works.

The anger to the world comes if the strategists miscalculate and start an open war whose consequences they cannot foresee and that is what teh people of the world hope will not happen.

There was a risk of escalation with Russia over Syria, but fortunately someone pulled the plug on the plutocrats who were in favour of it, and now it looks like good news that America and Iran are getting on better and that deals may be able to be made which result in good relations between nations.

There is nothing wrong with manipulation, it is far better than war.

"Syria having friends the West didn't approve of didn't make it a strong country, or in any way feared"

The reason Syria is important is because it is in the Middle East and is an ally of Iran. If Syria goes, then Iran becomes weaker. Also there are new finds of oil and gas off the Syrian coast and Iran intended to send an oil pipeline through Syria which would harm the dominance of Saudi oil.

Zimbabwe is not as strategically important.

"If it's all a plot, why did they forgot what to do post Iraq?"

Because that was the plot - to let Iraq deteriorate from the once advanced nation it was with its hospitals and good standard of living into a sectarian society with Sunnis and Shia at each other's throats and bombing civilians in markets etc in order to weaken it for years to come.

'This is all just speculation a bit of side-reading to you, it is significantly more than that to me.'

Yes I appreciate it means more to you because you have family there, but it is not just speculation to me or the Daily Mail or UKIP or Farage or Diane Abbott or to the British public in general because it has the potential to escalate into a war that might drag this country in as well.

the 25 most vicious war profiteers

iraqs missing millions

always makes me shake my head when anyon really believes that war is over some humanitarian nonsense

we only go to war

if big business have huge gains to make

Yes, custardo, plutocrats and big business stand to gain billions and they carve out the resources of the world and plan how to get control of them. That is the way the world is and always has been.

When it becomes really dangerous is when they become too greedy and are prepared to risk wars with unintended consequences against enemies that they cannot easily defeat and where they may throw the entire world into war.

That is what a lot of the public feared might happen over Syria and is why the Britsih public was so pleased that the strike was called off.

But Dr Strangeloves do exist and plutocrats do exist and they may still come back for more. All we can hope is that our top military brass advise them "don't start something you can't finish" as was reported by the Daily Mail of many of our ex-top generals.

i m rather disconcerted that claig and i are agreeing ...again