[Closed] William Hague is an idiot

Really? So given that the other side won't go to talks, you want them to fight with sticks and stones? Or just die?

The man is very, very late.

It's got absolutely nowt to do with us! Have we really learned so little from all such previous foreign policy catastrophes?

By all means send humanitarian aid, but I can't think of any conceivable benefit of sending more arms into a region evacuated by anyone with a brain and a sense of self-preservation, leaving it populated almost exclusively by complete head cases! Let 'em get on with it!

Pigface +1
We should have learnt not to arm AQ (which its widely accepted the Syrian rebels are). It'll bite us in the arse.
Keep our noses well out.

So given that the other side won't go to talks

What's your source ? According to the BBC, and a few other news agencies, the Syrian government is prepared to attend peace talks in Geneva.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22672715 ]Syria confirms role in Geneva peace conference[/url]

Moderate rebels? And the difference between these and terrorists?

Ah yes, timing.

Search 'mujahideen' then 'taliban'...

Proxy war against Hezbollah/Iran/Russia - what could possibly go wrong?

[i]grum - Member

Proxy war against Hezbollah/Iran/Russia - what could possibly go wrong? [/i]

Indeed.

Humanitarian aid, unquestionably. More weapons? No.

limp wristed springs to mind

China is also quite an important player who can't be simply ignored.

[url= http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-05/27/c_132411924.htm ]China willing to join Geneva talks on Syria[/url]

Much of the problems concerning the international response to the crises in Syria stems from the fact that both Russia and China felt they were wrong footed over Libya, which of course they were. The West far from remaining neutral as agreed at the UN, heavily supported one side in the Libyan conflict. The newly installed Western backed government in Tripoli immediately cancelled contracts with the Chinese. Although ironically Western companies are now pulling out as post-Gaddafi Libya is proving to be too dangerous for them.

Without expressing an opinion on this one, who exactly bankrolls weapons purchases by "rebels"? I don't imagine the kind of stuff they need comes cheaply - are they supplied on credit or what?

He is an idiot and it's a completely ludicrous idea. They seem just as bad as each other, have we learnt nothing from the other mistakes we've made?

This means HMG have decided Assad is doomed so we'd better get cosy with whoever is most likely to be running the country and placing the contracts in future years.

When is this country going to stop sticking its oar in on others affairs. Is Hague really saying that the 'moderate' rebels can't get hold of arms in a region of the world that is absolutely dripping with them!! Madness!! What really worries me is that we seem to be getting ready for a new conflict just as we are getting ready to leave Afghanistan.

globalti - Member

This means HMG have decided Assad is doomed so we'd better get cosy with whoever is most likely to be running the country and placing the contracts in future years.

Nail on the head.

william hague, small man syndrome, David Cameroon away on holiday, so he sticks his hands up and runs screaming rubbish to who ever will listen,nobody is though.

back in your box hague

To be fair to the man, he knows arms dealing and he's always been strong on this (surprisingly small yet very loud) export market to anyone with money.

We should have learnt not to arm AQ (which its widely accepted the Syrian rebels are)

I am not denying that the rainbow coalition of opposition includes Islamic extremists including AQ but it is false to suggest this is all they are or that it is widely accepted.

Difficult call tbh given the external and internal players as it is between a rock and a hard place

Watch an illegitimate govt brutalise its people or join in to make it better [ which it is unlikely to do in the short run]and risk making it even worse

Reading between the lines it seems that the US has decided that between AQ and Iran, AQ is the lesser evil. Hague is being used as a mouthpiece for this. I think Uncle Sam is trying not to be seen as meddling, and us, France etc are doing their bidding.
**** that.
If America don't like it, they can go. Otherwise they can sort out their own problems.
Oh Jy, I thought it was established that AQ are pretty much running the show now.

Isn't the discussion about arming the rebels just a lever to ensure that Assad starts to participate in the formal talks?

To OP,

Yes, he is ...

Unlike the previous wars in Iraq & Libya where there was no strong support for the regimes but this time things might be very different and someone is going to cry ...

I mentioned this earlier in another thread.

chewkw - Member

Before we solve our own problems what is this with the govt(s)(UK & France - now trying to drag EU into the war) wanting to intervene in the Syrian internal conflict?

Shouldn't the govts put all their efforts in solving their own societal problems first? What a bunch of busy bodies trying to arm the opposition? [b]The problem will come back to roost[/b].

