http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19801884 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57545160/palestinians-join-intense-fighting-in-syrian-capital/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...57c6-3577-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story_1.html
"Good manners" was smiling politely as you were getting your butts kicked out! BTW, I've made it repeatedly clear that my family got here in 1947, not 1747, with no regrets about leaving the UK, or any of its current or former constituent parts. I don't believe that I've said that IRA terrorism was good. I have said that it was unsurprising, as a response to British & Unionist terrorism in Ireland and Northern Ireland. I've also not supported either Israeli or Palestinian terrorism, whether inside Israel or in the Palestinian territories. In all cases, I haven't been surprised by the actions of either side, just upset and disappointed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 These car bombs need to stop. That is terrorism when you target innocents and not military targets. As bad as assad is, these types of attacks need to be condenmed and stopped. Not that the UN will get involved, nor will there be any mass calls for a ceasefire to stop this senseless killing.
Just take out the part I took out, and that would actually be a good, sensible, message I could even rep. Those few words I took out are unnecessary as they merely allow the kind of people who are behind these terrorist acts to hang on to a fig leaf to justify their heinous crimes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-syria-us-obama-idUSBRE8B210M20121203 Those chemical weapons should preferably be dismantled alltogether.
It would be nice, but, and this will sound cruel, should we just stay out of this? If Syria is not threatening us, is it our problem?
The US needs to stay out of this, there is nothing we can do that won't backfire against us in some way or another. The only thing the US should do is provide medical aid as needed, where needed, when needed for all the non-coms caught in the middle of this war. On one side you have a genocidal maniac in assad backed by hezbollah terrorists and iran, and on the other you have hamas and other terrorists fighting alongside people in Syria who want rid of the first group. This is something that the arab league should have taken care of from the start. Now it should be taken care of internally or the UN, minus the US, should step in and halt the fighting. Although lets be honest, what can/will the UN actually do aside from a meaningless vote.
While I generally agree I do see some rational grounds for involvement if chemical/biological weapons are introduced. I wouldn't recommend boots on the ground, but perhaps a bombing campaign against Assad's military targets. IMO this is the only legitimate purpose of NATO. If an NATO country is having chemical/biological bombs going off on its border then the other member states have a responsibility to take action. If they had the mental acrobatics to justify using NATO in Afghanistan, then this scenario should be a no brainer.
If Assad uses those weapons it should signal the end of the current conflict. NATO will take out Assad within days or weeks. The problem though does not go away after Assad. The insurgents will likely slaughter large numbers of Alouites, Christians and other minorities in a celebratory revenge. I would expect there to be a permanent ethnic division there for the foreseeable future ... kind of like Iraq and Lebanon. That basically means lots of suicide bombers, assassinations, revenge killings etc ... that could go on for awhile
In light of the ongoing conflict in Syria, will there be a redrawing of the map in the Middle East? The Shittes of Lebanon ally with the Alawites of Syria and the Kurds from Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey ally with each and create Kurdistan. And Sunnis in Iraq, Jordan, Syria ally to oppose the Shittes of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and other countries with restive Shiite populations.
Creating KurdofStan, Sunnivale & HolyShiite? http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/mapping/interactive-map/?ar_a=1
The borders are not well drawn and are an artifcate mostly of the post WWI settlement (I say mostly because the Saudi boadrers are the result of post WWI inter Arab warfare). An interesting discussion of how and why the boarders were drawn is found in "Desert Queen" a biography of Gertrude Bell, who was one of the main British diplomatic officers in the region during the WWI era. Partly it was an issue of oil politics, partly an issue or finding defensible boarders and partly an issue of the British and French trying to find a solution for the contradictory promises they made to various people in the region (in particular, the British needed to keep the Hashimites out of Syria, hence the creation of Iraq and Jordan). Hence, there are Arabs on the east bank of the great rivers, in Iran, Shia in Sunni countries and vice versea. The Kurds got really screwed. There are Sunnis dominating Shia countries, and Shias dominating Sunnis in Syria. You have the descendents of desert tribes in Jordan controlling an otherwse mostly settled native population. But no matter how you draw them, always, people will be caught on the wrong side of the boarder, especially in the desert where boarders are often
No no terrorist groups, a freedom fighter organization modeled after the PLO. The KLO. But I am doubtful it will get anywhere near the same level of support because there aren't any Jews on the land that they want.
A cynic might think that the lines were drawn, to create future problems, which would require the intervention of the British ... That's what causes the real fun!
This just shows how both sides are pretty much terrorists fighting each other. assad bombs hospitals and drops cluster bombs on school yards and is now preparing for chemical warfare, while the rebels use car bombs and fire mortars at schools. I feel for the syrian people as they are stuck with 2 terrible options for who will win.
Nah, we've been leaving all that 'glorious empire' shit to you fellas for many years. Oh, hang on... unless you're not an American now?!?!?! Maybe you're one of these fellas that's a yank when it suits you and Irish when it doesn't
Yeah, well... I just get a bit sick of hearing how all the problems in the world have been caused by the British, that's all. IM bangs on about Iran's glorious empire. Does he think they gained control over countries by conducting a wide-ranging and vicious leafleting campaign? Jake's a proud yank on occasion, (conveniently forgetting about the trail of tears and other 'regrettable' incidents like slavery and the various early versions of the 'New American Century' which you'd have thought might make him look a bit closer to home, wouldn't yer ), and then wants to play the victim card when it suits him. Fact is that about EIGHT TIMES as many English poor died as a result of the various inclosure (sic) acts and being forced to fight in the many and varied acts of aggression of the aristocracy as did from the Irish potato famine and Scottish land clearances added TOGETHER but then, they were English so who cares. I think I've mentioned before on here that, according to genealogical research I've done, I lost about about a quarter of my family on my fathers side and about a third of my mother's during that period so when people talk about ' THE BRITISH', I'm inclined to ask, WHICH British???? Anyway, very much OT I know, but...
Nobody remembers that it's always the aristocracy's fault. Belgian Congo? Not the poor Belgians living in Flanders or Brussels. Dutch Indonesia? Never the working stiffs. I was just playing with you. In fact, if your country wants to be a democracy, one of the best chances it's got is having been formerly a British colonial or imperial possession. The kiss of death is being an Italian or French colony: So don't feel too bad about it!