Syria

[peterms]

I'm kind of intrigued where you see the differences between Libya, where you were for us intervening, Peter, and Syria where you're vehemently against. The quote below is edited and from page 20 of the Libya thread.

 

Other than the lack of proof re the gassing, in the event that proof were to be obtained, and we'd have a situation proven where someone was murdering loads of his own people (there's clear evidence he's been doing that anyway, with guns and tanks etc.) - what's the difference? Why did you want intervention in Libya, but not Syria?

At that point in Libya, Gaddafi was about to launch what seemed a massive attack on Benghazi, and it seemed that the only alternatives were stand aside, or intervene.  There was at that time broad support for intervention aimed at reducing the level of conflict.    It was reasonable to think there was a chance of intervention being able to reduce the overall level of conflict.  It didn't, partly because the West had another agenda, and pushed further for complete regime change at whatever cost, rather than being prepared to accept something less.  (It's worth remembering that one of the reasons Russia is now so reluctant to support intervention in Syria, apart from its own interests, is that the Western powers went further in Libya than the international consensus had agreed.)

 

In Syria, the situation is that the US has been looking to overthrow Assad for some years, by arming and training the opposition, with a view to getting rid of Syria before moving on Iran.  They have in other words been ramping up the level of violence quite deliberately, together with Israel, Saudi and the others.  They have no intention whatever of trying to reduce violence and save lives.  Now, they believe they have found a pretext that justifies direct military assault on Syria, made possible by Obama's foolish choice of words a year ago, and his desire to save face and look slightly less of an arse.  They are trying to use that pretext while it still exists, to launch an assault which is intended to swing the conflict.  The need for speed is because the more people look into this event, the more likely it is the initial accounts will unravel, and the momentum generated by lots of pictures of dead babies will be lost.

 

I don't think there is about to be a significant and massive assault by Assad on a different level to the bitter conflict that the US have enabled to be dragged out for the last couple of years.  I don't think significantly worse harm will come from delaying, in order to establish facts, consider all options, and build an international consensus.  There may however be further false flag attacks, if that's what the first one was, to generate more pressure.  But if it was a false flag attack, the idea of launching cruise missiles on the side that didn't do it, in order to fend off a further such attack from the side that did, would be absurd.

 

That's not to say that the West was not active in arming the Libyan rebels and creating more death and destruction there - I'm sure we were.  Nor was I keen to see intervention in Libya more generally - my view as I recall was about a particular point in time where we seemed to have a choice between a bad course of action, and a horrendous one.  The bad one looked a lot better.

 

That's why I see the two situations as different.

 

Could we build an international consensus over Syria?  In principle, yes, if the aim was to reduce conflict and try to move towards a political solution.  In practice probably not, because that is absolutely not the agenda of the US, Israel, and it appears, our own government.  We are acting in bad faith, from corrupt and immoral motives.

 

 

[snowychap]

There is a history thread running on VT and one thing you are supposed to learn from is history.

I thought the one lesson that we're supposed to learn from history is that no one ever learns from history (Huxley, Hegel et al)?

[LondonLax]

 

In Syria, the situation is that the US has been looking to overthrow Assad for some years, by arming and training the opposition, with a view to getting rid of Syria before moving on Iran.  They have in other words been ramping up the level of violence quite deliberately, together with Israel, Saudi and the others.  They have no intention whatever of trying to reduce violence and save lives.  Now, they believe they have found a pretext that justifies direct military assault on Syria, made possible by Obama's foolish choice of words a year ago, and his desire to save face and look slightly less of an arse.  They are trying to use that pretext while it still exists, to launch an assault which is intended to swing the conflict.  The need for speed is because the more people look into this event, the more likely it is the initial accounts will unravel, and the momentum generated by lots of pictures of dead babies will be lost.

 

 

This paragraph is your own personal fantasy. 