This concept of self appointing world police will back fire in future when, again, we are going to ask the same question again why this happens here again ...

If they arm the opposition then the others can also arm the other side.

Talking about creating Demo[b][u]n[/u][/b]cracy ...

Any advance on who pays for arms for the rebels? (Just curious)

It's like a pay day loans thing. That money doesn't get written off, repayment is expected (in kind) once the new regime is in place.
All those contracts the new libyans cancelled with the Chinese went to their new friends.

Doesn't a lot of the funding for hardline extremist organisations, of the type operating in Syria, generally come from Saudi?

So how do they pay? From a numbered account in a Swiss bank?

once had the opportunity to discuss nothing of value with young Bill and his then welsh girlfriend on a flight from leeds bradford.. seemed half decent bloke and may be the only shot at a statesman we currently have in british politics..

They do some very attractive 0% finance deals on anti tank weaponry at the moment Bravissimo.

I think it's probably more of a large-bundles-of-cash based economy 😉

The Saudi might be providing financial support but is there a need to be a loud mouth to broadcast to the world that UK is getting involved? Even if Saudi is providing financial aid at least they do it silently whereas UK (not even the US) is openly asking to arm the opposition. What a tool ...

No wonder everyone hates us. 🙄

My mate is an IT toubleshooter paid silly money by the DWP (which is Hague's actual responsibilty) and idiot is the least offensive term he'd use to describe him

[quote=kimbers said]My mate is an IT toubleshooter paid silly money by the DWP (which is Hague's actual responsibilty)

Wouldn't that be the Secretary for Work and Pensions (IDS) rather than the Foreign Secretary (Hague)?

It'll all end in tears.

The dwp's IT systems have been a shambles for a good 10 years ever since John Prescott was specifically cautioned against the proposed changes to existing systems by Microsoft's Enterprise Consulting team - they have advise to the DWP and ODPM that the changes to accommodate tax credits were complex, open to fraud and would be costly and difficult to administer . That advice was pretty much spot on as it turned out so I'm not sure it's fair to blame IDS for the mess that the last lot left.

As for Hague, he was a pretty exceptional strategy consultant at McKinsey and is still held on high regard by those who worked with him - he's certainly no idiot and I rather suspect could run rings round most people.

Oh Jy, I thought it was established that AQ are pretty much running the show now.

It's not even widely accepted that Al-Qaeda actually exists - certainly not in the way it's portrayed in the media.

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DFED.htm

It's not even widely accepted that Al-Qaeda actually exists

It certainly seems that the U.S., E.U., Russia,and China are all fairly deeply if indirectly involved in the conflict. Israel and Iran are more directly involved The losers in all of this will be Syrian. It is proxy conflict.

Erm, I think it is.

Read the link, or try one of Jason Burke's books on the topic. It's a convenient label for all sorts of disparate groups.

You need to be careful with media 'facts' that 'everyone knows' without seeing any actual evidence.

No doubt an umbrella organisation, they still definitely exist.

Erm, I think it is.

PS I was first 😉

The people involved in what is termed "Al-Qaeda" clearly exist - they are not a figment of anyone's imagination. Al-Qaeda probably doesn't exist as most people are led to believe it exists, ie, as a disciplined organised structure with a central leadership. It's a very loose association of like minded people. The Al-Qaeda label was really applied by the US/CIA as they needed to call it something, and mujahideen was no longer deemed appropriate as it would remind people that they were originally armed, trained, and financed, by the CIA. But [i]it is[/i] widely accepted that Al-Qaeda exists, even if they don't actually have card holding members, if it wasn't widely accepted that they exist grum, you probably wouldn't have relied on a 10 year old article.

IMHO

Oops top Tory mix up they are both droners and I'm tired

Im sure there was a time when our media portrayed Assad as a moderate
I can't see that the when the war is eventually over Syria will be in a better place than it was then after so many years of protracted war and so many involved parties

You want me to provide a source saying AQ exists?
Is that the best you've got? 😆

Instead of bickering about whether they exist or not, would you agree that there's a lot of jihadists in the mix? Hezbollah for a start.

Hezbollah have always recieved political support from Syria so they have always been there and their primary aim is to reclaim occupied land from Israel.
No I was hoping you would reference the claim they were in charge in Syria actually. How many times would you like me to ask before you get it? You know that though
As it is widely accepted I assume there will be quotes from say heads of govt, the UN and recognised experts rather than just you.

