I have a horrible feeling....

I agree fc. The Netherlands are saying now that the Malaysia Airlines plane that was brought down a couple of years ago, was hit by a Russian made missile.

 

Just why the Us and its poodle want to start a war with Russia is beyond me. It will end in our defeat and most likely death. For what exactly ?

 

The US are quite frankly and honestly being stupid idiots.

They openly support the opposition rebels. So in other words, the US openly supports a violent, unelected, disparate force in its violent opposition to another state's government.

Before Russia got involved, the US led coalition were picking and choosing which bunch of terrorists they'd target, and which terrorists they'd leave or even protect.

Russia eventually stepped forward and said enough is enough. The government may not be palatable to many, but it is a government. It is organised and all its forces function as one. It is predictable. The other side is actually many sides. The fact that there are several distinct groups, each with slightly different long term goals, means inevitably they will simply continue any war amongst themselves even if they achieve their common goal of overthrowing the government. Proof of this was and is readily forthcoming in that they already fight each other from time to time even while their common goal is still a remote prospect. Even if the terrorist groups were to unite, then what? Who I'm Syria would the US talk to then?

So along comes Russia. Russia says let's end this. Let's give assad his country back. He is not a nice man, but he is known to everyone. Perhaps Russia might have also said, behind the scenes or off the record, remember when the US created the taliban regime in Afghanistan, or when they created that manure storm in Iraq when they ousted the government there? Well let's not let them do the same again here.

I have no doubt that Russia has its own agenda. I have no doubt that the same can be said of the US. I also have no doubt that putin is a nasty man. But I can't remember the last time Russia invaded a country that it didn't used to own. I can't say the same for the US.

Russia's methods are not palatable. The Americans possibly rightly justify their use of the atomic bomb in Japan, twice, the only nation ever to use one in hostility by the way, by saying it saved lives in the long run by swiftly ending the war. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps as unpalatable as it is, perhaps Russia's show of extreme force in Syria might in the longer term end the fighting there. Let's hope so, because nothing the US led intervention seems to be having absolutely no positive effect as far as I can tell based purely on what is reported on the news.

 

To be fair that is very old news. It was about a year ago that the Dutch Safety Board publicly stated that to be the case. They did not state that it was fired by Russia or any party that received Russian support but they did state the model of missile and launcher which did specifically rule out the missile being fired by Ukrainian forces.............


The real disgrace about the Syrian situation is that world trade is deemed more important than effective pressure being bought to bear on Russia. Russia is flexing its muscles because it knows that it will be allowed to get away with it.
Equally as shameful is the response of the developed world with regard to the refugees. Angela Merkel did the right thing and was then hung out to dry by her fellow European leaders.
It's high time that the US used some of its impressive remote weaponry in targeted strikes against the Assad regime and family. Prove to Assad that he is vulnerable and forcing him to surrender power is the only way as killing Assad himself would not allow the West to dictate what it would find acceptable. There are issues with this plan of action such as reprisals and human shields but this debacle has been allowed to drag on for far too long with all the attendant atrocities associated with this man.

Rant over.

 

Why?

The war in Syria was started by Syrian civilians attacking their government. Other civilians actively opposed the overthrow attempt. Hence the nation is in a state of civil war.

Russia is no more in the wrong by intervening than the US and co are.

What if, on seeing the slight rise in popularity of UKIP, some outside force decided to come to the UK and target the assets and resources of people deemed to be supporters of parties other than UKIP?

I genuinely worry that one day we will have to fight Russia. And for what? To prove that US popular opinion is more valid than Russian? Or maybe to prove that one set of ordinary people who have no desire for war is more important than another set of ordinary people who also have no desire for war but live on the other side of an imaginary line on some map?

 

Syria is not governed by a democratically elected government. It is a single party state where opposition is ruthlessly crushed. The last democratic elections were in 1948(?) and since then any change in regime has come about as a result of coups with the backing of the military. The Assad regime started when Assads father declared himself president, the title then being passed on to his son when he died. The Assads are Allahwites (spelling?) which is basically Shia muslims with a few differences whilst the majority of Syrians are Sunni with a few Kurds, christians and a handful of Syrian Jews. The control of Syria is divied out amongst the Allahwites/Shia who account for about 15% of the population.
The people of Syria wanted change. Here we can vote for change but there it has to be fought for. Sadly for them it has gone truly tits up.
Note - the figures quoted are off the top of my head but google them and I'm sure that they're pretty close.

It is an entirely different situation in our democratic nation. To use your hypothetical analogy what has happened is that the minority UKIP party has seized control and then the assets and human rights of anyone who is not a UKIP supporter.

That is I guess a sense of perspective. If you believe in totalitarian dictatorships then yes Russia is no more in the wrong.
It could also be said that they are no more in the wrong than democratic governments who sit on their butts wringing their hands saying how awful the atrocities are whilst doing naff all about it.

