h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Or Egypt, whose army is supported by US economically, and whose criminal actions have been backed by Israel.<<

Proof? One of the things that really surprises me in this whole affair is just how quiet Israel has been. Perfect opportunity to settle some scores with foes and they've done next to nothing: it's unlike them.

As I've said in the other Syria thread, I thought we should have intervened two years ago, establishing safe havens and no-fly zones, before the civil war really got going. It's too late for that now: as swl has pointed out 95% of Sunnis support the rebellion, 95% of Shias support the regime and the Kurds are sitting it out and a civil war of that nature can't be solved by us.

I think whoever used the chemical weapons (and it was probably the regime - the napalm was dropped by a jet and the rebels don't control any of them) needs to be hit *hard* to send a message to both the combatants in Syria and elsewhere that certain forms of warfare are not allowed.

>> I think whoever used the chemical weapons ( ... ) needs to be hit *hard* to send a message to both the combatants in Syria and elsewhere that certain forms of warfare are not allowed. <<

Maybe the problem is allowing such countries to stockpile chemical weapons ... I mean what's the point of stockpiling them if you're not going to use them. I suppose the same argument can be used for nuclear weapons ... so maybe there is a bone fide reason for allowing countries to stockpile chemical weapons . I wonder where they got these weapons from (Russia?)

I thought they got them from the UK ... but I might be misremembering something I half-read in the Times earlier this week. Or Private Eye last week.

Mol

Probably not terribly PC to say so but I wouldn't be surprised if intervention by the West is opposed by their populations generally on the view that whilst the Muslims are blowing each other to pieces, they haven't time for us.

A very shallow view I accept but then the majority of people are politically wading at the waters edge.

Shallow? Maybe so, maybe no, from that point of view peb but, not going in with guns blazing means not adding more fuel to the god-knows-how-many-generations of hate that's presently being instilled into the young.

>> Probably not terribly PC to say so but I wouldn't be surprised if intervention by the West is opposed by their populations generally on the view that whilst the Muslims are blowing each other to pieces, they haven't time for us. <<


++++++++ Aside ++++++++++++++
The Western press & the US & GB Foreign Secretaries used that sort of angle do dampen publicity regarding the Egyptian Military massacring demonstrators to clear them from two areas of Cairo ... repeating the line that both sides must not resort to violence and that the demonstrators were merely Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Also the Western press & Politicians failed to call the military overthrow of the democratically elected leader Mohamed Morsi a military coup and generally indicated that it was necessary. As far as I can tell he was trying to reform the infrastructure that gave the military and unelected government civil service (apparently & not surprisingly filled with former regime personnel) so much control over the country ... they were not too happy about it & so engineered the coup.

From Wiki: "On 30 June 2013, mass protests erupted across Egypt calling for the President's resignation, following severe fuel shortages and electricity outages which evidence suggests were orchestrated by Mubarak-era Egyptian elites with the intention of causing a coup. This was followed by the army's threat that if the protesters' demands were not met by 3 July it would remove the democratically-elected government including Morsi and build a road map for the country, while insisting that it did not want to rule the country. Some took this to mean a military coup, but the next day the army denied that they were referring to a possible military coup. The plan set up by the military includes suspending the constitution, dissolving the parliament, and establishing a new administration headed by the chief justice"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Morsi

The key aspect of "democracy" is that there are regular elections, so the public have the ability to vote them out of office in maybe five years time". As far as I can tell Morsi didn't plan to suspend future elections. Of course Mugabe has shown how one can be successful in a notionally democratic system.
++++++++ Aside ++++++++++++++

If there is going to be a very narrow action against the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons ... ideally it should be against "known" stockpiles of chemical weapons using presumably napalm derivative bombs which I have been reliably informed by H2G2 military experts can be used to deep burn its targets ... but elsewhere I hear that this requires manned aircraft because of the required precision of the operation & ability to respond to aspects of the unexpected so putting US lives at risk. Other targets could include destroying unoccupied palatial (?) residences of military leaders & any identified military leaders directly associated with the nerve agent attack ...

"Proof? "

Why do you ask that? I´ll try to think that it is a genuine question.

But here you are, not only the figures, since when, for what ... also the debate about the continuity of the economical aid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/the-u-s-gives-egypt-1-5-billion-a-year-in-aid-heres-what-it-does/

About Israel, I heard in the Spanish national radio, RNE1, that they said, more or less, that the army action was the only way to guarantee democracy.

Here is the link if your thirst for proof can´t wait:

http://www.rtve.es/

The fact that chemical weapons were used in three separate locations within three hours of each other on the outskirts of Damascus in rebel held zones during a military offensive by the Assad regime to regain control of these areas, coupled with other info, suggests (proves?) that chemical weapons are now part of the tactical armoury to be used by the Assad regime. Effort and planning has clearly gone into development of the delivery systems for planned use of these chemical weapons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833 (click on the iplayer clip of "BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner")

Aside: chemical weapon ... a weapon that kills primarily by means of chemical toxicity of its constituents. In this definition incendiary devices such as white phosphorus & napalm derivatives would not be included except that some in the US and elsewhere tend to say that it is a chemical weapon when being used by others.

Maria I was just wondering if you had anything that supported your claim Israel was supporting the Egyptian military? That American does isn't news, but Israel supporting one of its biggest foes (and putting itself on the same side as Saudi Arabia and Qatar) is quite an extraordinary claim.

ok, HI, fair point.

(I found a bit agressive the question, but maybe it was me influenced by a recent experience with someone else in other threads.)




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/middleeast/israel-puts-more-urgency-on-shaping-allies-actions.html?pagewanted=all

"Israel plans this week to intensify its diplomatic campaign urging Europe and the United States to support the military-backed government in Egypt despite its deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters, according to a senior Israeli official involved in the effort."


"but Israel supporting one of its biggest foes..."

I have only doubts about who is the real foe of whom in this whole mess.

So Obama saw how Cameron was humiliated by going to his legislature and decided to copy the strategy? Have we entered Bizarro World and I didn't notice?

Since when has politics borne any relationship to the real world?

The US have been directly supporting the Egyptian military in the past and still have commitments to do so ... I am not sure if it is in the form of pure overseas aid or if it is some quid pro quo for oil or allowance of US companies to extract gas and oil (etc) from Egypt and take a cut of the profits (e.g. US firm Apache Corporation). There may be some obligations with regard to receiving the "aid" - maintain a peace with surrounding areas etc. Wikipedia says that 292 US military personnel are deployed / based in Egypt.

I don't think Israel supports the Egyptian military although they may prefer them to a "muslim brotherhood" run Egypt. However preference as far as I am aware doesn't result in direct aid or support for the Egyptian military. Direct responsibility for the massacre of the demonstrators in Cairo was entirely made up of figures in the Egyptian military and figures in their unelected civil service. The disappointment for me was the way it was reported and some of the statements from members of the US and British Government.