Oh look. It's the junkyard show.......again.
I'm not biting. You can do one.

just as an aside who do we think is lining themselves up as Russia's New Best Friend?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/litvinenko-coroner-crucial-evidence-secret

And where exactly do they need Russia to be their new best friend?

I am generally opposed to intervening in other nation's conflicts, even though the humanitarian considerations make this very difficult at times. But clearly, Hague is not an idiot, so we are left with trying to understand the unknowns. Perhaps, the only rational argument is that the US and Russia need to ensure that Basher al-Assad attends the peace conference in Geneva. Given that recent events suggest that his position has improved recently, the US and France (so lets not isolate Hague here!) may well be trying to ensure that Geneva actually happens? But who really knows what is going on behind the scenes?

Eh why the reaction it is just a question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_Opposition_Forces

It is not AQ led at all and it is not widely accepted for it is not true

Al-Qaeda probably doesn't exist as most people are led to believe it exists

Which is exactly what I said. 🙄

....would you agree that there's a lot of jihadists in the mix? Hezbollah for a start.

Hezbollah aren't what is commonly referred to as jihadists, for a start they're not Sunnis. Hezbollah was formed to drive the Israelis out of Lebanon, something which they achieved. And now as an ally of the Syrian regime they are fighting against the jihadists in Syria.

Which is exactly what I said. 🙄

So I take it that you totally agree with my post then 🙄

Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all. When do we start shipping the anti aircraft batteries? What could possibly go wrong?

Which is exactly what I said.
So I take it that you totally agree with my post then

You could really start an argument in an empty room couldn't you. 😆

Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all.

binners I'm not claiming there aren't Islamic extremists involved, it's just a bit too easy to bandy around loaded terms like 'Al-Qaeda' with little or no evidence.

Ernie is right about Hezbollah - they are fighting for the Syrian regime, against the rebels (including 'Al-Qaeda') that we're supporting. 😕

I never said they were not involved Binners [ they are] I questioned whether it was true that they were in charge.
Wrecker claimed it was widely accepted numerous times and then he got upset when asked for some evidence of this claim and provided none.

Well, seeing as AQ aren't involved/don't exist, then I can't see the problem at all.

Someone ought to tell Libya's neighbours that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist, I'm sure that Mali and Niger would be relieved to know that they don't have a problem.

An incredibly difficult situation which is difficult to watch as individuals let alone as nations, however the underlying secularity makes any intervention almost doomed to fail. A leader who is part of a Shia minority (from the Alawite sect which is not a majority sect of the local Shia population) which is currently ruling a predominantly Sunni population. The Shias themselves were previously persecuted by Sunnis so they don't want to relinquish the power they fought hard for (and the process by which they came to power led to regional stability following the withdrawal of French occupiers). The Sunnis want power back and are naturally secularly aligned with AQ and Saudi.
Anyone who aids Assad is seen as supporting a dictatorship (rightly or wrongly) and anyone who aids the rebels risks aiding and arming AQ.

..at least that's how I understand the situation.

[img] [/img]

Anyone who aids Assad is seen as supporting a dictatorship (rightly or wrongly) and anyone who aids the rebels risks aiding and arming AQ.

..at least that's how I understand the situation.

It's the way a lot of people understand the situation. Including apparently, Israel, Assad's great enemy.

[url= http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-official-assad-preferable-to-extremist-rebels-the-times-of-london-reports-1.524605 ]Israeli official: Assad preferable to extremist rebels[/url]

[b][i]"Better the devil we know than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos, and the extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there," the official said, according to the report. [/i][/b]

He is an idiot and it's a completely ludicrous idea. They seem just as bad as each other, have we learnt nothing from the other mistakes we've made?

Well it seems the idiot has got his way. How would we feel if Syria started arming and supporting drug gangs in the UK?

Hezbollah are getting involved because with out Assad they are in real trouble.

So if Hague is an idiot what should he, the French foreign secretary, the US and any other of the countries be doing? It would of course be simple for countries sit back and do nothing but watch the killings. It's easy to sit back yaking on here but would you do right now that is realistic and would gain enough support to stop the fighting? If we get some workable ideas perhaps we could send them of to the UN for consideration.

