- 13 Apr 2018 15:57
#14905803
There is no coherent strategy - agreed. But when it comes to your second sentence, I'm not so sure.
This desire for intervention comes from a fundamental desire to please Saudi Arabia on the part of western governments. What else can explain how we came to have a moral stake in a war between the Syrian government and groups like Jaysh al-Islam and the Nusra Front? People that, if they turned up on the streets of Birmingham, we'd send MI5 after?
Macron, the guy we're all supposed to think is the new "leader of the free world" has been sucking up to the Saudis relentlessly in recent months. I really don't think it's a coincidence that his public desire to intervene comes days after he hosted a private dinner at the Louvre with the Crown Prince. He is even alleged to have said that Mohammed bin Salman is the "embodiment of the French revolution" at this dinner, which is so shamelessly pathetic that it's actually comical. Similarly, the UK's long record of grovelling to the Saudis hardly needs to be expanded upon here; neither does the long US-Saudi alliance (forget the UK - that is the USA's real "Special Relationship").
On your last point, I agree entirely. Nothing good can come from western intervention, and the potential for it to explode into WWIII is much greater than anyone seems to realise. After all, no one expected WWI to happen as it did in 1914, and Britain never expected to have a major continental land army. Starting wars is the easiest thing in the world, but it's incredibly difficult to roll them back once they pick up momentum.
layman wrote:There is no coherent strategy and no point in hiding it.
You cannot of course believe both this and that it’s about a pipeline or whatever.
I just think these people feel they need to do something and default to a cold thinking because it’s all they know.
Sometimes nothing is better than something. I’m with Corbyn on this one.
There is no coherent strategy - agreed. But when it comes to your second sentence, I'm not so sure.
This desire for intervention comes from a fundamental desire to please Saudi Arabia on the part of western governments. What else can explain how we came to have a moral stake in a war between the Syrian government and groups like Jaysh al-Islam and the Nusra Front? People that, if they turned up on the streets of Birmingham, we'd send MI5 after?
Macron, the guy we're all supposed to think is the new "leader of the free world" has been sucking up to the Saudis relentlessly in recent months. I really don't think it's a coincidence that his public desire to intervene comes days after he hosted a private dinner at the Louvre with the Crown Prince. He is even alleged to have said that Mohammed bin Salman is the "embodiment of the French revolution" at this dinner, which is so shamelessly pathetic that it's actually comical. Similarly, the UK's long record of grovelling to the Saudis hardly needs to be expanded upon here; neither does the long US-Saudi alliance (forget the UK - that is the USA's real "Special Relationship").
On your last point, I agree entirely. Nothing good can come from western intervention, and the potential for it to explode into WWIII is much greater than anyone seems to realise. After all, no one expected WWI to happen as it did in 1914, and Britain never expected to have a major continental land army. Starting wars is the easiest thing in the world, but it's incredibly difficult to roll them back once they pick up momentum.
"Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep talking." - Martin Luther