[peterms]

 

 

In Syria, the situation is that the US has been looking to overthrow Assad for some years, by arming and training the opposition, with a view to getting rid of Syria before moving on Iran.  They have in other words been ramping up the level of violence quite deliberately, together with Israel, Saudi and the others.  They have no intention whatever of trying to reduce violence and save lives.  Now, they believe they have found a pretext that justifies direct military assault on Syria, made possible by Obama's foolish choice of words a year ago, and his desire to save face and look slightly less of an arse.  They are trying to use that pretext while it still exists, to launch an assault which is intended to swing the conflict.  The need for speed is because the more people look into this event, the more likely it is the initial accounts will unravel, and the momentum generated by lots of pictures of dead babies will be lost.

 

 

This paragraph is your own personal fantasy. 

 

 

Some parts of it are views, which you may agree with or disagree with.  If you like using the word "fantasy" for views and opinions which differ from yours, that's interesting.

 

Some parts are about matters of fact.  Do you think the first two sentences are factual, or do you see them as fantasy?  Feel free to use expressions like "tin foil hat" in your answer, if it pleases you.

[blandy]

 

If we go and fire a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at Syria then it will cost the Government (i.e. the country) quite a few bob, but the only people who would make money from that is Boeing, a US company, and even then only assuming we bothered to replace them.  So your comment that "you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else" confused me, because I can't find any logical basis in it.  Hence why I asked the question really.

 

 

 

Again I suspect that you are deliberately avoiding the point and concentrating on one very specific item.

 

Do you not agree that we have seen leaders from outside the ME circling around once regime change has been effected? Are there not a lot of arms companies that will typically benefit? Surely in your role and where you live you cannot deny that is happening and why it's certainly not a problem for organisations, and states when conflicts occur?

I suppose you could argue that if a Gov't uses arms it has bought, that means the Co.s that sell that Gov't arms will sell some more, to replace the ones used, and so it'll generate profit for those Co.s

But this Gov't has been cutting all its budgets for spending on the military (and just about everything else, come to that). So it goes counter to what we know about their attitude to spending on stuff to think they'd spend money on an intervention, just to make Boeing, or Eurofighter GmBH or BAE SYSTEMS some money for their shareholders.

The profit made on Arms is per unit, very small as Gov't defence contracts tend to be structured in such a way as to limit profit tightly.

 

Then there's the costs incurred - fuel, wear and tear, facilities, air traffic, rations, consumables - clothing, medical stuff, overseas expenses and allowances and accomodation and all the rest.

In terms of a cost benefit analysis, there's nothing in it for the Gov't, were it to be based on an action to make money for defence contractors. And that's without accounting for any loss of life, injury, political unpopularity and so on that would result.

 

Arms companies might be able to say to prospective customers "look here's our bomb or Gun or tank or aircraft as proven effective in combat in Syria" if they go on to (try and) sell those items to another customer nation. But I suspect in terms of Gov't support for selling arms, it's more cost effective and much lower risk all round to just visit a customer nation Governmentally, or entertain them in the UK or whatever. And also there's Afghanistan - that's all the "used in combat" labelling there already for guns, tanks and bombs. There's no "need" for a new operation to use as a marketing tool. So no, that theory that the Gov't would do it to benefit arms companies doesn't bear any weight in my view.

 

In some respects the opposite is true, as well - if they spend on this Syria idiocy, then money spent there will be shaved from existing defence spending and procurement plans, and money will go on US cruise missiles, instead of UK made aircraft or equipment or upgrades. British Co.s will lose out. Even the Tories are not that daft, though they do have a tendency to mess everything up.

[blandy]

 

 

 

In Syria, the situation is that the US has been looking to overthrow Assad for some years, by arming and training the opposition, with a view to getting rid of Syria before moving on Iran.  They have in other words been ramping up the level of violence quite deliberately, together with Israel, Saudi and the others.  They have no intention whatever of trying to reduce violence and save lives.  Now, they believe they have found a pretext that justifies direct military assault on Syria, made possible by Obama's foolish choice of words a year ago, and his desire to save face and look slightly less of an arse.  They are trying to use that pretext while it still exists, to launch an assault which is intended to swing the conflict.  The need for speed is because the more people look into this event, the more likely it is the initial accounts will unravel, and the momentum generated by lots of pictures of dead babies will be lost.

