The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[maqroll]

I wish it was as simple as decimating the Nazi government in WW2. But it's not. We can't bomb radical Islam off the planet. 

[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.

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.

That international law eh? Ludicrous!

[Ads]

I am not sure anybody can make a serious argument that the black lines on the map around Syria actually mean anything. Best evidenced when IS chopped their way through the 17th division a few weeks back, Raqqa is as much apart of Syria and Syrian governmental control as Stanley is apart of Argentina.

[maqroll]

Considering the borders were drawn up by the British and French less than 100 years ago, it's no wonder why IS don't respect them. Or why allied powers don't respect them either.

[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.

That international law eh? Ludicrous!

When legal authorization for action is in the gift of a man currently annexing parts of his neighbour's countries then yes, it's totally f'in ludicrous.

[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.

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.

That international law eh? Ludicrous!

When legal authorization for action is in the gift of a man currently annexing parts of his neighbour's countries then yes, it's totally f'in ludicrous.

 

Hence the comedic irony of a place called Israel and the use of the power of veto on so many occasions over so long a period of time.

 

I'm not saying it's the right or wrong thing, I'm saying that it's odd how what is and isn't the right thing almost entirely seems to depend on whether it's the US (and therefore us) doing it.

 

Saying it's not fair when you've been doing it for 40 years is laughable.

 

Not that it matters, George Bush was entirely clear in 2003 when he removed the burden of international law, the UN or any other body whatsoever (including the American people) and demonstrated that the US will do exactly what it wants to do, when it wants to do it in order to protect the interests of the empire.

[Ads]

I would say the outcome for Alan Henning doesn't look good tonight, if he is not already dead.

[maqroll]

yea, the video will surely be released within he next 48 hrs

[MakemineVanilla]

The decision to make air-strikes was inevitable and watching the media manufacture consent over the last few weeks has been chilling.

 

They have constructed their usual fallacious argument of outlining the problem and then proceeding as if the actions suggested are unquestionably the solution.

 

They have insisted that because other countries are doing it, the case is made and therefore we are required to join in too; no one asks why we have the obligation or the right.

 

There have been nightly images of surgical strikes to prove that we never kill anyone but the guilty: this has been crucial propaganda in persuading the public.

 

The media have waited for the actions to be endorsed by parliament before they opened discussions as to whether actions will work, now that it is too late.

 

Intervention was inevitable from the day the American journalist was beheaded and when ever anyone questions our intervention, we are reminded of that act, while other beheadings were ignored.

 

The rejection of intervention by parliament did nothing but test public opinion and all it meant was that those who wanted war went away and tried to make a better case to get what they wanted.

 

Today they proved that that process was successful and they have got what they wanted.

 

Let the mission creep begin.

[maqroll]

What is sad and scary is that the default setting of US foreign policy in the Muslim world is military action, it matters not that the sitting US president is a Noble Peace Prize winner (cough)....

 

It shows a staggering lack of imagination that the best efforts our diplomats put forth inevitably results in a capitulation to the military industrial complex, which has a big boner right now.

 

Yes, what ISIS has been doing is diabolical, but what of the wholesale rape and slaughter of African civilians in CAR, DRC, Sudan, etc.? 

 

The West's response to these various crises seems arbitrary and reactionary, and one can't help but think it's just war games and political posturing.

[blandy]

?...what of the wholesale rape and slaughter of African civilians in CAR, DRC, Sudan, etc.?...

is there any oil there? "No" you say? We'll then, it's just hard cheese, innit?

[Ads]

There is no oil in CAR? Somebody better tell all those French troops that have been fighting an insurgency in there that they may as well pull out.

[DanishVillan]

 

 

 

 

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.

That international law eh? Ludicrous!

When legal authorization for action is in the gift of a man currently annexing parts of his neighbour's countries then yes, it's totally f'in ludicrous.

 

 

Where is the startpoint for you?

Seems to me that Svoboda, a neo-nazi party supported by US, removed an elected leader before all the "annexations" started.

[blandy]

There is no oil in CAR? Somebody better tell all those French troops that have been fighting an insurgency in there that they may as well pull out.

Sorry, yes, there is oil there. and all kinds of other mineral wealth. The French are there on their own, pretty much aren't they Ads? No US/UK etc. involvement?

But anyway, I think it's pretty much the case that the middle east gets a lot more attention from the West, and a lot of that is to do with all the oil they're sitting on, and it's importance to the economies of the west.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'd also argue that the Middle East has a greater potential to go completely and utterly tits up on a far greater scale than Sub-Saharan Africa. That isn't to say what goes on is any better or worse, or more or less deserving of intervention, but when said intervention costs both financially & politically, it's important to prioritise the shit you want to wade in. Right now, the priority is the volatile and fractured Middle East.

[bickster]

There is no oil in CAR?

Nah its the French, it'll be the electrics

[LondonLax]

 

There is no oil in CAR? Somebody better tell all those French troops that have been fighting an insurgency in there that they may as well pull out.

Sorry, yes, there is oil there. and all kinds of other mineral wealth. The French are there on their own, pretty much aren't they Ads? No US/UK etc. involvement?

But anyway, I think it's pretty much the case that the middle east gets a lot more attention from the West, and a lot of that is to do with all the oil they're sitting on, and it's importance to the economies of the west.

 

Loads of oil in Sudan as well.

[Ads]

UK has provided some logistical support. We might complain about how UK forces have been cut to the bone, but we still have more air and sea lift than the rest of Europe put together.

US has provided some funding too.

[OutByEaster?]

I'd like to see our defence budget cut a lot further and the money used to improve the fabric of the nation rather than in moral support for the US. I take no pride in us wasting more money than our neighbours.

[Ads]

I don't know much about fabrics myself, but if we're talking about social impacts then defence spending is good for providing highly skilled jobs to thousands of people in the UK. Maybe the people in Barrow or up on the Clyde can knit something to pass the time with all that improved fabric?

 

There are other benefits too of course to an economy reliant upon global trade. Not to mention, in context of this mini discussion, the benefits to people in Mali who now do not have to face an insurgency thanks to French force of arms and Crab Air who got them there of course.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Ads