anglolawyer
Banned
Let's all invade Syria!
- Thread starter anglolawyer
- Start date
anglolawyer
Banned
Not impossible at all but unlikely given that the west lives comfortably enough with brutal dictators when it serves their/our interests.
Thank you
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
When these brutal dictators are finally opposed by their own people Western governments are generally supportive though, aren't we? Libya?
TBH we didn't like him much either and we've certainly not supported uprisings in Bahrain or Burma.
anglolawyer
Banned
Sure. We ride on the bandwagon hoping for friendly relations with the new regime. That's smart. Like I said upthread, we would prefer it if the whole world consisted of peaceful pluralist democracies and we could just chuck away all the weapons and get on with peaceful trading. It isn't though and it is not our bounden duty to make it so but just to push and nudge where possible and practicable.
Sometimes the west has upheld oppressive regimes in order to keep something worse at bay, be it communism or fundamentalist islam. I'll buy that, sure. Lets not have all this BS about caring for the human rights of some Syrian minority no one ever heard of a few months ago.
I've seen this argument before, but I really don't understand it.
The Serbs were mobilizing large forces and sending them to Kosovo. They had already sent this guy down there, responsible for terrible crimes against humanity in Bosnia. We knew what was going to happen.
Were we supposed to wait and let them kill a couple hundred thousand like they did in Bosnia before we acted? You know, people criticized that as well.
What a weird statement.
First of all, speak for yourself. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean that no one else has.
But even so, are we supposed to not care about people we haven't heard of? Can we not care about human rights violations and terrible treatment of people, whether we've heard of them or not?
Are you saying that you don't care? Can you accept that others do?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
We haven't gone into Myanmar (Burma) with guns blazing but the US at least has supported resistance to what was a very brutal dictatorship. Sanctions, asylum for people able to escape. We have advanced various motions within the UN.
anglolawyer
Banned
Yes. Who cares how many they bomb or kill? I certainly do not. But, if serious policy considerations dictate that we intervene then fine. Just cut the crap and the lies and tell it straight.
anglolawyer
Banned
Yes, I am saying I don't care and I am also saying you probably don't care either. But if you do, well that's great. Pretend for a second we both pay taxes to the same government. I do not want my money spent on costly and stupid interventions because people like you say they 'care'. I want to know what's in it for us and if there is nothing I don't want my money wasted.
I accept that others say they care. You will find these people sleeping peacefully most nights, getting on with life and only 'caring' when something awful comes on TV and only until the adverts come on a few minutes after. These are the folks the government counts on when lying about its foreign policy. Try not to be one of them.
You're entitled to those opinions, but I don't think there's any reason for us to interact any further. I simply can't relate to you as another human being.
I'm not one of them. I served in Bosnia, and saw first hand what atrocities the Serbs were capable of. I'm very glad we intervened early in Kosovo so it didn't happen again.
Of course, you don't care.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
No.
What I'm saying is, I'm not terribly concerned that you don't care. I take note of it but I see no need to go on about it at great length. A simple, 'I don't care' would seem to suffice.
Just state your lack of caring and then, as I believe they say on your side of the pond, "Carry on!"
anglolawyer
Banned
I am sure you saw all sorts of unpleasantness. However, your military service does not qualify you to assess the policy reasons lying behind the intervention nor the truth of the claims made on the NATO side.
Let me relate this story to explain my position a bit more. 5th century BC Athens was a Great Power in the eastern Med. It was a city state of about 100,000 male citizens with a total population of maybe 1M - 2M (women, children, slaves etc). It was a democracy. The assembly was elected randomly by lot. You could be tilling a field one day and determining major policy the next (if elected).
Athens was in a war, I think with Sparta. A life and death struggle which Athens was to lose and with it, its position of pre-eminence in the Hellenic world. It headed the Athenian league, a collection of pro-Athenian city states which fought in alliance against Sparta and its allies. There came a time when one of these cities revolted and sought to secede from the league. The revolt was suppressed and a request for orders was sent to Athens. The assembly debated what to do with the city's inhabitants and, on the first day of the debate, decided that all males above a certain age be put to death and the women and children sold into slavery. A ship was despatched with these orders.
However, the debate continued the next day and this time another faction prevailed and it was finally decided to treat the city leniently. Another ship was despatched to overtake the first, to countermand the orders of the first and the city was reprieved.
The speeches of the assembly are preserved by Thucydides. Imagine these people, perhaps the freest people who have ever existed, whose lives and livelihoods depended on true statesmanship in the face of crises every bit as dramatic as those which face us today. The speeches are remarkable. They are entirely devoid of compassion or moral considerations. The first group argued, essentially for deterrence while the second for enlightened self interest. It was pointed out that a ruthless suppression would alienate not only the citizens of this city but others, that any future rebellions would be harder to suppress as the defenders fought with greater desperation and that with moderate treatment and an address of the grievances that led to the revolt, the city could be turned once more into a useful ally against the greater foe.