 

 

This paragraph is your own personal fantasy. 

 

 

Some parts of it are views, which you may agree with or disagree with.  If you like using the word "fantasy" for views and opinions which differ from yours, that's interesting.

 

Some parts are about matters of fact.  Do you think the first two sentences are factual, or do you see them as fantasy?  Feel free to use expressions like "tin foil hat" in your answer, if it pleases you.

 

Thanks for the answer to my earlier question.

As to the above, the US might not like Assad, might wish him gone, but I'm not at all sure they want or would benefit from a situation where the disparate opposition people take over. The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida are not viewed with a great deal of affection by the US, what with all that twin towers unpleasantness and everything.

 

While they may have been destabilising Syria by backing the opposition (I don't know, but it seems possible), I don't see replacing Assad with Osama II as being something they want to happen, or that's in their interests.

I also don't think Obama wants to get involved in another war of the scale that would be involved in chucking out Assad. Call me naïve and all that.

[peterms]

the US might not like Assad, might wish him gone, but I'm not at all sure they want or would benefit from a situation where the disparate opposition people take over. The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida are not viewed with a great deal of affection by the US, what with all that twin towers unpleasantness and everything.

 

While they may have been destabilising Syria by backing the opposition (I don't know, but it seems possible), I don't see replacing Assad with Osama II as being something they want to happen, or that's in their interests.

I also don't think Obama wants to get involved in another war of the scale that would be involved in chucking out Assad. Call me naïve

As you say, the opposition is disparate, and includes groups who you would think the US sees as less desirable than Assad.

 

I suppose they see the future as being factional fighting between various groups within Syria, but without a state which is allied to Iran.  A weak, divided, unstable country with little ability to get involved in regional issues.  That would be nightmarish for Syria, but better for Israel.

 

No, I don't think the US wants to have to get involved itself.  If it can bring about the result by arming and training rebels, well and good.  If they need to launch a few long distance attacks on Syrian forces to tilt the balance against Assad, they will do that, if there is some diplomatic cover.  But I'm sure they don't want another Afghanistan.

[AVFCforever1991]

 

the US might not like Assad, might wish him gone, but I'm not at all sure they want or would benefit from a situation where the disparate opposition people take over. The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida are not viewed with a great deal of affection by the US, what with all that twin towers unpleasantness and everything.

 

While they may have been destabilising Syria by backing the opposition (I don't know, but it seems possible), I don't see replacing Assad with Osama II as being something they want to happen, or that's in their interests.

I also don't think Obama wants to get involved in another war of the scale that would be involved in chucking out Assad. Call me naïve

As you say, the opposition is disparate, and includes groups who you would think the US sees as less desirable than Assad.

 

I suppose they see the future as being factional fighting between various groups within Syria, but without a state which is allied to Iran.  A weak, divided, unstable country with little ability to get involved in regional issues.  That would be nightmarish for Syria, but better for Israel.

 

No, I don't think the US wants to have to get involved itself.  If it can bring about the result by arming and training rebels, well and good.  If they need to launch a few long distance attacks on Syrian forces to tilt the balance against Assad, they will do that, if there is some diplomatic cover.  But I'm sure they don't want another Afghanistan.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[peterms]

Do arms companies benefit from this aggression?  Well, the intuitive answer is obviously yes, they do.  But that has been challenged, so let's take a look.

 

Who are the biggest arms companies?  Room for debate according to how you measure them, and all companes move up and down all rankings, but let's use Stanford Uni's ranking for argument's sake.  (Well, it's a paper emanating from there, not an official university view, but I suppose we can assume that this uni adheres to reasonable standards regarding the papers it produces and publishes).   If they're not the absolute biggest, they are clearly big.  And influential - we know how influence works in the US.

 

 

The three largest defense companies in the world are all United States companies.  With a combined total revenue in 2001 of $100 billion and employing 400,000 people, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are three powerhouses of American business.  Their combined revenues account for 1% of the United States' $10 trillion GDP.[ii]  Each company is on each of the Fortune lists: America’s Most Admired Companies, Global Most Admired Companies, Fortune 500 and Global 500.[iii]  Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are also the three top arms-producing companies in the world

 

So - how have these companies fared over the last year?  I looked at share price.  It's not a perfect window into a company by any means, but it does suggest how investors think profits will go in the near future.

