That pointless and shameful war

I don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia so I won't comment, but I'm pretty happy that it's finally been picked up on... even if it did take a few years. It's all well and good complaining that it's been ignored "since the 1960s" but there are many dictatorships who simply aren't receiving support from the UK. Take Libya for example; some hate Gaddafi, and the other people like him out of fear. Just be happy that it's (hopefully) being stopped!

When did the Government care about morals? I wrote my English coursework on the how the UK is responding to the "human rights issues" in China and it's become pretty obvious that some thought is being given to it. Yes it will help trade and relationships with countries, but it would be ignorant to suggest nothing is being done in the name of morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

I don't know what's going on in Saudi Arabia so I won't comment, but I'm pretty happy that it's finally been picked up on... even if it did take a few years. It's all well and good complaining that it's been ignored "since the 1960s" but there are many dictatorships who simply aren't receiving support from the UK. Take Libya for example; some hate Gaddafi, and the other people like him out of fear. Just be happy that it's (hopefully) being stopped!

When did the Government care about morals? I wrote my English coursework on the how the UK is responding to the "human rights issues" in China and it's become pretty obvious that some thought is being given to it. Yes it will help trade and relationships with countries, but it would be ignorant to suggest nothing is being done in the name of morality.

---

Oh come on, we've supported Gaddafi for years knowing exactly what he is like. The same goes for the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Bin Laden himself... the list is endless. There's a very simple reason why we went into Libya and its this; until the march got near Tripoli, you'll remember a muted response from the west.. until the moment when it looked as though Gaddafi was finished and then the west changed sides. But as we all know, he staged a fightback that came from nowhere.. thus making us look the fools and creating the prospect that Libya would now been the type of anti-western state that Iran is now and that Iraq was a few years ago. If you would like me to list more current and past examples of this, i'll provide upon request.

Gaddafi himself said the west had 'betrayed him', its nothing to do with saving people.

Interesting interpretation. Whilst I can see it being plausible, I just don't think that's a fair perspective to take. You're saying we're at war with Libya because we can't handle the fact that Gaddafi turned against the west? Honestly?.....

I'd say that our government would have to be stupid to do that, but I really wouldn't be surprised, sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

Interesting interpretation. Whilst I can see it being plausible, I just don't think that's a fair perspective to take. You're saying we're at war with Libya because we can't handle the fact that Gaddafi turned against the west? Honestly?.....

I'd say that our government would have to be stupid to do that, but I really wouldn't be surprised, sadly.

---

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes pro-western such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. It has nothing to do with saving people, its to do with politics and corporate interests as was the case in Iraq.

Syria is a developing example of this, muted responses from the west over the crackdown just like with Libya when Gaddafi remained firmly in control as President Assad does at this moment. If his grip weakens anymore, you will find the west will turn against him just as they did with Gaddafi. If not, then there'll be some diplomatic theatre and within a short space of time relations will be normalised again with Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

---

We hate North Korea because they're anti-western? It has nothing to do with their conflict with the South then? :P Yet again, it's down to morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Look at how Iran and North Korea are treated because they are anti-western, compared to equally as nasty regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

---

Please tell me you don't think this is the only reason we don't like North Korea. They're dictatorship which kills you if you try to leave the country, keeps their entire nation in the 1950s, can't spell healthcare and endorses slavery. The only bigger injustice about North Korea is that most people in the world don't know how terrible North Korea is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HotelUser

Please tell me you don't think this is the only reason we don't like North Korea. They're dictatorship which kills you if you try to leave the country, keeps their entire nation in the 1950s, can't spell healthcare and endorses slavery. The only bigger injustice about North Korea is that most people in the world don't know how terrible North Korea is.

---

..then why doesn't the same mindset apply to pro-western regimes such Saudi Arabia, Libya (before the Arab Spring), Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq (before the Gulf War)? all of these regimes have been and are just as brutal as the North Korean regime is, yet the west for *some reason* finds the anti-western regimes of Iran and North Korea appalling but the rest, who are pro-western aren't appalling.

We could go through various examples all night if we wished, you choose to believe we are there to do good because you want to believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

Yet again, it's down to morals.

---

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.

---

Political leaders use "national interest" to get the support of the people, as much as I hate it it does work in several circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

No, it isn't really. Morals is just the rhetoric to convince the public that it's for a good cause. Of course, getting rid of a dictator is a good cause in itself but I highly doubt it'll be the reason that politicians would send us into a war so saying it's being done for moral purposes is misleading as we'd never not be at war. There's always some unethical injustice somewhere. Foreign policy must be a bugger to get right because on one hand, you've got to do things that are in the national interest (oil for example) and then you've got to sell it to the public as something else entirely. You've got to meet the most disgusting people in the world and then treat them with respect so that they don't try to mess up your country (through trade links etc). I thank my lucky stars I do not work in the Foreign Office! :P

Personally, the words 'national interest' are very dangerous. You can say anything is in the national interest really.

---

There's a simple solution; trade with all nations of the world (through trade comes benefits to both sides, often leading to democracy) and don't become involved in the internal affairs of other nation states or involved in wars which do not concern us. The policy of 'isolationism' after all is the policy we used to follow in the 1800s 'spendid isolation' and what the United States used to follow during the 1800s.

We could follow it again, to a degree China is presently following it.