Syria

INTRODUCTION Syria is 'run' by the Al-Assad family. It has been for many years. The Assad's are member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam.

Long story short, pretty soon after Islam was founded, Shia and Sunnis split. And they hate each other in the way that only former friends can.

REGIONAL BALANCE OF POWER Up until 2003, Iran was the only majority Shia country on the planet. Every other muslim country was EITHER 1) A sunni Majority, or 2) Had a Sunni ruler in place. This was the cause of the civil war in Iraq, Saddam had been Sunni, but the country was majority Shia.

Syria is a majority Sunni country, BUT, the ruling group (Asad's) are Shia. There is also a sizeable Christain minority. Iran and Syria are close, as they are both Shia governed countries. But Syria, as mentioned, is different to Iran in that Shia are the minority.

The other major country to note here is Saudia Arabia. Sunni Islam, and really dislike Shia muslims.
ARAB SPRING In Early 2011, a fruit vendor in Tunisia, protesting against corruption and the difficulty in eeking out a subsistence, set himself on fire, and with him, went the whole region. Morroco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Eygpt, Yemen and Syria all saw significant protests against the ruling Parties (Countries where living was not as difficult/the ruling party was popular/ countries were better governed saw some protests, but generally, concessions were made and agreements were reached). They all ended differently.

Morrocco and Alegeria saw the Monarchs make promises/ reprimand the government, promise increased freedoms. This combined with the better local living conditions saw the protests peeter out. Bahrain put down their protests with no aversion to violence. The west kept relatively quiet about this. Tunisia, Yemen and Eygpt saw their governments overthrown.

Only in Libya and Syria did it go to an all out civil war. In Libya, Gaddaffi was already unpopular with the west for his state-sponsorship of terrorism. Assad had generally flown under the radar, but people didn't like him as he was close to Iran (for reasons mentioned earlier).

WHAT RUSSIA AND SYRIA LEARNT FROM LIBYA. Gaddaffi, already a cartoon villian in the west, went out 'guns blazing' against the protester-come-rebels. Uprisings in various cities (Bengahzi etc) were being put down. Libya's limited airforce was proving a decisive factor both militarially and psychologically. Before long, it was clear to the rebels that victory, without air assets would be costly and expensive. To drive this point home, Gaddaffis air assets were hitting civilian and military targets as if to suggest that there was nothing they could do to resist him. No-where to hide.
The UN Secuirty Counsel, as a result of air assets being used in civilians, passed a resolution enforcing a no-fly-zone over Libya. (Note about the UNSC. It is 15 members, but the 5 that count are the 5 victorious powers from WWII, Russia, China, USA, UK and France. They all have a 'Veto' ie, if something is proposed for the UNSC to do, any 1 of these 5 can veto it, and it is dead, no matter the opinion of the other 14 members. In practice this means convincing Russia and China to let the resolutions that US/Uk/'the west' want to go through, to be allowed to pass.)

The idea being that Libyan air planes would no longer be free to bomb civilians. However, at the risk of using imflamatory terminology, China and Russia were upset at how 'Protection of Civilians' turned into 'UK/US providing air support to Rebels to oust Gaddaffi'. The Wests air support sung the tide of battle and Tripoli fell to the Rebels weeks later. Gaddaffi was found in a ditch and shot. Government of 40+ years over. Democracy? We'll see.

RUSSIA: 'FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU'. This left just one country in a state of flux. Syria. Already unpopular with the west due to it's 'closeness' to Iran, Syria's unpopularity deepened when the Government refused to make deomcratic reform (objectionable to 'Western Countries') and started cracking down on/ torturing pro-democracy supporters (really objectionable to 'Western Countries').
Russia was much more attached to Syria. It's closer geographically, culturally, economically. Russia liked the Government in Syria, and frankly, Russia isn't too fussed if you are heavy-handed with protestors. But most importantly. Russia only Port in the Mediterrainian Sea is in Syria. If it loses that, no russian warships could be in the Mediterrainian except as Turkey or UK/Spain permit.
So, for economic, cultural and religious reasons. SYRIA IS NOT SO MUCH IMPORTANT TO THE WEST, AS IT IS IMPORTANT TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. AND THE LOSS OF THE ASSAD GOVERNMENT IN SYRIA WOULD REPRESENT A BLOW TO RUSSIA AND IRAN. ALSO, ALL THE TORTURE AND REPRESSION BY ASSAD MAKES THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT VERY UNPOPULAR IN THE WEST.

So when Western Governments came to the UNSC and said 'We must do for Syria what we did for Libya', the Russians and Chinese shut that down. No way. Not going to happen. Without a UNSC mandate to intervene, any action would be in breach of international law. Which brings us too...
'WESTERN' DEMOCRATIC VALUES The West likes to support people who will be democratic and follow international laws. To this end, Obama has stated that the use of Chemical weapons in Syria would represent a 'red line' which would trigger NATO intervention, regardless of UNSC approval. Fact is, if you are going to break with international law and invade a country, you need a damn good excuse. Chemcial weapons are such an excuse.