 

Now, we can't conclude that the level of aggression against Syria is the only, the main, or even a pretty big contributor to the profit of arms firms.  They might have diversified into all sorts of other things, like prosthetics for people who survive their attentions (and who live in countries which can access them and afford them; no, perhaps not), or mental health services for survivors of war, or funerals.  All sorts of possibilities are out there.

 

But let's suppose investors think that profits comes from sales, which are increased by war.  It's a reasonable assumption, I would argue.  Anyway, share prices.  As an indication of what the investment "community"  thinks will happen to those companies' profits.  Here we go:

 

 

 

 

 

I don't like graphs that don't start from a zero base.  I think they are sloppy, and dishonest, and aim to exaggerate the slope of the lines they depict.  So apologies for these, I'm just grabbing stuff off the net.  The lines should be flatter, but the trend is unmistakable.

[Swerbs]

Seems like the US is going to go ahead with a strike with or without the backing of allies and the United Nations.

[maqroll]

The U.N. is a joke. Obama knows this. He knows they'd rubber stamp anything he pushed for, anyway. Might as well bypass the formalities. The U.N. is a bloated bureaucracy whose sole purpose seems to be a place where politically connected paper pushers collect big salaries for not doing much of anything.

 

The allies are firmly behind this, just listen to what William Hague had to say.

 

The Arab League signed off on it, now it's just a matter of when. 

Edited August 29, 2013 by maqroll

[LondonLax]

Do arms companies benefit from this aggression? Well, the intuitive answer is obviously yes, they do. But that has been challenged, so let's take a look.

Who are the biggest arms companies? Room for debate according to how you measure them, and all companes move up and down all rankings, but let's use Stanford Uni's ranking for argument's sake. (Well, it's a paper emanating from there, not an official university view, but I suppose we can assume that this uni adheres to reasonable standards regarding the papers it produces and publishes). If they're not the absolute biggest, they are clearly big. And influential - we know how influence works in the US.

The three largest defense companies in the world are all United States companies. With a combined total revenue in 2001 of $100 billion and employing 400,000 people, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are three powerhouses of American business. Their combined revenues account for 1% of the United States' $10 trillion GDP.[ii] Each company is on each of the Fortune lists: America’s Most Admired Companies, Global Most Admired Companies, Fortune 500 and Global 500.[iii] Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are also the three top arms-producing companies in the world

So - how have these companies fared over the last year? I looked at share price. It's not a perfect window into a company by any means, but it does suggest how investors think profits will go in the near future.

Now, we can't conclude that the level of aggression against Syria is the only, the main, or even a pretty big contributor to the profit of arms firms. They might have diversified into all sorts of other things, like prosthetics for people who survive their attentions (and who live in countries which can access them and afford them; no, perhaps not), or mental health services for survivors of war, or funerals. All sorts of possibilities are out there.

But let's suppose investors think that profits comes from sales, which are increased by war. It's a reasonable assumption, I would argue. Anyway, share prices. As an indication of what the investment "community" thinks will happen to those companies' profits. Here we go:

I don't like graphs that don't start from a zero base. I think they are sloppy, and dishonest, and aim to exaggerate the slope of the lines they depict. So apologies for these, I'm just grabbing stuff off the net. The lines should be flatter, but the trend is unmistakable.

Again you are just seeing what you want to see. The Dow Jones average for all companies over the last 12 months looks pretty similar to those graphs and it has nothing to do with Syria.

