While you're looking for compassionate world leaders check out who funds their election campaigns, who lobbies them etc.
============

ok, i would concede and agree that that is s very substantial factor in modern politics, especially american politics.

i do not believe though that such lobbying would be substantial enough to be the sole reason for any cpountry including america to enter into a war which was likely to entail substantial casulaites of that nation (such as a war which is anything like even in terms of military capability).

it certainly wasnt a significant factor in britain's decision to enter either of the world wars.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one guys. As much as I would like to I have very little concrete evidence to support my assertions, it is an opinion i've formed as I've grown old and cynical.

Kimchi - I bow to your superior knowledge on American politics regarding WWI. As you say - the second world war was just what they needed, and I read a fair bit on the farce that was Pearl Harbour. I'll leave more modern conspiracies to Galv

JPB - You may be right and I suspect we both are to an extent - certainly there are always people who will profit from war but their influence will forever be a mystery to us.

Kimchi -

I do not intend this question in an adversarily way, but just out of interest, do you cnosider there to be any conflict between your kinship with modern day Japan, and your previous colonial connections, bearing in mind that Japan's invasion of Singapore played such a pivotal role in the downfall of the Empire ?

* adversarial *

Agreeing to disagree is cool, absolutely. It's just so refreshing to have a discussion online (and on ja606 of all places!) where we can do that about politics. I don't think we can get very much further on this, perhaps, without getting together to compare and analyse our sources , whereas I'd much rather get together and drink copious amounts of beer and argue about Ade's wage demands

Bales - I would never say I have 'superior' knowledge in any sense. I just have what I have so...erm...that's all I have

JPB - fair question mate. I know (alas) nothing of Japan's history with Singapore (it may have been in my studies somewhere at uni but it doesn't ring any bells - in fact it would have been because one of my three first-year subjects was the decline of the Empire).

All I know on that is that I visited Singapore with my (then) Japanese girlfriend, had a lovely time, fell in love with the people, but found their laws on littering rather strict, and the heat coupled with 100% humidity was unbearable!

I shall read up, very interesting...

There was certainly conflict in my family when I had a serious Japanese girlfriend! I couldn't even mention it to my (late, beloved) grandmother or her sister as we would have stopped talking! Their opinions were that the Japanese were the lowest of all of our enemies in WW2, and from what I've read I can't say I blame them (although no doubt greater racism towards Asia than another European country in Germany played a part there).

Telling them first-hand what I made of the Japanese (the most peace-loving, gentle folk I had ever encountered) made no difference whatsoever. Japan was the devil's country to them, no matter what.

Personally I have no great longing for the imperial times back, no sense of loss for the times past (I was not there to see it). Our history is what got us here, and is endlessly fascinating to me, but it's no more than that - it's gone. The only hope I have is that we learn from the past as we move forwards

Agreed kimchi, this kind of debate is always controversial though and possibly not the most suitable for a public forum. After a while it becomes about perception of the evidence anyway, and we all seem to have a fair understanding of the fundamentals.

Interesting side note, as someone who does enjoy a conspiracy - did anyone read about why all of those Somalian pirates that appeared out of nowhere?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

how did "that" get in there?

There was certainly conflict in my family when I had a serious Japanese girlfriend! I couldn't even mention it to my (late, beloved) grandmother or her sister as we would have stopped talking! Their opinions were that the Japanese were the lowest of all of our enemies in WW2, and from what I've read I can't say I blame them (although no doubt greater racism towards Asia than another European country in Germany played a part there).

Telling them first-hand what I made of the Japanese (the most peace-loving, gentle folk I had ever encountered) made no difference whatsoever. Japan was the devil's country to them, no matter what.

Personally I have no great longing for the imperial times back, no sense of loss for the times past (I was not there to see it). Our history is what got us here, and is endlessly fascinating to me, but it's no more than that - it's gone. The only hope I have is that we learn from the past as we move forwards
======================

My Nan was exactly the same with the Japanese.

