The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Risso]

US intervention in foreign affairs is certainly not in some way more legitimate than Russian intervention in Ukraine, and a lot more threatening to world peace.

 

What would your suggestions be to tackle IS?

[bickster]

I think he realises the context but I'm not sure how anyone can view Russia's actions in the Ukraine as defensive.

Because if Russia loses its strategically important Black Sea ports it loses an awful lot militarily. If Ukraine joined NATO as the government desires, NATO would surely insist on the removal of the Russian presence. The Ukraine situation has never been about safeguarding ethnic Russians, they are just pawns in Putin's game.

[Wainy316]

So which team are the goodies and which are the baddies?

[AshVilla]

 

US intervention in foreign affairs is certainly not in some way more legitimate than Russian intervention in Ukraine, and a lot more threatening to world peace.

 

What would your suggestions be to tackle IS?

 

 

Nuke the site from orbit

 

Its the only way to be sure

[djdabush]

 

I think he realises the context but I'm not sure how anyone can view Russia's actions in the Ukraine as defensive.

Because if Russia loses its strategically important Black Sea ports it loses an awful lot militarily. If Ukraine joined NATO as the government desires, NATO would surely insist on the removal of the Russian presence. The Ukraine situation has never been about safeguarding ethnic Russians, they are just pawns in Putin's game.

 

 

 

I'd also argue it's about a potential land grab and the public perception of Putin in Russia as the Russian public seem very much behind the idea of defending ethnic Russians against Ukraine and their new allies. Either way I'm not sure sending troops into a neighbouring country as well as supplying and training rebels in said country could ever be seen as a defensive strategy.

[LondonLax]

The vast majority of people in the Crimea decided to return to Russia, in preference to being ruled by the regime which took over in Ukraine.

Now Russia is intervening to support another group of people who similarly don't want to be ruled by the new regime.

The regime in question was installed following US action to stir up action against the previous government in order to topple it, to threaten Russia in line with longstanding aggressive US policy discussed by Brzezinski in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" (interestingly subtitled "American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives"; and revealingly dedicated " For my students - to help them shape tomorrow's world").

Russia's actions are primarily defensive and concerned with its own borders and safety, those of the US aggressive, on the other side of the world in a region where it faces no conceivable threat to its own territory.

As for annexation, as you know, the US uses the technique of installing pliant puppet regimes or supporting tame dictatorships which can be relied on to do as told. No need to send the tanks in, when corrupt regimes can be bribed to allow US bases to be created. Much more cost-effective to have tame natives keeping people in line while doing the asset-stripping, as the Romans discovered.

And I am sure you are just as supportive of Israel when they do the same thing in taking over parts of Gaza or the West Bank...

[mjmooney]

But Peter at the time nooses were left at polling stations in the US, there was no voting allowed in Russia

No, voting was strongly encouraged in Russia at that time. The choice of party was rather limited; at least in the US, the single party was presenting itself in two forms, but the Russians didn't bother with such niceties.

I remember somebody once saying to a Soviet politician: "You aren't a democracy; your people can only vote communist".

He replied: "Neither are you; yours can only vote capitalist".

[snowychap]

There were some rather accepting and 'knowing' looks from Portillo when Galloway was crapping on about stuff on This Week.

 

Jackboot is, unsurprisingly, out of her depth.

[tonyh29]

Galloway shouting at Smith you have a million deaths on your hand was rather disturbing , he can't be far from a straight jacket can he ?

Edited September 25, 2014 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

Galloway shouting at Smith you have a million deaths on your hand was rather disturbing , he can't be far from a straight jacket can he ?

Why?

[chrisp65]

Overall, I've become a little disillusioned with George Galloway.

I suspect he may not be the visionary saviour of us all, but is actually little more than a self publicist that loves the sound of his own voice.

Henceforth I shall view him and his polysyllabic, hyperbolic, music hall peacock utterances simply as infotainment.

[maqroll]

So which team are the goodies and which are the baddies?