 

I don't. But it's not up to me. While I will listen to and respect the views of others, I will not have them forced upon me. Likewise I have no right to force myself views on others. In both Russia and Syria, and indeed many countries that have regimes we consider unacceptable, you will find people who oppose it, and people who support it.

With regard to Syria, I think I must have missed the news article that said a delegation of Syrian people had asked the international community to provide protection while they held an election, and help enacting the result whatever that may be. I missed the beginning and seemed to skip straight to the part where civilians started to kill each other.

 

There are two compelling arguments for yes;
1] The 1919 Paris peace treaty when the old Ottoman empire was divided up between the victors, mainly the UK and France. The Middle East was divided up without consideration for the various religious groups and almost a century on the effects are still being felt.
As much as I loath religion we cannot just shut our eyes to it and hope that it'll just go away.
2] The shear weight of people trying to escape it means that it is the developed worlds problem.

As I said earlier, the mormal rules of democracy do not apply there. To provide protection would mean an invasion as the current regime would not voluntarily allow it to happen. And then when the inevitable result came in it would then evolve into a militarily enforced regime change. I'm sure that you remember the news reports of the British governments defeat in the House of Commons on that one.

The worst thing that I have to worry about is plugging another hole in the defences that we put in place to combat my mothers gambling addiction and bailing her out for another few thousand. For you it is possibly providing for your family (and I say that with the greatest of respect). For both of us these issues revolve around the welfare of our family and by and large we can control that. But when the welfare of your family depends on keeping your head down and your mouth shut you have no control. It is a different world and one that as well read as I think that you and I are it is one that we cannot even begin to grasp.
Whilst the involvement of Russia in Syria complicates things I firmly believe that the major stumbling block to a resolution is the unwillingness of career politicians (worldwide) to take politically unpopular decisions.

 

We were told we were all fighting a war against AlQaeda terrorists for years and now we support the same terrorists with money and arms to fight assad.
If Assad falls Syria will go the same way as Iraq and Libya. Whos next?

Iran ? That will unleash a torrent of misery on the West that will just enrichen the politicians and their paymasters in the armaments business.

 

I remember a few of our politicians trying to get them commons to indulge THEIR desires to impose THEIR will on Syria. They picked a side that they wanted to win, and sought permission to attack the other.

Later, having asked again, they got their permission.

Meanwhile Russia decided, again without seeking the opinion of the Syrian people, that they'd do the same, except they chose a different side.

The result is the situation we have today. All sides being attacked by someone. It's a total mess.

If the Syrian people had asked the UN to support them in a democratic process, that may well have resulted in a similar invasion and violence that we see now. But the difference would be that there'd be a clear legal framework. A clear set of rules. If Russia had then came along and used force to oppose the democratic outcome, then that would clearly be an act of unprovoked aggression against another state.

In a nutshell, the US and co are supporting people who have the attitude, kill first, kill again, talk never.

 

Al Nusra was declared a terrorist organisation way back in 2012 due to it being the Syrian arm of Al Qaeda and as such have relied upon Al qaeda sources for funding (Qatar and Saudi Arabia). In June (July?) that affiliation was cut. In the last week or two unconfirmed reports have come from Al Nusra claiming CIA aid. I agree that there has probably been aid heading out there to help in the battle against IS but I doubt (but have no idea for sure) that any aid has gone to them for the battle against Assad.

I agree that it could very well go that way. The one "plus point" is that between Assad, Russia and the various rebel factions massive chunks of Syria and its infrastructure lay in ruins. So whoever wins (if that is what it could be called) will need massive amounts of aid which will buy influence. Let's hope that it is not Russia.

Now in all fairness the permission that was asked for and received on the second occasion was to target IS forces, not any of the other forces (of either side) involved in the conflict.

It is. History is made on the hoof. One lesson from history (in the 1930's) teaches us that if you stand back and watch it doesn't make the problem go away, it just makes a bigger mess. A second historical lesson from the noughties teaches us that if you pile in all guns blazing but lacking a plan it turns into a mess. It is up to us to learn and to try to get it right. Easier said than done.

I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge there has been no invasion yet.

And what would we have done about that? Except for the possibility that UN forces may have been involved in military engagement with Russia?

As are the Russians.

Anyway, back to @fat controller original point. The Russians don't bother me hugely. They're just beating their chest trying to prove that they are still a major world force. I'm personally far more worried about international terrorism and the ways in which that has the potential to develop.

 

Is that history is doomed to repeat itself over and over and over, because the very people we trust to be at the top are the very people who seem completely incapable of understanding that we're all one people on one world, with differences no doubt, but more in common than different.

But the primary reason why history is doomed to repeat itself over and over is because those we trust to be at the top are simply either incapable or too egotistical to learn from the past.