Re Singapore, I understand that our inherent racism played a significant factor in underestimating their threat to us. Whereas our army was under the impression that they were a complete joke who would be blown over in the wind, they actually took singapore of the british in a matter of hours with the britsh shamefully surrendering with almost all of their troops left. btw, sure you're familiar with the expression "gordon bennet" ? well gordon beennet was an australian who was in charge of the empire's troops in singapore. after the surrneder he ordered all the alllied troops to remain in singapore and give themselves up to the japanaese. meanwhile he snook off and chartered a boat and sailed back to australia. gordon bennet indeed. it was this loss of singapore which made the world wake up to the fact that the british were not as powerful as everyone thought, and that they did not have the inherent superioirty over the asian people which they and their society often projected and which had to an extent been accepted up until that point.

your comments on empire are also interesting. i too agree that "it's gone". i thoroughly understand this, and believe that we need to move on and do something different. to me britain ceased to exist in 1997 and it should be remembered with pride for what it was. im not sure whether i share you ansecnce of a sentiment of loss. it still rankles with me sometimes who it fell a part, and i do wonder about what would have happened if certain things were done differently (particularly ireland, but also in the colonies to an extent). i would certainly have loved to have experienced empire first hand, i think that unlike yourself, i do wish that we were still the dominant power in the world today. i certainly share your sentiment about learning from mistakes, but as we discussed earlier in the thread, not to the extent that the past history is rewritten for political expediancy.

I must dash JPB, so cannot do your reply justice tonight I'm afraid...

It would be nice to still be dominant I agree, but only if we had the type of well-meaning (if not necessarily enlightened) leaders we had then. Alas, Cameron and Clegg (and very many who came before them) could not organise sorting out their left and right shoes, let alone anything else...I barely trust them with London. Bush Jr showed that, for every Obama (not saying he's perfect but at least he's intelligent and informed) they will, sooner or later, elect a dangerous numpty.

I will certainly look up the history with Singapore. It wasn't highlighted as a major factor in my studies (for whatever, or however little, that is worth - but I must confess I wasn't the most diligent in my first year).

If you're interested in British 'male chicken'-ups I can only refer you back to the first Flashman book and the portayal of Lord Cardigan (of The Charge of the Light Brigade 'fame' as well as our first withdrawal from Afghanistan - absolutely brilliant. They are, seriously, the best novels I have ever come across that are (mostly) set against real historical facts and situations (the second one isn't at all but the period detail and sense of time and space are again priceless imo, on top of being very entertaining books on their own merits).

Right must dash, many thanks for the fascinating thread and discussion fellas, see you anon

Personally I find Obama's foreign policy astonishing and utterly bizarre and I think he has syrian blood on his hands.

I think someone said ealrier that they thought that america had abused or misused its power (it way myhammers i think). Let's not forget that the americans backed Mao towards the end of his rise to power

that wasnt a dig at myhammers btw, i was agreeing with his comment

I was surprised at that too JPB, and put it down to oil interests initially - in Somalia and Libya (to name but two) they only seem to act when trade might be affected.

My brother - who is better read on military matters than myself - informed me that the reason they're not doing anything is the Syrian armed forces. Not to be messed with apparently.

It's clear there are often multiple reasons given/implied for any conflict starting. I'll freely admit to being cynical about what i'm told though - the press and politicians are proven liars.

my own take on syria is that they would have had troops in the ground if it wasnt for china and russia's veto. interesting what you say on it though.

in fact, i believe that russia's statement the other day was spot on and that america has engineered this war and the blood is on their hands. their announcements that assad's government is committing war crimes by attacking armed militants is an absoloute joke. the only way he can comply with the west's ridiculous requests is to let terorists and ursurgents overrun his country and murder himself and his people.

why america's doing it god only knows. presumably it's because they think they will be able to manipulate whoever replaces assad whereas they cant manipulate him. the folly of this policy (quite apart from the moral repegnance of it in effectively being reesponsible for the destruction of a country with one of the most distinguihed heritages in the world) is highlighted by the fact that america's supposed ally israel has stated that if the rebels win then israel will have no option but to take military action against them. it's totally immoral, it;s totally hypocritical, and it's totally nuts.

my own take on syria is that they would have had troops in the ground if it wasnt for china and russia's veto. interesting what you say on it though.

----

I think i'm right in saying that those two nations are largely responsible for arming Syria so both of our opinions are valid reasons for nothing happening.

I wasn't aware that the US had been implicated in Syria. I'd certainly want to investigate more than trust the word of Russia's foreign minister.

It might be true, but there's got to be some independent source, at the very least strong circumstantial evidence for his claims.

It's all heading to a big nasty mess over there it seems, and as you say it's totally nuts. What gets me curious, and looking for alternative answers to the official story is the thought that it's planned out.

For some indeterminable reason the US and Israel appear to be acting at cross-purposes. Is that possible, or even likely? I'd say it's more likely that either the Russians are lying or one of the US and Israel are.

I know nothing of Obama's foreign policy, (you dragged me back JPB!), but it cannot be worse than the previous president's (surely).

I have to confess that I reached a point in my life long ago where history and politics were either going to become my life's focus if I continued, because I care about them so much, or I had to choose other interests, and I chose 'other'.

