Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

And next, Syria?

[quote="Delroy Booth, post: 12529491, member:
yeah to be fair the saudi's do fund Al-qeada to some extent (infact I reckon I said as much earlier in the thread) it's just when I see CR coming out with these these sweeping generalisations (Mossad gassed Ghouta, Putin respects international law, Al-qeada are the House of Saud's proxy army, their version of Hezbollah) I can't help but start laughing like Ray Liotta out of goodfellas.
Click to expand...

del you ridiculed the idea of Saudi funding and its there for everyone to see. And now your making sweeping generalisations on other things and acting dishonestly.
Look at that list of islamist groups, it's a right mess, some of them are pro saudi, some of them are anti saudi, some of them are quite happy to pretend their pro-saudi if they think they'll get some money out of it, it's an extremely complex set of relationships.
Click to expand...

which ones among the rebels are anti saudi[/quote]
 
Al-Qaida is the friend and enemy of Saudis, just depends which Saudis (and being in the government makes little difference)
 
http://www.udel.edu/globalagenda/2005/student/readings/FA-Doran-Saudi.html

This is an article I may or may not have read fully years ago but it may be of interest to this debate about Saudi Arabia. It concerns the internal divides in the Saudi government between those outward looking 'liberals' who side with America and Sheff Utd, and those that side with the religious Wahabbi establishment. It should provide an explanation as to how al-Qaida can be funded by the "Saudis" and at the same time consider the "Saudis" to be their enemy. Obviously this is massively out of date now and I don't know if it's still like this (Prince Neyef is dead for a start)
 
CyberRose said:
http://www.udel.edu/globalagenda/2005/student/readings/FA-Doran-Saudi.html

This is an article I may or may not have read fully years ago but it may be of interest to this debate about Saudi Arabia. It concerns the internal divides in the Saudi government between those outward looking 'liberals' who side with America and Sheff Utd, and those that side with the religious Wahabbi establishment. It should provide an explanation as to how al-Qaida can be funded by the "Saudis" and at the same time consider the "Saudis" to be their enemy. Obviously this is massively out of date now and I don't know if it's still like this (Prince Neyef is dead for a start)
Click to expand...

more importantly how are sheffield united getting along
 
ok then, lets set the yanks and russians a good example and do a reset . I agree with you on most issues, and even learn stuff from time to time.
 
The term Al-Qaeda is often the opposite of illuminating. Best avoided where possible, and to speak of specific groups instead, though there are a few scenarios where it obviously does make sense to use it.
 
yield said:
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Who next?
Click to expand...
Well if Iran is easing up on the nuclear issue (as the media are leading me to believe, rightly or wrongly), that could signal they are ready to cut Assad loose. I've said before, this conflict will end when Iran tells Assad it's time to go, maybe a nuclear deal may help that along? (I'm also of the impression Russia is supporting Iran in this conflict, rather than Assad)
 
Anyway so, what are peoples opinions on whether or not Obama will get his vote passed ? Just looking at that preliminary one and it was only ten to 7 for, hardly a ringing endorsement . According to the BBC his own party is very sceptical in many quarters and the republicans are badly split on it . Also a lot of them seem to be indicating theyll be making their decisions after consulting voters, and the polls show a big enough majority of Americans against the idea.
Is it a foregone conclusion or might he get tripped up ? Even Bush was very concerned to be seen to have a coalition of the willing, and that was with a lot of firm domestic support on his side. Obama doesnt have either .
Meanwhile the speaker of the syrian parliament has sent a letter to the House of Representatives reminding them they face a common enemy, whove theyve blamed for the chemical attacks . Al Qaedas presence is emphasised repeatedly. Wont have much of an effect but if it swings one or 2 undecideds it could make a difference .
 
CyberRose said:
Well if Iran is easing up on the nuclear issue (as the media are leading me to believe, rightly or wrongly), that could signal they are ready to cut Assad loose. I've said before, this conflict will end when Iran tells Assad it's time to go, maybe a nuclear deal may help that along? (I'm also of the impression Russia is supporting Iran in this conflict, rather than Assad)
Click to expand...

Iran has been supporting hezbollah for decades. It cant have an arm in Lebanon without Syria. In fact if Assad falls there probably wont be a Lebanon. So if theyre cutting him loose their cutting HB loose, which I would find impossible to believe.
As for Russia their links to Syria go back a long time. They provide equipment to Syria they refuse to supply Iran with, thus far . But may retaliate for attacks on syria by lifting those bans . Syria is their last base out there, its strategically important .
 