US and ISIS bad, everyone else good 

[bickster]

I think he realises the context but I'm not sure how anyone can view Russia's actions in the Ukraine as defensive.

Because if Russia loses its strategically important Black Sea ports it loses an awful lot militarily. If Ukraine joined NATO as the government desires, NATO would surely insist on the removal of the Russian presence. The Ukraine situation has never been about safeguarding ethnic Russians, they are just pawns in Putin's game.

 

 

I'd also argue it's about a potential land grab and the public perception of Putin in Russia as the Russian public seem very much behind the idea of defending ethnic Russians against Ukraine and their new allies. Either way I'm not sure sending troops into a neighbouring country as well as supplying and training rebels in said country could ever be seen as a defensive strategy.

The potential land grab is for the exact reason I stated, the lands strategic importance. As for the Russian population, they believe what they are told by the media, which is very much pro-Putin and puts forward his agenda.

It is defensive in the sense that attack is the best form of defence, he feels I suspect that if he doesn't do something he'll have lost some vitally important strategic sites, weakening Russia. Its that he's defending and thats why its a defensive strategy

[Awol]

Whatever the strategic reasoning of Putin the facts are pretty simple: Russia invaded, occupied and annexed part of a neighbour's sovereign territory.

You'd need to perform some Olympic standard mental gymnastics to draw a comparison between that and a combined western/Arab operation to destroy a terrorist group.

[bickster]

back on topic anyway…

[OutByEaster?]

Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia.

Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group.

 

Which given the US record on the use of veto would be comically ironic.

[Awol]

Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia.

Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group.

Which given the US record on the use of veto would be comically ironic.

Not really comic in its consequences though. We now face the ludicrous position whereby the PM can only ask Parliament for permission to attack IS in Iraq but not in Syria, as if respecting some imaginary border that no longer exists is the paramount concern.

Why? Miliband will not support the UK taking part in a meaningful and sensible approach without UNSC backing, which for the reasons given will not be attainable. That he is ready to play school boy politics on an issue as serious as this only confirms (to me at least) that Miliband is beneath contempt.

[blandy]

I'm just wondering - when exactly has US/NATO/Coalition of the willing involvement in the middle east ended well?

Maybe Kuwait, the first Gulf War, where one state (Iraq) invaded another ( a very clear cut and identifiable "wrong") and they were then removed....though the later consequences are obviously still being felt. 

 

But other than that first action, haven't all subsequent involvements gone a bit pete tong?

 

And if that's the case, what is it exactly about this particular current scramash that's kind of clear - so we know exactly who is who, who is the clear enemy, and how will it be when(if?) the operation is successful.

 

It looks to me again, like the same errors being made again.

 

Drop some bombs on some people, that'll sort it.

Actually it's not the military involvement in attempting to stop a clearly lunatic sect from wreaking further harm to populations that's the issue. It's what are the political aims and objectives. I don't think they really have a handle on it.- Like the newspaper letter Bicks posted.

[blandy]

 

 

Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia.

Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group.

Which given the US record on the use of veto would be comically ironic.

Not really comic in its consequences though. We now face the ludicrous position whereby the PM can only ask Parliament for permission to attack IS in Iraq but not in Syria, as if respecting some imaginary border that no longer exists is the paramount concern.

Why? Miliband will not support the UK taking part in a meaningful and sensible approach without UNSC backing, which for the reasons given will not be attainable. That he is ready to play school boy politics on an issue as serious as this only confirms (to me at least) that Miliband is beneath contempt.

 

That looks to me like an very harsh reading, AWOL.

To my reading, Cameron and chums wanted to attack Syria a year ago. The basis on which they wanted to do it was tenuous at best - people like David Davis asking "what is it about the chemical weapons that's different that burning, expoding, crushing maiming, gangrene etc. caused by the years worth of conventional weapons attacks on civilians" [not an exact quote but it was on those lines] and of course there wasn't really a good answer.