Because of my OCD I don't any longer read or watch the news (much) and I concentrate on things closer to home. My family, the local folks' lives, that type of thing - stuff I can directly impact. No right or wrong way to go about it, but for me that actually gives me more pleasure and satisfaction.

The flipside is that I've missed out on a lot of news that shapes our present world, and have no idea what is going on in Syria or the background to it - shame on me, I know.

So, my knowledge of things goes back to when I finished uni in the late 90s and then emigrated to Asia.

JPB - you talk about the US backing Mao (I would have to check that as I simply don't know) but I think the 'classic' modern example is Afghanistan. Who empowered (and armed) the Taliban to take power in the first place?

Who empowered (and armed) the Taliban to take power in the first place?

------

I know


It was Charlie Adam.

there's quite clear evidence for it. the american state department openly states that it will continue to actively support the the rebels and will continue to do so until assad has gone. every time anyone from america or the uk speak they condemn the syrian government, and say that assad has to go - the latest example being the american defence chief this morning.

it is open knowledge that the GCC countries have "paid the salaries" of rebels, that the turkish government supplies them with arms and that america itself and france and the UK provide funding to agencies which will end inevitably end in the rebels hands.

i certinaly dont normally take the russian foreign minister at face value, but in this instance it is patently obvious that he is speaking the trueth and making a thoroughly accurate assesment of the situation.

i agree that noone is looking out for alternative answers and that is because it is a western war against syria but being conducted in a way in which they dont directly get their hands dirty. they wont pull out until they have got rid of assad or until it has become clear that they cant get him out thorugh this current method.

i dont believe that anyone is lying except for the west who are using the UN as their lying voicebox to get their way. i suppose it's possible that israel is trying to call someone's bluf, but i doubt it. they just realise the exceptionally high risk policy that the americans are playing by trying to install a regime which is essentially made up of pro palestianian terrorists.

I know nothing of Obama's foreign policy, (you dragged me back JPB!), but it cannot be worse than the previous president's (surely).

====================

I believe it's much much worse mate.

I had a 4 hour argument with another poster about syris a few days ago. i'll see if i can find a couple of the more pertinant and concise posts and stick them on here

quite apart from syria though, which one of the psots i hope to find discusses, i believe america's entire arab spring policy to be bizarre, not least in egypt where they were repsonsible for the overthrow of someone who had been one of america's closest allies for decades, and who has now been replaced by a muslim state. absoloutely incredible imo.

anyway, i'll see if i can find those posts....

JPB - you talk about the US backing Mao (I would have to check that as I simply don't know) but I think the 'classic' modern example is Afghanistan. Who empowered (and armed) the Taliban to take power in the first place?
==============

I cant remember the details of it, but it's explained in that book me and bale's were talking about earlier (which i no longer have a copy of)

However interesting you find any of this discussion btw mate, dont let it distract you from the piano tuner

Are we blaming the whole Arab Spring or whatever on the United States now? Doesn't make sense, especially not in Egypt.

i blame the US for egypt. It was on a knife edge and they gave their support full on to the rebels. i think it's very likely that this tipped the balance in the rebels favour. there were even strong rumours of american involvement in the elections which took place to instll the muslim brotherhood at the exclusion of the army. i think that if the army thought that mubarrack had america's support, it would not have turned against mubbarrack when the police were unable to cope on the streets. i then think that if the americans supported their long term ally muarrack after the initla revolts, then he would have been able to stay in power with the support of the army. i think that if america had supported the army instead of the muslim brotherhood candidate during the elections then the army would have stayed in power.

now then, im just about to post some extracts from my previous conversation on syria. im only posting my comments, and only a few of those because we went round in circles a bit.

the final post is my analysis of the situation as of a week ago, in response to the other psoters question as to what i think should be done about the situation now.

the post befoer that one is my comparison of this situation to iraq.

the post prior to that are my analysis of how the syrian situation had devloped.

this conversation took place before the russian statement of a couple of days ago







whilst william hague was denying yesterday the west having any role in the rebellion, the US state department was advising of their resolve in assisting the tribal rebels. the repression thing is a western invention imo. the only people being "repressed" are people who are mounting an armed insurrection against the government.

can you imagine if people started attacking downing street with tanks, and governments of other countries saying that they deplore the british government for attacking the "civilians" who were commiting these acts of treason and mass murder ?

who is america to decide that syria should be run by a democracy ? it's fk all to do with them.




Where is the evidence that the government is killing peaceful protestors ?

It's nonsense. the rebels are rounding up civilians loyal to the government.

The army is killing insurgants which are trying to depose their government by armed force.