Casually Red said:
Anyway so, what are peoples opinions on whether or not Obama will get his vote passed ? Just looking at that preliminary one and it was only ten to 7 for, hardly a ringing endorsement . According to the BBC his own party is very sceptical in many quarters and the republicans are badly split on it . Also a lot of them seem to be indicating theyll be making their decisions after consulting voters, and the polls show a big enough majority of Americans against the idea.
Is it a foregone conclusion or might he get tripped up ? Even Bush was very concerned to be seen to have a coalition of the willing, and that was with a lot of firm domestic support on his side. Obama doesnt have either .
Meanwhile the speaker of the syrian parliament has sent a letter to the House of Representatives reminding them they face a common enemy, whove theyve blamed for the chemical attacks . Al Qaedas presence is emphasised repeatedly. Wont have much of an effect but if it swings one or 2 undecideds it could make a difference .
Click to expand...
As of now, looks like Obama will lose in the House. He can then call Cameron & they can have a good cry together.
 
Delroy Booth said:
Exactly, for all the arguing about chemical weapons the goal is regime change, that was the goal before August 21st and it's the goal now. This is a situation that needs de-escalating because it has the potential to get out of hand, but the political leaders don't see it like that.
Click to expand...
Rapidly heading for another standoff, 1962 anyone?
 
coley said:
Rapidly heading for another standoff, 1962 anyone?
Click to expand...

potentially worse maybe . At least in 62 the US wasnt actually bombarding Cuba . They werent lobbing missiles near Russian ships .
WHat happens for example if the yanks think it might be a good idea to annoy a Russian ship thats probably giving an electronic heads up for any incoming missile or aircraft back to Syrian air defences, and the Russians decide to annoy them back..and someone shits themselves . Doesnt bear thinking about but thats a scenario that could easily happen and itll be going on for months .
 
Casually Red said:
Thanks Tom. Do you have any further info on this ?
Click to expand...
The Washington Post has been keeping track. If you go down to the House section, it's very hard to see how Obama is going to get a yes vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria/

Among the public, polling shows both Repubs & Dems against. Liberal media that usually support Obama is universally opposed. Right wing media is opposed. Congressional liberals are opposed. Congressional Repubs, especially in the House will vote no on anything Obama proposes on any issue. The public is war weary, remembers Iraq & are bombarding congress with e-mails & phone calls. Obama's going to be humiliated. I can't stand the Repubs or Assad but Obama's proposal just seems pointless & dangerous to most.
 
Sprocket. said:
This is the most sense I've heard from anyone on the current situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23981957

Nice to see Mikhail still got some passion.
Click to expand...
interesting him being positive about the possibility of a civil pact being made between the US and Russia. I read a small book by Mikhail reflecting on the disarmament process and de-escelation of the cold war, in which he was involved. He very politely said that the US screwed him: he did his part and took steps to reverse the arms race whilst the US just took it as an opportunity to conclusively win the arms race once and for all and continued spending. He was very diplomatic in the book but clearly a fair bit bitter about it.
 
ska invita said:
interesting him being positive about the possibility of a civil pact being made between the US and Russia. I read a small book by Mikhail reflecting on the disarmament process and de-escelation of the cold war, in which he was involved. He very politely said that the US screwed him: he did his part and took steps to reverse the arms race whilst the US just took it as an opportunity to conclusively win the arms race once and for all and continued spending. He was very diplomatic in the book but clearly a fair bit bitter about it.
Click to expand...

its precisely what Fidel told him theyd do so he has nobody to blame but himself. It was a collossal misreading by him of western goals and intentions . In no small part due to his own perception of himself as somehow on their side as he dismantled the nasty soviet union . He expected to be rewarded by becoming one of their partners in a new world. Castro has long maintained that the west havent the slightest interest in arriving at compromises . All they are interested in is securing total victory . Gorbachevs view that they were decent people who woud accept him as a partner if he bent the knee and became reasonable was as naieve as Gadaffis .
 
I always have had a lot of time for Mr Gorbachev.
I like the quote attributed to him.
''Sometimes when you stand face to face with someone, you cannot see his face''.
Will have to put more of his books on my 'to read' list. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Casually Red said:
Gorbachevs view that they were decent people who woud accept him as a partner if he bent the knee and became reasonable was as naieve as Gadaffis .
Click to expand...
yeah in the book he comes across as a genuinely nice guy with what seemed an earnest anti-war heart (based on some childhood experiences i forget the detail of now) - but ultimately naive. and that bbc clip seems like more of the same tbh.
 
Sprocket. said:
I always have had a lot of time for Mr Gorbachev.
I the quote attributed to him.
''Sometimes when you stand face to face with someone, you cannot see his face''.
Will have to put more of his books on my 'to read' list. Thanks.
Click to expand...
this is the one i read, it was quite short
Manifesto for the Earth: Action Now for Peace, Global Justice and a Sustainable Future by Mikhail S. Gorbachev
1905570023.jpg


not sure why i had it - i think i found it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teqniq
Huge earthquake in Turkey and Northern Syria 05-06/02/23
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
JimW
JimW
P
The next American Civil War
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
321
Views
15K
pbsmooth
P
MrCurry
After Ukraine, what’s next?
2 3
Replies
76
Views
5K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
T
Hong Kong: what next?
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
83K
Yossarian
Yossarian
H
Syria, attack on Conoco gas plant in Feburary 2018
Replies
1
Views
349
yield
Y
Back
Top Bottom