The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Rugeley Villa]

 

maybe, wether it would of reached iraq is another thing. saddam would not of tolerated isis one bit.

Neither has the current Iraqi government - actually combating them is another matter.

 

the iraqi government is a shadow of its former power under saddam though. hopefuly the new offensive from them will start to work.

[Awol]

I think its too far gone for there ever to be peace now. The iraq and afghanistan war in which hundreds of thousands of civillians were killed angerd alot of Muslims, some of which have gone on to become AQ and isis etc.

Then the continual backing by the west of Israel whilst they imprison Gaza and murder civillians just makes it worse.

I'd love for peace in the whole world but its impossible now imo

To avoid the impression that the West has killed all those innocents, the vast majority have been killed in sectarian conflict, i.e. Muslim on Muslim.

[omariqy]

Agreed Awol although there are still many innocent civilians killed by the 'West'.  The biggest issue is the aftermath of the wars.  What has been created...i.e. the vacuum for groups such as ISIS to grow.  ISIS are killing plenty of Muslims as is all the tribal fighting.  Assad is the king of them all though.

[blandy]

If the West got properly involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns. MI5 admitted the other day they are now monitoring over 3000 domestic naughty Islamists, how many more would there be if we were 'over there'?

That said I think we should be fighting ISIS very directly and not allowing a domestic 5th column to dictate whether or not we face up to these savages.

Questions, if I may:

 

1. Is it the (primary) duty of the Governmnet to protect the people of the UK? - I assume you agree it is.

 

You say "If the West got ..involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns" - that sounds like a bad thing. very bad.

 

2. You're saying the ground involvement of the west would endanger people in the UK and lead to loss of life in the UK., and thus go against the primary duty of the Government, aren't you?

 

3. Why do you think that "facing up" over-rides the duty to protect the people of the UK?

 

4. isn't it the case that the US (and UK) "facing up" to Saddam is the type of act that led to all this carnage in the first place? (as you have said yourself)?

 

5. Do you think our politicians are capable of actually taking in and learning from the consequences of their predecessors actions?

 

Obviously anyone can answer or choose not to answer. I'm just interested in the apparent contradictions between the views expressed or implied.

[chrisp65]

Fighting ISIS directly implies that they will line up in a field wearing, say, white. We can line up wearing blue and march at them.

 

In reality, I'd expect the consequences of taking them on 'directly' to be mass civilian casualties, the enemy melting away and a new generation feeling their kin have been wronged and require avenging actions.

 

It thoroughly amazes me that so many people constantly think we can win a war crisply and definitively and neatly put an end to 'that' issue. Whatever 'that' issue is at any point in history.

[Risso]

 

If the West got properly involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns. MI5 admitted the other day they are now monitoring over 3000 domestic naughty Islamists, how many more would there be if we were 'over there'?

That said I think we should be fighting ISIS very directly and not allowing a domestic 5th column to dictate whether or not we face up to these savages.

Questions, if I may:

 

1. Is it the (primary) duty of the Governmnet to protect the people of the UK? - I assume you agree it is.

 

You say "If the West got ..involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns" - that sounds like a bad thing. very bad.

 

2. You're saying the ground involvement of the west would endanger people in the UK and lead to loss of life in the UK., and thus go against the primary duty of the Government, aren't you?

 

3. Why do you think that "facing up" over-rides the duty to protect the people of the UK?

 

4. isn't it the case that the US (and UK) "facing up" to Saddam is the type of act that led to all this carnage in the first place? (as you have said yourself)?

 

5. Do you think our politicians are capable of actually taking in and learning from the consequences of their predecessors actions?

 

Obviously anyone can answer or choose not to answer. I'm just interested in the apparent contradictions between the views expressed or implied.