The army and the government are not only defneding their own lives and the lives of their legitimate civilian supporters, but the very existence of their nation.

The allegation that the government is killling peaceful protesters is a total misrepresentation of what is happening in the coutnry. there is not a peaceful protest at all, there is an armed insurrection, financially backed by foreign governments, and involed by terrorists, power grabbing mercenaries and those who are fundamentally opposed to the existence of an israeli state.





america has cooerced the UN in to intervening in the countrie's affairs to effect the overthrough of the ruling authority in the country. their opposition is at it's strongest now. if they wanted to turn the country into a wasteland to secure their position, they would have done it before now.

there is no similarity between iraq and syria whatsoever. this is much much worse. there are no records of assad acting like a maniac and gassing towns full of his own people.

syria was a peaceful and happy country until this recent western intervention which can only be designed to try to take a controlling hand in the region (at a very high risk of the complete opposite happening), by totally disregarding the welfare and safety of the population of the country in question.

it's not far short of genocide on the americans' part in my opinionm and is one of the most disgraceful things that has taken place in the world in the last 30+ years.




but when you say "get in their way", you must mean get in their way of liberating the population of the city from armed and illegal takeover. what should the government do when it's cities are taken by force and it's supporters in those citied rounded up by the armed insurgents ?

again, to draw comparison with the uk. what if al qeaada forces took control of a major city in the uk and strted killing people of english descent ? what do you think the uk government should do about it ? just let it go ?. or take whatever miliatary action is needed to defend its country and its people ?


That has nothing to do with the point I have made that the rebellion was instigated by the rebels.

That this is the case is true almost by definition. How can the government start a war against insurgants before the insurgants exist. It is funadamentally apparent that these are the identies of the combatants. the government is not at war with innocent protesters, it is at war with armed insurgants.

As I have already pointed out (twice) the suggestion that the government would start a war against its own country when it (the government is at its weakest) is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the evidence that I have referred to - the external control - is also evidence that it is the insurgents who are the aggresors. The american state department has publically stated that this will not finish until assad is deposed. That makes it uneqiovocally clear that Assad is defending itself from an illegal and immorral armed insurgancy, rather than it commiting an armed insurgancy against its own people.

I would also add that your points appear to ignore the enormous support that assad received from the population upon the outbreak of the fighting (there was a pro assad rally in damascus of literally millions of people).







It's not a crackpot view at all. The american state department have openly said that they are actively backing the rebels. The only speculation then is why they are doing it. In my opinion it doesnt need too much savvy to realise that it is because they are looking for a reallocation of power in the region. To me it is someone who has a contrary view who runs the risk of being regarded as a crackpot tbh.

Aside from what I would therefore regard as a fairly obvious proposal, the only point that I have made is the irony that what the americans so loudly protest as being the blood on assad's hands, is actually the blood on their own hands. Whereas they accuse assad of killing people who have invaded his country and taken arms against him and his people, what it is fairly clear has actually happened is that the maericans have made a concious decision to accept the inevitable deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of syrians, and the destruction of much of the countries' infrastructure and heritage, as colleteral damage in their high risk attempt to distabilise the region and increase their control in the region.

what i have pointed out is that such a decision is arguably the most grevious war crime and act against humanity in living memory. it is my believe that it will eventually be recognised as such and make iraw look like a milehill next to a mountain.

as well as this, i have attempted to point out the apparent folly of this high risk policy (quite irrespective of the crimes against humanity which it entails) as even if it "succeeds" the result will be an extremely risky and sensative region. in fact it is so risky and sensitvie that israel has announced that if the rebels win it will have no alternative but to take military action against them. this is the mess which the west has got itself into on this one.







As an aside, I'd like to know what it is exactly that you think the west could do in Syria that is so much worse than Iraq? As far as I'm concerned, that is the lowest of the low. Short of dropping nukes on random targets just for the fun of it, of course.
====================

Irrespective of the validity of the justification of the invasion which was given at the time, it could be argued that there was good reason to take action in iraq.

Whilst I have some sympathy for saddam hussein insofar as he is the only man who has been able to provide stability in one of the most inherently unstable regions on earth, his regime undoubtedly led by terror and was unboutedly responsible for a number of substantial attrocities against his people, including people who were entirely innocent other than belonging to a particular sect.

