Syria

[cromwell]

I've been puzzling over this for a bit and still can't get my head around it.
What are we doing backing the rebels in Syria? All of this "Arab Spring" stuff, I think it has been overdone. Yes there have been uprisings against dictators, but imo the West and the Saudis have been pulling strings here.
I think the long term aim is to invade Iran. Why, because they have the third biggest oil reserves in the world.
Syria is Iran's ally, so Syria has to go before Iran is tackled. The longer the Syrians hold out, the more time Iran has to build a nuclear weapon, which is why the West is so mad with the Russians supplying Syria with more arms.

Probably we will end up backing the wrong horse. Saudi Arabia are our 'friends' - what if that changes?

But the thing that really upsets me is that our various governments try to claim the moral high ground on this. We are helping the gallant freedom fighters to overthrow the wicked tyrant Assad - well, we in the west have supported a good few wicked tyrants in our time when it has suited us. Plus the 'gallant freedom fighters' of this year seem to become the 'Islamist militants' of next year. Look at how the 'Mujahedeen' fighting against the Russians (good) morphed into the Taliban fighting against us (bad).

What a mess it is.

[Aggers]

I'm sure you are right, Cromwell. Oil is the motive here.

It would make more sense (to me, anyway) is nations put their minds to reducing the need for oil.

For example....
On the news this morning they referred to parents having the choice of which school they sent their children to.
Surely it would make more sense to say that they had to use the nearest one, as it used to be. That would put
an end to the wretched school run which gobbles up so much petrol, and also help to tackle the obesity problem,
as children could then walk to school.

But one doesn't expect common-sense decisions from Government now.

[Workingman]

Interesting use of the Royal "We", Cromwell.

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of us do not give a stuff about who wins in Syria or most of N. Africa, Arabia, Persia and all points East. All that 'we' want is peace.

However, our government, and other governments in the West, see themselves as global policemen and arbiters of what is right or wrong; and in doing so they actively stir up trouble.

Over the weekend Hague said the Britain might "have" to provide arms to Syrian opposition forces. No it does not, and the message he sends out is more likely to prolong the civil war than bring it to an end.

When both sides are as bad as one another it is best to let them sort themselves out and then deal with the consequences.

[TheOstrich]

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of us do not give a stuff about who wins in Syria or most of N. Africa, Arabia, Persia and all points East. All that 'we' want is peace.

It may well be that all "we" want is peace, but the trouble is, there is a whole army of Islamists out there who don't, especially with "us". Do you ignore them or not?

[Workingman]

It may well be that all "we" want is peace, but the trouble is, there is a whole army of Islamists out there who don't, especially with "us". Do you ignore them or not?

No Ossie, we do not ignore them, but now we have no choice. However, how many more of them are there because of the stance, utterances and meddling actions of our (Western) governments?