 

 

 

 

Difficult one.  Obviously Bliar took us to war on false pretenses, and that's what's caused most of the grief since, as you rightly point out.  But does the West (UN, NATO, whoever) not have a moral duty to step in when a dictator starts killing in his own people, or there's other sorts of genocide?  Is there a sliding scale of "badness" of the erm, baddy, that means it's OK to get involved in certain situations?  The problem with getting mixed up in the Middle East is that despite how horrifically some groups act, there will always be people back in the UK who see what they're doing as a morally just campaign; hence the likes of Emwazi ditching a relatively normal life selling IT, to joining ISIS and hacking people apart like a savage.  Do we just just wash our hands of the situation, and let ISIS slaughter as many people as they like for fear of reprisals in the UK, or do we have some sort of moral duty to at least try and clear up the mess we helped to cause?   What if ISIS decide that they want to instigate a big terrorist campaign in the UK anyway?  So instead of encouraging people to bunk off and join them in Syria, they instead ask them to stay put and carry out murders over here?

[Ads]

The world would be a lot safer if the US had invested $1 trillion spent in Iraq on a giant straw, tunnelled under the Ghawar field and sucked the oil out.

 

We are where we are though and there will be no peace until desert bandit's of the House Saud run out of hydrocarbons to fuel their endless war against Twelvers.

[omariqy]

House of Saud *Shudder*

 

How I wish they didn't exist in this world.

[blandy]

Difficult one.  Obviously Bliar took us to war on false pretences, and that's what's caused most of the grief since, as you rightly point out.  But does the West (UN, NATO, whoever) not have a moral duty to step in when a dictator starts killing in his own people, or there's other sorts of genocide?  Is there a sliding scale of "badness" of the erm, baddy, that means it's OK to get involved in certain situations?  The problem with getting mixed up in the Middle East is that despite how horrifically some groups act, there will always be people back in the UK who see what they're doing as a morally just campaign; hence the likes of Emwazi ditching a relatively normal life selling IT, to joining ISIS and hacking people apart like a savage.  Do we just just wash our hands of the situation, and let ISIS slaughter as many people as they like for fear of reprisals in the UK, or do we have some sort of moral duty to at least try and clear up the mess we helped to cause?   What if ISIS decide that they want to instigate a big terrorist campaign in the UK anyway?  So instead of encouraging people to bunk off and join them in Syria, they instead ask them to stay put and carry out murders over here?

 

It is a hell of a difficult one, definitely, yeah.

I think to partially answer, at least, some of your good questions,

1.  does the West (UN, NATO, whoever) not have a moral duty to step in when a dictator starts killing in his own people, or there's other sorts of genocide?  Is there a sliding scale of "badness" of the erm, baddy, that means it's OK to get involved in certain situations?  The knee jerk answer is yes. The more considered answer is, perhaps two fold - firstly "stepping in" doesn't at all have to mean dropping bombs on 'em (etc.)  It could be other types of actions, from aid, protection, evacuation, persuasion, facilitating neigbouring nations to get involved. Morally we are not and cannot be the world's conscience for all events.

it's also the case that it's often simplistic to say "nasty man kills his people, we must stop/get rid of him" - that's (in part) what's been shown over and over again from Libya, to Iraq, to Syria and even the likes of Bin Laden (who no-one mourns).

 

On the particulars of ISIS and "do we wash our hands of it all"  What "we're" currently doing is next to nothing. A tiny majority of the umbrella aircraft missions, and possibly a few folk there or thereabouts doing some special forces ops.

Listening to Cameron and the Defence secretary man, you'd have thought we were playing a leading role, same as you might think from all the noise they make about the Russia/Ukrainse stuff. But basically we're not doing anything anywhere of note. The British diplomacy skills have been cut away, the military capability downgraded and the bellicose utterings of blow hard's like Cameron have been ramped up.

Anyway on ISIS, the UK acting as part of a genuine collaborative team, with the nations from the area, and other International forces to attempt to facilitate the Iraq and Syria nationals in ridding themselves of these religionist nutters and criminals is probablt the right thing  to do, on balance.

Going in all gung-ho, like a cavalry charge isn't.

[maqroll]

American co-president Netanyahu speaking before Congress today, ramping up the fear...

[YGabbana]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31716684

Israel's Netanyahu warns US against 'paving way to Iran bomb'

 

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says a deal with Iran could pave the path to Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

 

Key quotes: Netanyahu's US speech

As it happened - Netanyahu speech

Netanyahu speech 'win-win' for Iran

The Israeli prime minister has warned that a deal under discussion on Iran's nuclear programme could "pave its way to the bomb", rather than block it.