Whatever allegation may be made against assad, any actions which his government may have been responsible for would have been miniscule in comparison with acts undertake by saddam. furtheremore, it is simply not true to say that syria has been ruled by fear. people who have travelled through syria over the last few decades widely report a happy free and prosperous country, almost the antitheses of saddam's iraw.

even aside from these matters however, what took place in iraw was a precision war against the regime, which was wrappe up in the quickest possible time with the fewest amount of casualites.

what is happening in syria is (aside from being way way less justifiable) a far far worse affair, which entails a long drawn out war between combatants who are (particularly on the rebel side) are far less likely to adhere to the geneva convention etc, but who are likely to do whatever they deem necessary to advance their cause, irrespective of the human consequences which result. what we are seeing here is not a quick preciion war against a regime (which happens to also take some innocent casualties) it is a war of attrition which will inevitably entail widespread and random death and destruction including the illegal deaths of civilians loyal to the government (as was evidence on the bbc today) who fall into rebel hands.

It is a far less justifiable conflict from a moral point of view, and a far bloodier and less targetted campaign as a result of the inherently covert nature of it.






well, as you will by now appreciate, i dont think we should be in this situation int he first place.

i think that assad should have been left to deal with any aggresion against it from pro palastinian influences as effectively as he could, with the approval of the west, thus leaving a stable power in the region, and perhaps taking the opportunity to improve western relations with it.

we're in a hell of a mess now whatever happens, and the reality is that the american policy is not going to be put into reverse. the alterives now therefore seem to be a) the americans get their way and the rebels take control. this will lead to israel taking miliatary intervention, and possible ongoing distability in the region, as well as the likely purging of all assad supporters. b) assad wins and syria becomes an entrenched enemy of the west, perhaps forging stronger alliance with iran, which could in turn lead to a full out war between the iran/syria block and the west involving thatever weapons of mass destruction those countries have.

it's a disaster either way.

oh, i must have pasted it there by mistake. meant to edit it a bit first

I'm shocked JPB. Assuming those are all your posts, and admittedly skim-reading, you seem convinced that there's enough proof that the US has and is overturning governments in the middle east.

You ask "where's the proof" of Assad's crimes, and yet suggest that the rebels are "rounding up" people and killing them..

I firmly believe in understanding the motive to understand the crime - why would the US go to all that hassle in Egypt and Libya when they had puppets there already? It doesn't make sense.

The Egyptian people were obviously as one on this, even the army would not fire on their own people.

You show a surprising interest in conspiracy theories for someone who dismisses my left-wing claptrap

It isnt a conspiracy theory Bale's.

On the Syrian situation, i'd refer you back to this post which adressed a similar allegation which the other poster suggested :



"The american state department have openly said that they are actively backing the rebels. The only speculation then is why they are doing it. In my opinion it doesnt need too much savvy to realise that it is because they are looking for a reallocation of power in the region. To me it is someone who has a contrary view who runs the risk of being regarded as a crackpot tbh.

Aside from what I would therefore regard as a fairly obvious proposal, the only point that I have made is the irony that what the americans so loudly protest as being the blood on assad's hands, is actually the blood on their own hands. Whereas they accuse assad of killing people who have invaded his country and taken arms against him and his people, what it is fairly clear has actually happened is that the maericans have made a concious decision to accept the inevitable deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of syrians, and the destruction of much of the countries' infrastructure and heritage, as colleteral damage in their high risk attempt to distabilise the region and increase their control in the region.

what i have pointed out is that such a decision is arguably the most grevious war crime and act against humanity in living memory. it is my believe that it will eventually be recognised as such and make iraw look like a milehill next to a mountain.

as well as this, i have attempted to point out the apparent folly of this high risk policy (quite irrespective of the crimes against humanity which it entails) as even if it "succeeds" the result will be an extremely risky and sensative region. in fact it is so risky and sensitvie that israel has announced that if the rebels win it will have no alternative but to take military action against them. this is the mess which the west has got itself into on this one."



This view is also entirely in line with the subsequent statmenet made by the russian foreign minister.

It's also clearly not a consipiracy theory to think that america was involved in libya or egypt. western troops were actually deployed in libya, and america made regular statements in support of the rebels at all key moments. it's quite clear that they were supporting the rebels. to think that they did nothing to back up that support is naive imo. why are they doing it ? i havent got a clue. as ive stated i find it incomprehsnible. what is clear though is that they are doing it. unlike egypt where they rode on the back of a public uprising before they leant their support acitvely through means other than actual force, in syria they are going a step further - as they did in libya - and actively managing and supporintg an armed insurgency against the ruling government.

just caught the end of an interview with the former british ambassador to syria. all i heard was his last comment which was that the west was wrong to call for assad to go and they could have headed off the current situation by helping assad to change his policies so that the rebellion could be quashed without substantial force.

again, this is spot on. wish i'd heard the rest of the interview.