So the Tories then lost a vote based on a very weak, poorly thought through case. In the light if the mess in Iraq, caused by the US/UK efforts, they needed to have a much better case. Their fault. Milliband was right, then.

 

Having been severly damaged politically by that defeat, and being so close to an election, with UK public opinion pretty split on another involvement, Cameron has to tread very carefully (as do the other politicians) - they know they don't have the old carte blanche from the public to just gung-ho join with the US (who themselves only a couple of weeks ago were saying they had "no plan").

 

So yes Milliband (and Cameron etc.) are being very cautious with this, but that's not a bad thing, even if it doesn't tally with the modd from many to "get stuck in". Like I posted earlier - that kind of approach hasn't generally ended well.

 

I suspect that UK involvement is nothing to do with what's happening, but more to do with not getting to far estranged from the US and the impact that would have on all kinds of wider interests.

[Awol]

Although calling for a UNSC resolution to get authority to bomb IS in Syria sounds good in principle, that relies on the consent of Russia.

Given the fact Russia is currently annexing parts of a European country and managing/fighting on one side of a civil war it has caused, it seems a fairly ludicrous position that they could then veto international action by a broad coalition against a terrorist group.

Which given the US record on the use of veto would be comically ironic.

Not really comic in its consequences though. We now face the ludicrous position whereby the PM can only ask Parliament for permission to attack IS in Iraq but not in Syria, as if respecting some imaginary border that no longer exists is the paramount concern.

Why? Miliband will not support the UK taking part in a meaningful and sensible approach without UNSC backing, which for the reasons given will not be attainable. That he is ready to play school boy politics on an issue as serious as this only confirms (to me at least) that Miliband is beneath contempt.

That looks to me like an very harsh reading, AWOL.

To my reading, Cameron and chums wanted to attack Syria a year ago. The basis on which they wanted to do it was tenuous at best _ people like David Davis asking "what is it about the chemical weapons that's different that burning, expoding, crushing maiming, gangren eetc. caused by the years worth of conventional weapons attacks on civilians" [not an exact quote but it was on those lines] and of course there wasn't really a good answer.

So the Tories then lost a vote based on a very weak, poorly thought through case. In the light if the mess in Iraq, caused by the US/UK efforts, they needed to have a much better case. Their fault. Milliband was right, then.

Having been severly damaged politically by that defeat, and being so close to an election, with UK public opinion pretty split on another involvement, Cameron has to tread very carefully (as do the other politicians) - they know they don't have the old carte blanche from the public to just gung-ho join with the US (who themselves only a couple of weeks ago were saying they had "no plan".

So yes Milliband (and Cameron etc.) are being very cautious with this, but that's not a bad thing, even if it doesn't tally with the modd from many to "get stuck in".

Like I posted earlier - that kind of approach hasn't generally ended well.

I suspect that UK involvement is nothing to do with what's happening, but more to do with not getting to far estranged from the US and the impact that would have on all kinds of wider interests.

Yes the half arsed plan to attack Assad a year ago may have helped to push him out and Syria would now be irredeemable, a larger version of 80's Lebanon but with more death. Equally the half arsed plan to invade Iraq in 2003 was ill conceived and contributed hugely to where we are now.

Neither of those examples mean that getting heavily involved militarily now to defeat IS in both theaters is a bad or wrong thing. Certainly we wouldn't and couldn't consider it without acting in concert with the overwhelming weight of US arms, but the moral case to do so stands up regardless of whoever else is or becomes involved.

If intervention against IS in Syria strengthens both the Kurds and Assad then that's all good in my view, the alternative to a victory by those parties has already been previewed in technicolor - like a vision of hell in earth.

To pontificate as Miliband is doing that Iraq and Syria are two discrete problems is a nonsense exposed by even a cursory assessment of how to defeat IS. I think that he is playing cynical politics to undermine Cameron on this, but if I'm wrong then the only alternative conclusion is that he truly is a massive idiot who shouldn't get anywhere near the power of political office.