Fair or not, Western Countries are seen as protectors world-wide. When the Genocide in Rwanda happened, it was condemned as a War Crime. But who was responsible for sitting back and doing nothing? US, Canada, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Spain 'Western Countries'. No-one blamed the Chinese or Russians for their failure to act.

Casting themselves in this role, it is these countries that people look to for support against dictators.
CHANGING NATURE OF THE REBELLIION The rebels, when originally formed, were seen in a almost universally positive light, defectors from a corrupt regieme, and brave freedom fighters looking to overthrow a dictator.

As time went on, and as more and more focus was placed on the rebels, Western Governments grew suspicious that these were not/were no longer brave freedom fighters, but Al Qieda/ Taliban/ Anti-West fighters, who were interesting in using the fluid state of Syria to win the rebellion and set up a hardline muslim country.

WHERE DOES THAT ALL LEAVE US? Time and again the West calls for democratic reform. And will support rebels with this goal. The West finds the repression of protests, along with the torture of protesters and the use of chemical weapons particularly objectionable. This, and Syria's relationship to Iran, and Russia, particularly the projection of Russian sea power, has meant that the west sees Syria as a Government, which if it were to fall, would not be missed. Knowing that UNSC approval for military intervention would be impossible, President Obama stated that UNSC approval or no, we'd go and take out the Syrians if Chemical weapons were used.

Chemcials weapons have been used, but we can not confirm by whom.

So we watch, and we wait. Russia has made it obvious that it will stand by Syria. Whether that means actual military actions against US and other western nations should they try to intervene in Syria, it's not clear. Also the problem of after-math rears its ugly head. Since the 'Red line' comment, there are more and more indicators, that the Rebels might not just be freedom fights, but islamists and others, who would establish a Islamic state. It is important to note, that this would be a Sunnni islamic state, as most of these fighters come from Sunni countries. And if there was a Sunni Islamic state, you can be fairly sure that teh Shia minority would have a torrid time, after the events of the past few weeks. A genocide could be possible. And stopping that sort of shit is why the West wanted to go in to Syria in the first place. Annoyingly, it could be that Assad would be the least brutal ruler of Syria.
CONCLUSIONS The Fact is, who is running Syria and why we should be involved is not as important to us as it is to other Countries. Russia and Iran both, for different reasons, like the Syrian Government and want it to stay in Power. Saudia Arabia, USA's close ally, dislike Syria, for mainly religious reasons, and want them gone. And finally, Western Governments find their approach to the pro-democracy protests as well as the use of chemical weapons an unacceptable way for a government to behave.

The West doesn't like them, the West regional allies don't like them. And they support the West Geo-political opponents. Thats the reason.

RIP Monty

Scumbag England

Maggie and Me

The inspiration for writing the blog is the new film Iron Lady about, well The Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher. There's not a lot to say about the film really. It's a mess. It spends too long lingering on her dementia and completely ignores all the politics that she was involved in. Its a a film for Americans who want to know about her but don't want to get bogged down in all the boring trivia of British politics.Mark Kermode was right when he said that by all means show her human side but you can't ignore the politics completely.

Anyway all this lead to me examining what exactly I thought about Maggie. I had said previously on this blog that I would raise a glass when she died. I would like to make clear that this film did nothing to change that. it was a few months ago when I repeated this line to a friend confident he would slap my back (metaphorically, me and my friends aren't they type) and say me to. But he suggested this was a pretty uncharitable thought about a dementia ridden old lady and it was a Damascus moment which made me feel, bless my soul you're absolutely right.

So how do I feel about her. Well I'm not sure. She is certainly worthy of a degree of respect. She came from humble(ish) beginnings. Rose through her party riven with snobbery and chauvanism. Became our longest serving prime minister and did it all while remaining true to her principles. She didn't submit when faced with the IRA or international pressure to fold and compromise on the Falklands.

I don't entirely agree with those who would declare her  the antichrist. Take Thatcher out of the picture and I still think that we would have had the same kind of social revolution with yuppies and the catastrophic end of manafacturing. It was just the graceless way that she carried these policies through.

She was clearly a politician who did what she believed was right. And when faced with the knee jerk politicians we have today who seem to be led by the press rather than actually leading, its difficult not to have a degree of nostalgia . But then again was she all but a dictator ?

She's one of the mostimportant figures of my lifetime and I'm still struggling to get a handle on what i think about her. What fun !

The Lion King

A few weeks ago I went to see The Lion King. Not sure how this one slipped by me for so long.

Anyway there's little you can say about it really. It is brilliant. And incredibly moving. I know Disney get a lot of shit from people for  presenting a candy coloured vision of the world. But you just get them on father children relationships and it quickly gets dark.

Look at Nemo, Peter Pan or Mary Poppins. In the Lion King Simba gets crushed under the weight of expectation there is for him following the footsteps of his father.

The resolution is satisfying but the scene that moves is the encounter with his father's ghost in the wilderness. I was pretty moved (man talk translation, I cried a little bit).

Hitch and Me

I was much saddened earlier in the week at the death of Christopher Hitchens. I've had a pretty troubled relationship with him over the last few years. For many years I described my faith position, for want of a better term, as being agnostic. In other words I didn't believe in God but wasn't totally convinced of his non existence either.

