Rather obviously Yemen is no threat to Israel. No major wars are contingent on what the House of Saud does there.

How you can say that Syria is of no significant geographical importance boggles belief. Syria borders Israel for crying out loud. If Assad is allowed to get his state back and hence be a puppet of Iran and Russia that represents a problem for Israel and hence America and hence the west in general.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2018 9.41am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

This a very recent change due to widespread fracking and a strategic change post the 2nd Gulf War. Prior to 2009, the US was importing 30 trillion BTUs a year,. currently down to just over 7 trillion.

Mostly due to Obama, i guess.

Edited by pefwin (12 Apr 2018 9.56am)

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Stirling. Calm down mate, and re-read what I've said...

We know that, while Russia's support for Assad in Syria may be significant, it is arguably of less geopolitical significance than the role of Turkey in northern Syria

I'm not saying Syria isn't of geopolitical importance. But there are at least 3 wars waging in that country at the minute and we need to know what we're doing before we dive in.

Have we learnt the lessons from Iraq?

Well I would argue the 3 main questions around that are...

What is our mid to long term oobjective?

What are international impartial bodies on the ground saying, and do they contradict the narrative from our government and media?

What local groups or militias are we going to aid, what is the cost of supporting them and what are their motives?

Unless we can answer these things, any intervention will be disastrous. I'm not going in to your last point as I find such enthusiasm for Israel very puzzling given their government and human rights record.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

You have questions.....that's understandable.

The outcomes are the responsibility of the leaders that take the decisions. We will support them or not depending upon our perceptions of the alternatives. From my perspective that will mostly fall down into traditional modernist/postmodernist/establishment/anti establishment lines.

However, all this 'what are our mid to long term goals' nonsense.....Do you seriously think that none of this was done in previous wars? Of course it was. The reality is that plans are plans and reality on the ground is another thing. Like Mike Tyson said, 'everyone has a plan, until they are punched in the mouth'. The goal was to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy. It was achieved, but at great cost.....not a cost that ultimately was worth the effort for the west nor a democracy that the west sees in its image or can rely upon.

However there is a big difference between deployment on Vietham/Iraq like levels and non intervention. The non intervention in Syria ultimately worsened the situation. A choice which plenty on the left supported and also some on the right and it's has had negative consequences.....Russia and Iran stepped into the space we afforded them. Assad has been practically assured his position...A victory from the jaws of defeat.

If you call non intervention 'learning a lesson' from Iraq I suggest that it was a badly taught one. The only painfully useful lesson that I can see is in the reluctance to use large numbers of ground troops and stick to air campaigns in culturally different countries. However, this could have been learnt from Vietham.

As for your reluctance to talk about the Jewish question. As you are on the far left I can understand why. However, when discussing the middle east and western actions I don't think the matters can be divorced.

To answer your question on why the west supports Israel. Well, Israel is basically made up of European immigrants who predictably implement the only real democracy in the region. They are under constant threat on all sides.

As to the rights and wrongs of how Israel came to be...well we probably would agree on that. Also we might agree upon the wisdom of how it treats its enemies....However, recently my thoughts are quite conflicted on that. I can see few positives and plenty of possible negatives.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Apr 2018 8.21pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Under 30% isn't it, who predictably implement their own agenda; compared with over 20% Palestians.

As another point of information that State is actively supported by the USA not "the West".

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

It's worth remembering what form 'democracy' took in Iraq. When Iraqis - and many well meaning western troops - attempted to stage elections and organise neutral bodies to oversee them, the outcomes were declared void by western forces, who instead implemented a puppet government that oversaw the transferral of state assets in to private hands.

Obviously some of the biggest victors from that transferral - Halliburton and KBR for instance - had direct links with the British and American governments who had so hawkishly and clumsily warmongered in the first place. Stirling is right to say that oil wasn't a big motives, but it didn't need to be when 138 Bill worth of state assets were up for grabs...https://edition-m.cnn.com/2013/03/19/business/iraq-war-contractors/index.html

I am not a non-interventionist. I believe passionately in good diplomacy which comes about through transparency and accountability. Military action should be a last resort, and done with a thorough plan. But what I see in the Syria debate now is no plan, no transparency, little understanding of the multiple groups and conflicts at play, and all it will end up with is more tragic and unnecessary bodies coming back home to angry families.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4