[blandy]

Do arms companies benefit from this aggression?  Well, the intuitive answer is obviously yes, they do.  But that has been challenged, so let's take a look. Who are the biggest arms companies? ..... With a combined total revenue in 2001 of $100 billion and employing 400,000 people, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are three powerhouses of American business. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing are also the three top arms-producing companies in the world, So - how have these companies fared over the last year?  I looked at share price.  It's not a perfect window into a company by any means, but it does suggest how investors think profits will go in the near future. Now, we can't conclude that the level of aggression against Syria is the only, the main, or even a pretty big contributor to the profit of arms firms.  They might have diversified into all sorts of other things, like prosthetics for people who survive their attentions (and who live in countries which can access them and afford them; no, perhaps not), or mental health services for survivors of war, or funerals.  All sorts of possibilities are out there. But let's suppose investors think that profits comes from sales, which are increased by war.  It's a reasonable assumption, I would argue.  Anyway, share prices.  As an indication of what the investment "community"  thinks will happen to those companies' profits....I don't like graphs that don't start from a zero base.  I think they are sloppy, and dishonest, and aim to exaggerate the slope of the lines they depict.  So apologies for these, I'm just grabbing stuff off the net.  The lines should be flatter, but the trend is unmistakable.

Boeing = bad. Shares gone up. Syria.

Banks bad, shares gone up. Syria..

In fact the general recovery of stock markets will be down to Syria, because there's nothing the markets love more than uncertainty.

Villa's form has been much better since march, too....

But even indulging that correlation = causation stuff, leaves the question, If conflict n' that is why the share prices have gone up, why has the opposite not happened as the scaling down of Afghanistan operations means less spending on Boeings and Lockheeds?

And finally, I thought the argument was about whether the gov'ts were acting as they are in order to drive up arms co. profits , as Drat claimed, not whether if there actually is a war (rather than the threat of one) they may profit from it?

[Awol]

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

[AVFCforever1991]

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

 

I wasn't aware there was any Obama fans here?

[Awol]

 

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

 

I wasn't aware there was any Obama fans here?

 

You're kidding, right?  This board was drowning in bromance when he was elected!

[Jon]

I believe it matters not who is the 'figurehead' of the US Guvmint.

 

Same shit, different face.

 

A sad state of affairs, but one borne out by the experience of the 'Brahma' government. I had far higher hopes for his administration. So I was probably naive in thinking he'd be different.

[villaajax]

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

 

... Isn't it obvious, even to you? He was saying that the UK shouldn't enter any conflict with Syria without it first being confirmed that chemical weapons were used. At the time he brought this up nothing had been confirmed so it's fair enough to say we need confirmation before voting to go to war.

 

I think that's pretty simple enough to understand even for the Bluest of Tories.

[drat01]

Little Ed has shifted his position of support for the government to now say that any potential UK military action must be dependent on the UN inspectors report to the UNSC. Trouble is that all the inspectors are mandated to do is confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used, a situation even the Syrian Government have now confirmed. What they are not mandated to do is assess who did it, or how. Given that, I'm not sure what the point is of Miliband qualifying his support on this basis, it seems to make no sense at all. 

 

Meanwhile Obama has said the US is sure Assad's forces did it and don't feel that a possible US military action in response will be bound by any discussion at the UN. So, how do the Obama fans on here feel about the fact that Bush was persuaded to at least try and engage with the UN route prior to invading Iraq, but Obama just brushes them off as basically irrelevant? 

 

Is it time to admit that those displaying almost messianic joy at his coronation in 2008 were basically suckered?

and there it is, the anti-Labour post - I was waiting and it turns up in all it's glory (thrown in with a anti-Obama one for good luck - how the right wing love to show their true colours)

 

Milliband (little ed -name calling in quite a reasonable thread like this?, really AWOL !) you say has shifted his position. Now can you give me the proof of any of that, or are you just jumping on the anti-Labour band wagon that the Tory party and a lot of it's backers are trying to fit newly donated wheels onto? Surely what Milliband, and many many more political people have stated (plus - and I appreciate you may not get the info not being in the UK) that serious considered debate should take place before any posturing and ultimate action takes place. Where is the problem in that, or are you of the mind set that we should bomb and then ask questions?

[Jon]

I thought it had been confirmed that Chemmys had been used? I thought was was unconfirmed was who had deployed them. That's going to be very difficult to ascertain, so the yanks and others are happy to go with the assumption that is was Assad, as that is 'most likely'.

 

Not a position i'd be overly comfortable with, and seemingly neither is Red Ed.