 

In a speech to US Congress punctuated by standing ovations, Benjamin Netanyahu depicted Iran as a "threat to the entire world".

 

Talks on Iran's nuclear programme are nearing a critical late-March deadline for an outline agreement to be reached.

 

The speech comes just two weeks before a closely fought election in Israel.

 

Mr Netanyahu insisted that he was not trying to meddle in internal US politics.

 

 

Applauded onto the podium and given a standing ovation as he finished.

Sickening.

[Awol]

If the West got properly involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns. MI5 admitted the other day they are now monitoring over 3000 domestic naughty Islamists, how many more would there be if we were 'over there'?

That said I think we should be fighting ISIS very directly and not allowing a domestic 5th column to dictate whether or not we face up to these savages.

Questions, if I may:

1. Is it the (primary) duty of the Governmnet to protect the people of the UK? - I assume you agree it is.

You say "If the West got ..involved on the ground there would be human bombs going pop in many UK towns" - that sounds like a bad thing. very bad.

2. You're saying the ground involvement of the west would endanger people in the UK and lead to loss of life in the UK., and thus go against the primary duty of the Government, aren't you?

3. Why do you think that "facing up" over-rides the duty to protect the people of the UK?

4. isn't it the case that the US (and UK) "facing up" to Saddam is the type of act that led to all this carnage in the first place? (as you have said yourself)?

5. Do you think our politicians are capable of actually taking in and learning from the consequences of their predecessors actions?

Obviously anyone can answer or choose not to answer. I'm just interested in the apparent contradictions between the views expressed or implied.

Your questions 1, 2 and 3 can be answered thus:

From a historical perspective the UK has routinely stood up against fascism (what ISIS really represents but in religious garb) and in the short term that endangers our own people. WW2 is the obvious case in point, London blitzed because we didn't accept German aggression towards the Poles. Same situation in WW1 re: Belgium.

Those in power at the time had to make the calculation, does principle outweigh self preservation? In the context of the wars referenced above the sacrifice required was incredible, but accepted. Would ignoring the threat have made us safer long term? Did facing those threats mean the leaders at the time failed in their duty to protect the British people? I don't think so.

In the same way ignoring the threat now is storing up a domestic problem that will result in an outcome that is potentially more damaging. An enemy at the gates is easier to face than an enemy in your house.

The Nazis dropped bombs as an external enemy, radical Islamism attacks from the inside, atomises communities and ultimately could/may destroy the fabric of a tolerant and permissive society.

4. 'facing up' to Saddam was an entirely manufactured charade, our leaders created a straw man enemy and led directly to where we are now. Unfortunately we are where we are and we can't run away from it, whatever mistakes Blair et al made in the past.

5. No, our politicians today (all of them) are cretinous chocolate gobbling pelicans without a clue about how we can chart a course forward from here.

I strongly recommend that you all vote for me, kick back and I'll sort it all out. This may not be an original pitch.

[blandy]

Your questions 1, 2 and 3 can be answered thus:

From a historical perspective the UK has routinely stood up against fascism (what ISIS really represents but in religious garb) and in the short term that endangers our own people. WW2 is the obvious case in point, London blitzed because we didn't accept German aggression towards the Poles. Same situation in WW1 re: Belgium.

Those in power at the time had to make the calculation, does principle outweigh self preservation? In the context of the wars referenced above the sacrifice required was incredible, but accepted. Would ignoring the threat have made us safer long term? Did facing those threats mean the leaders at the time failed in their duty to protect the British people? I don't think so.

In the same way ignoring the threat now is storing up a domestic problem that will result in an outcome that is potentially more damaging. An enemy at the gates is easier to face than an enemy in your house.

The Nazis dropped bombs as an external enemy, radical Islamism attacks from the inside, atomises communities and ultimately could/may destroy the fabric of a tolerant and permissive society.

4. 'facing up' to Saddam was an entirely manufactured charade, our leaders created a straw man enemy and led directly to where we are now. Unfortunately we are where we are and we can't run away from it, whatever mistakes Blair et al made in the past.