That is what foreign policy looks like, in reality, whether you think so or not. It is also what it should be: an intelligent assessment of one's own interests and nothing more. You are at liberty to argue that it is in our interests that 'bad' Syrians should not be allowed to kill 'good' ones and there may be an argument out there to that effect which would be worth listening to but it certainly has nothing in it about 'caring' for anybody.
Let me relate this story to explain my position a bit more. 5th century BC Athens was a Great Power in the eastern Med. It was a city state of about 100,000 male citizens with a total population of maybe 1M - 2M (women, children, slaves etc). It was a democracy. The assembly was elected randomly by lot. You could be tilling a field one day and determining major policy the next (if elected).
Athens was in a war, I think with Sparta. A life and death struggle which Athens was to lose and with it, its position of pre-eminence in the Hellenic world. It headed the Athenian league, a collection of pro-Athenian city states which fought in alliance against Sparta and its allies. There came a time when one of these cities revolted and sought to secede from the league. The revolt was suppressed and a request for orders was sent to Athens. The assembly debated what to do with the city's inhabitants and, on the first day of the debate, decided that all males above a certain age be put to death and the women and children sold into slavery. A ship was despatched with these orders.
However, the debate continued the next day and this time another faction prevailed and it was finally decided to treat the city leniently. Another ship was despatched to overtake the first, to countermand the orders of the first and the city was reprieved.
The speeches of the assembly are preserved by Thucydides. Imagine these people, perhaps the freest people who have ever existed, whose lives and livelihoods depended on true statesmanship in the face of crises every bit as dramatic as those which face us today. The speeches are remarkable. They are entirely devoid of compassion or moral considerations. The first group argued, essentially for deterrence while the second for enlightened self interest. It was pointed out that a ruthless suppression would alienate not only the citizens of this city but others, that any future rebellions would be harder to suppress as the defenders fought with greater desperation and that with moderate treatment and an address of the grievances that led to the revolt, the city could be turned once more into a useful ally against the greater foe.
That is what foreign policy looks like, in reality, whether you think so or not. It is also what it should be: an intelligent assessment of one's own interests and nothing more. You are at liberty to argue that it is in our interests that 'bad' Syrians should not be allowed to kill 'good' ones and there may be an argument out there to that effect which would be worth listening to but it certainly has nothing in it about 'caring' for anybody.
The same is true for you, but it obviously doesn't seem to stop you. Beams and splinters in eyes, and all that.
anglolawyer
Banned
No.
What I'm saying is, I'm not terribly concerned that you don't care. I take note of it but I see no need to go on about it at great length. A simple, 'I don't care' would seem to suffice.
Just state your lack of caring and then, as I believe they say on your side of the pond, "Carry on!"
Well, I haven't been going on about it for any great length. I have responded to posts in which it was suggested that the poster cares and I was asked whether I do too. I have gone further and said why it would be wrong to base foreign policy decisions on caring and I have suggested that, in fact, such decisions are not so based but rather on calculations of perceived self interest but that not all the nuances are explained to us because the population comprises a large proportion of soft-headed types who think it's all about good and evil and these people have votes.
And, after consideration, I find I do not mind that you are not terribly concerned whether I care or not. That's actually fine with me. I didn't bring up the subject. I just explained my position when asked.
anglolawyer
Banned
I fail to understand. If we had the real reasons why the US wishes to have an excuse to intervene against Assad I would be able to form an opinion about them, but we don't and I haven't.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Again, I get it. I just think you have a unnecessarily narrow definition of what one's "interests" are. A definition that is not totally supported by events.
Note Western nations normally do not intervene to maintain dictators faced with a serious challenge to their authority. (Mubarak in Egypt.) Even when, by your narrow definition of what our interests are, we would probably have been better served by the Mubarak regime remaining in power.
Syria has multiple times hit Turkish targets, costing Turkish lives, and according to the NATO pact any attack on Turkey is also an attack on the US. If the US wanted to intervene in Syria, what better excuse than acting according to a treaty that technically says they have to?
All evidence I've seen is that the US, and the rest of the West, are very reluctant to do anything about Syria.
Which is, if you ask me, a shame.
ETA: In any case, my comment was about you saying I'm not entitled to an opinion on Bosnia and Kosovo just because I've served during the conflict there. Well, by what right are you entitled to an opinion then?
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
I have not given a definition of what interests are, still less a narrow one. On the contrary, I said that one might formulate an 'ethical' foreign policy based on humanitarian considerations, as the Labour government elected in 1997 set out to do. That would be an interesting exercise. It could be in a country's interests to place ethical considerations above all others, or alongside them. I can well see that. However, I don't believe either the US or the UK have in fact pursued ethical foreign policies in the Middle East or elsewhere. I think they only claim to have done so for the benefit of the credulous. That is the point of the thread.