He's not an idiot, he's just a politician trying to make a difficult decision. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make either of you idiots.

"How would we feel if Syria started arming and supporting drug gangs in the UK?"

That's not much of an analogy.

Does this mean the russians are allowed to ship Hinds over there now?

Mr Hague told the House of Commons: "We have in place a European Union arms embargo on Syria.

"We discourage anyone else from supplying arms to Syria.

So if Hague is an idiot what should he, the French foreign secretary, the US and any other of the countries be doing?

Putting some effort into the coming Geneva peace talks ? Rather than talking about arming "the moderates" when they knows damn well that the best and most effective fighters, and obviously the ones most likely to get their hands on any available weapons, are the crazies in Al-Qaeda.

It's fine to bang on about ending the violence, as Britain repeatedly has, but rather hypocritical to support and encourage one side.

And why is it such a good idea to supply weapons now rather than 2 years ago when apparently it wasn't a good idea ? If supplying weapons to the rebels is going to win the war for them then it should have been done a long time ago and saved countless of needlessly lost lives. But of course it won't, it will just prolong the violence and killing. Britain and a few other western countries don't appear to want the war to end. Supplying weapons to the rebels should keep it going.

It's fairly likely that the UK has sold Syria all sorts of weapons in the past, including chemical weapons. Why stop now? If there's money to be had in war, then isn't that good for the UK economy?

Syria is a big market for British goods, technology, education and expertise. On the whole the multinationals have avoided investing there because of the dodgy nature of the politics, which means that Syrian-owned industries are strong; my own company has done very well indeed out of the market in the last thirty years. I've attended a couple of the very private Businessman's Briefings at the British High Commission in Lagos and you'd be amazed at the depth of understanding our overseas missions have of their countries and the quality of the connections. These are the people who feed back information to the Foreign Office and one of the jobs of the Foreign Secretary is backing the right horse in a conflict like this so that we get the lion's share of the business when control is re-established. Hague is no idiot, far from it - he's a very astute bloke and I've the greatest respect for him.

No, he's a ******* idiot. And a dangerous one at that.

I don't think that William Hague is an idiot. But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences, rather than just consequence-free ranting on forums about how stupid everyone but us are.

johnhe - Spot on.

But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences

Not for him they don't.

you'd be amazed at the depth of understanding our overseas missions have of their countries and the quality of the connections. These are the people who feed back information to the Foreign Office and one of the jobs of the Foreign Secretary is backing the right horse in a conflict like this

You clearly are unaware of much of the consequences of UK foreign policy since the end of World War 2. From the British backed overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, to the financing and arming of Osama bin Laden.

.

I don't think that William Hague is an idiot. But unfortunately for him, he actually has to make decisions which carry heavy consequences, rather than just consequence-free ranting on forums about how stupid everyone but us are.

That Tony Blair was a clever man, who thought he knew better than everyone else, and he ended up puting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Dozens die everyday now, but we mostly ignore the embarrassing mess that we left there.

I don't think he's an idiot. I think our foreign policy is deeply cynical though, and he is an instrument of that.

Re: the OP... Goes without saying IMHO.

Re: the rest of the discussion, its about influence in the region and energy resources. Assad is pro Russian, whereas the Saudis are pro US kind of thing, so its actually a whole hullabaloo about scant resources. Ever so easy to get all chintzy about the innoncents being slaughtered, but I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.

I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.

That's quite an insult to suggest that some people on this thread care so much about energy bills that they wouldn't be bothered about innocent people being slaughtered if stopped them going up - which of course it wouldn't.

Care to name who you think these people might be ?

but I wouldn't mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.

Care to name who you think these people might be ?

I'd wager every single person who moans about high fuel prices. As long as those dying were swarthy foreigners who follow a brutal and twisted ideology which is a threat to our freedom, then what's the problem? As long as the killing is kept out of sight and mind, then it doesn't matter.

Care to name who you think these people might be ?

Nope, I'm not about to get pulled into a debate about a specific point in a general argument.

However, what I will say is that the simple fact is that everyday all of us in the West benefit very directly from the projection of power, diplomatic, financial, or military onto those less powerful than ourselves. Pretending to get into your high chair over it really is a bit wet. There are no end of ways to combat that situation, but the truth of it is most of us, myself included don't bother, and even those that do, don't bother nearly enough to be taken seriously.