5. No, our politicians today (all of them) are cretinous chocolate gobbling pelicans without a clue about how we can chart a course forward from here.

I strongly recommend that you all vote for me, kick back and I'll sort it all out. This may not be an original pitch.

Good answers. I particularly agree with the later ones.

 

On the "ignoring the threat now is storing up a domestic problem that will result in an outcome that is potentially more damaging. An enemy at the gates is easier to face than an enemy in your house......radical Islamism attacks from the inside,"

 

Do you think that the radical Islamics in ISIS there want "us" to attack them? (I do). They've certainly said they do, both perhaps out of bravado and out of the notion that it will "call more brothers" to join them and escalate their mayhem.

Is doing what the enemy wants the best way to proceed?, particularly as you make the point that it will lead to bombs going off in shopping centres here in the UK, as well as acting as a recruiting agent for them over there?

 

See, I don't think it's about "principle v self preservation" really. Our values, yours and mine are for peace and freedom of religionists and secularists and everyone to hug and have flowers. Their values are a horrific distortion of some words in a (very old) book that involve, obviously terrorising, maiming, raping, torturing, killing etc.

Clearly they are the opposite of ours.

Weighing all the factors up doesn't to me lead to us doing a war with them on their terms. For me it leads to other countries more directly involved and neighbouring, who have more in common culturally with the people in the ISIS area (despite their various different sects) taking the necessary fighting action, and us supporting them in that fight.

 

Simplistically it's like if us and the French had a problem between us, the better agent to resolve the issue would be other European nations, rather than the (say) Chinese or Japanese or whoever dropping bombs from the other side of the world, or sending in ground troops and tanks. There's a possibility in that silly example that they'd suppress whatever the issue was, but probably end up making decade long enemies out of us squabbling Europeans, whereas if the Irish and German people were to intervene to resolve it, we'd be much more likely to settle back down to civility and normality.

 

Yeah that's probably a bit of a rubbsih illustration, but hopefully it makes the point I'm trying to get across, to an extent, at least.

 

As for the enemy being on the inside - yes, to a degree they are, but again not stirring them into atrocities is more pragmatic than "acting (only) out of "principle".

[Risso]

So what you're basically arguing Pete, is that we should bomb the French.  OK, I can live with that.

[blandy]

 

So what you're basically arguing Pete, is that we should bomb the French.  OK, I can live with that.

It was yesterday when I wrote that post, so I've forgotten what I was, er,....yes, that must have been it. Thanks.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Yemen's a bit of a mess, isn't it?

[Wainy316]

Yeah man!

Sorry.

[OutByEaster?]

But does the West (UN, NATO, whoever) not have a moral duty to step in when a dictator starts killing in his own people, or there's other sorts of genocide?  Is there a sliding scale of "badness" of the erm, baddy, that means it's OK to get involved in certain situations? 

 

I think there's a responsibility for everyone that can do something to stop the killing of civilians to do something about the killing of civilians. Should the West step in? I'm not sure about stepping in, but there should be some sort of action taken, some sort of sanction.

 

Of course in this case, the West didn't step in after Saddam started killing his own people, the West didn't even stand idly by while Saddam gassed people in the North of Iraq. Saddam's Iraq went back onto the US list of countries to receive both military and humanitarian aid after the gassing of the Kurds. The West supported Saddam in killing his own people. it's when he started upsetting the Sheiks that we had to get rid of him.

 

I think the key in your question is probably in the phrase "moral duty" and in this case as in so many others, the actions taken weren't based on a moral duty, they were about finance and control of resources. 

[Ikantcpell]

When will there ever be peace in the middle east ?

 

What does it take ?

[Chindie]

When will there ever be peace in the middle east ?

 

What does it take ?

An outside existential threat to the entire region.

Or humanity transcending beyond its current level of consciousness.

Or the entire thing falling apart and one winner taking and controlling the lot, if you can call that peace.

In other words, it isn't happening. The best you can hope for, and this is basically what more or less every peace summit and discussion tries to keep going ultimately, is an 'unstable stability' where all the players in the region are all trying to pull in different directions with different pressures and aims meaning they all get held in place and things stay generally in control.