Who is right? Obama or Putin?

act.thesyriacampaign.org/go/164?t=9&akid=262.124249.3Z_0br

No people, no problem. Somehow I doubt it'll get to that and I hope, for Syrians' sake, that it doesn't.

There'll be no people left in Syria to restore order to.

No one has said that dj, of course it's not right, neither is the tyranny in North Korea, China, (think of Tibet) Russia, think of Crimea and Ukraine among other things. Zimbabwe, The Congo, Thailand, Burma, and a host of other countries where their leaders are pretty grim, but we don't go roaring in to any of these trying to overthrow their governments in this self righteous way, I wonder why not?!!! At least minorities under Assad before this awful war were relatively safe; Now they are in mortal danger and have suffered dreadfully under IS,or perhaps this is unimportant?! Quite frankly if the Russian input with Assad, when all else has so dramatically failed, is what it takes to restore some sort of order in Syria then regretfully the sooner it happens the better.

I read that article, bags, but it wasn't in the Spectator. Not that that matters. It's a hard thing to say that Putin might be right, though. I still think what they are doing is testing weapons in a place where nobody cares about what's happening. It's been going on for over four years. Britain sold weapons to Assad before Russia started to be interested.

So it's okay for Assad to carry on killing his own people with chemical weapons, is it? So long as it doesn't impinge on our way of life?

I agree with you crun, as you say, we who live in politically stable countries really haven't got a clue when it comes to the governance of more volatile nations, when the only way to keep the peace, is by a strong dictator! I know we all want our democracy in these countries, but the bare facts are that it just isn't going to happen, and perhaps we in the west are being a little presumptuous thinking that people of different cultures and outlooks to ours actually want our brand of doing things. Rather like missionaries who were convinced that their ways and beliefs were totally right and should be imposed on other people whether they liked it or not. If ever there was a way to hell paved with good intentions, our adventures in the Middle East certainly take first prize! Leaving countries alone to evolve in their own way might be a good start! The ladies of those countries may be perfectly happy living life as dictated by the customs of their culture? Who are we to tell them differently? Just because we adhere to a certain way of life doesn't mean that others want to. Why is it that we in the name of democracy try to foist our ideas and attitudes on others who are probably perfectly happy as they are. Why are we so right and they so wrong?!

Did anyone else see this article about Putin and Assad? I thought it made a lot of sense.

Having watched Iraq and Libya, I've come to the conclusion that it's easy to get all self righteous about human rights and democracy when you live in a politically stable country, but it appears that it takes a dictator to keep control when you're lumbered with a load of fanatics and nutcases.

I think the best thing for Britain and possibly Syria as well would be if Putin succeeds in wresting back power for Assad.

I recall an Iraqi on Newsnight a few years ago:

"Life under Saddam wasn't that bad as long as you kept your nose out of politics, but now you can't even queue for a loaf of bread without running the gauntlet of the suicide bombers."

theconversation.com/how-syria-is-becoming-a-test-bed-for-high-tech-weapons-of-electronic-warfare-48779

This is why we should not send refugees back.
Obama and Putin are using Syria to test new weapons, just like 1984.

Since when did the roses become the arbiters of what is allowed or not?

Excuse Me? What does that mean?

I just said that I do often read them - they are links to things I may not otherwise know about therefore interesting.

I read the newspapers too, and don't always agree with a lot of what is written in them.

You are allowed to. I do not tell anyone they have to read my links or quotes. I put them on because I think it is interesting to find out what people who are involved in any particular area think.

I do not know or pretend to know whether Obama or Putin is right. I think they are both wrong, and I said so in my first post on this thread.
I am in CND and anti-war, not because I do not know anything about warfare, but I've said all that before.

If somebody important says something I agree with, I like to disseminate the information or opinion.
Since when was that disallowed on GN?
Since when did the roses become the arbiters of what is allowed or not?

You do not have to read them, agree with them, or comment on them.
I like to think for myself and form my own opinions. I find it heartening when others agree with them, whether on this site, or on any other site I read.

I don't mind following links and often do, but I do like to think for myself and form my own opinions.

When I quote, it's because I agree, as I said.

When I say ' better' of course, I mean preferable to simply dredging up endless quotes.

Djen, your own thoughts would be better than constant quotes from sources
Such as newspapers or social media.
What exactly are you advocating?

"Jeremy’s position is unambiguous, repeated in his leader’s speech this week: he is not abandoning his lifelong commitment to opposing war and nuclear weapons. So some on the right of the party will join the Tories in voting for bombing in order to ensure the motion is carried.

The call by some, including left-winger John McDonnell, for Labour MPs to have a free vote on this matter, will only encourage more of them to vote with the Tories. For right wing Labour MPs to defy both conference policy and a party whip is harder than for them to vote according to their ‘conscience’.

War is not an issue of conscience, but a political question. There are a number of people who oppose wars in principle. But there is no principle involved in supporting wars regardless of circumstances or outcomes. To pretend that it is so is to impute much more lofty motives to a whole number of the MPs who routinely vote for war.

Instead they should respect the mandate that Jeremy has won, not least because of his longstanding opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to apologise for it.

Perhaps MPs of all parties should also reflect that one of the main reasons for disillusionment with mainstream politics has been the denial of democracy that was the vote to take us into Iraq. "

I agree with Jeremy.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/stop-the-war-statement-syria-labour-party-policy-and-russian-intervention

Many commentators have said that ISIS has been funded by our, and the US's, close ally, Saudi Arabia and there have certainly been suggestions from some quarters that covert incitement and training of various anti-Assad groups has had the unfortunate consequence of creating ISIS - much as happened with Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

The US, with the assistance of UK forces, has been carrying out bombing missions in Syria for some time now and the Turks continue to bomb the Kurds (who were once hailed as heroes for protecting the Yazidis from ISIS). The Russians and the Iranians believe many of the anti-Assad groups are aligned with, and have aims similar to, ISIS, e.g. in entrenching and expanding a caliphate.

The US, the UK, and Russia are only adding to the death and destruction. I think Corbyn is right - if these powerful countries stop selling weapons and providing military back-up to the factions which they are hoping will be more in line with their own political beliefs and interests, there is at least some chance of a peaceful solution being reached. If Assad is at some point removed, who or what will fill the vacuum that is created? The removal of powerful leaders has been an absolute disaster for Iraq and Libya.

The Russian public will never blame Putin, (would they dare?!!) they'll blame the West for any discomfort they're subjected to in the way of sanctions. They think that we are the aggressor, and that he is, reluctantly,(?!) defending that aggression. No coming together of minds here I'm afraid.

Ed Milliband led a vote against the uk joining obama's bombing of Syria. Well done I say. what's happening to innocent, ordinary people in Syria is beyond dreadful but I have always felt th uk should keep out of any military action, whilst using diplomatic channels and offering support to refugees. Putin is very scary and a combination of Russia, Iran and Assad confirms we're well out of this one. Except we aren't are we, what was the word Cameron used? Embedded was it, to explain why the raf might be flying the odd mission with the usa

Yes. But will they feel differently when the shelves start to become bare?

The Russian public generally adore Putin.They don't see Ukraine as a problem having already annexed the Crimea.
Iran are happy to be developing nuclear power!

Russia has got its own problems - Ukraine, and their economy. Perhaps the Russian public will turn against Putin if things get hard at home. And Iran didn't like our sanctions over the nuclear thing. I thought it was supposed to be a new dawn for our relationship with Iran. Bit really.

Corbyn thinks we should stay out of the conflict. Stop joining in the bombing

For once I am in agreement with him. However, I don't have any other suggestions.