Then a few years ago I heard Christopher Hitchens on Fivelive being his usual rather beligerent self. The representative of the other side was at pains to be reasonable and not take offence at Christopher's non belief. Whereas Hitch had no problem in not accommodating the other person's beliefs at all. At the time I was cross at Hitchens' apalling rudeness and the agression of these atheists.

Fast forward a few years and the arrival of The God Delusion and I got even more irate with these 'New Atheists' bullying people who were doing them no harm in believing what they did. I had of course not read the book just decided I did not like it.

I think I now know what was going on. Although I called myself an agnostic I think I always knew that deep down I was an atheist. I was scared of reading a book that may strip away the last vestiges of my flimsy beliefs. I never set out to read The God Delusion. it just so happened that one day at the library the best audio book available happened to be it so I took it.

In truth as good a book as it was it didn't really tell me a fat lot I did not already really know in my heart. The lesson it did teach me undoubtedly was that there was no shame in being an atheist and that atheists are not to be feared. We are just people who happen not to believe in God.

For me personally the door is not totally closed on the thought there may be 'something other than' the physical world we see around us.This is based on nothing more than the fact that not existing makes more sense than actually existing. Something must have put the singularity there to start us off on our journey.

The other real joy that came from reading the book was the fun to be had watching videos of Hitch on Youtube being his beligerent, no quarter given and most importantly articulate best. I am truly sad at his passing. A great light has gone out.

Twilight Breaking Dawn

So I went to see Twilight Breaking Dawn last night. I'd seen all the other movies and thought they were ok. Nothing to get too excited about but mildly diverting. This is the first half of the last instalment. Its been panned by the critics, but as Mark Kermode said very succintly it wasn't made for them.

I also fall into the category of people the film was not made for. I am guessing as a 40 year old male I'm not exactly the target demographic. But I really loved the film. I'd actually say it was my favourite and to place a cherry on top I'd say I would go and see it again.

What I always forget about these films this how utterly charming the three leads are. Edward has the perect cheekbones for a vampire and a doomed charisma, Jacob is physically perfect for the role (if a 40 year old man can say that without wincing) and is cocky enough without being dislikably arrogant and Bella, well she may be the most perfectly cast actress ever. Together with a storyline that rattled along at a decent pace I was well satisfied. I particularly enjoyed the last shot of the film and I'm eager to see what comes next.

Now I'm off to install a countdown thingy on my facebook page counting down the hours until part two comes out.

We've lost the Empire you know

It's not been a good two weeks for the English. We've twice been reminded that we are not the big boys we once were.

First we had the embarrassment over the poppy scandal where we were outraged that the rest of the world don't see us as a completely peaceful nation. Heaven knows where such a notion could of come from.

Secondly we had bumbling Sepp Blatter spouting half baked nonsense about racism being a thing of the past. Now I'm the last person to deny that Sepp Blatter is an out of touch baffoon who runs a corrupt organisation. He is however a politician par excellence and last week he proved we were no match for him.

Unlike us he realises that the game is not run by the First World anymore and he has spent many years cultivating the support of wider footballing community. So we can stamp our feet and get as bitter as we like he's going nowhere.

The problem is there is still a significant portion of people in this country. Particularly those people in the press and the higher echelons of English sport have never really got over the fact that they don't run football any more.  Nowhere was this more hilariously proved than where we went into the world cup bidding process expecting that the other nations would be impressed we brought the heir to the throne to sway the vote. We were made to look like the naive fools we were. So when FIFA say no to them, or Sepp Blatter doesn't bow to our every whim we react with the impotent fury of an ineffective parent being told by their daughter she'll wear her skirt as short as she wants.

This is not to say by the way that there is not some things to be proud of. Even if it is driven by spite we can be proud of the fact we are the one body whose FA is resolutely saying that FIFA needs to stop all the bribery. I also rejoice at the fact that it is our press who have shown time and again how bent ther officials are. I just wish we'd do it all with a bit more dignity and a litle less screeching.

Killer of Sheep

I haven't been affected by a film like this for some time. It's a gritty looking film made in 1977 in Watts, LA. It gives a really compelling account of every day life for a depressed black man living in some poverty. These days he would be labelled as depressed but the film goes much deeper than that.

It looks at his environment. living hand to mouth trying to make ends meet. Being drawn into criminality by friends but resisting. Being desired by his wife but to sad to respond and all the time he has his job. As a killer of sheep. The symbolism of his work in the slaughterhouse killing the defenceless animals cut with the kids from the ghetto leading directionless lies is a little heavy. But I like that. I don't want to work to understand my films.

The best compliment I can give it is it is it carries the feeling of a Mike Leigh film. We come in, we watch the characters for a while and then we leave. But you can feel the life of the characters going on after the final credits. One sad note is that despite it being a great film the two leads have really done little of note since. Which is a real shame because they are both marvellous actors. Anyway it's a film that deserves to be seen.

I'm not Racist but...

This may well be the first time in history that somebody has said this without following it up with something horribly racist.  A more apt (but less eye catching) title would be 'I'm not xenophobic but...' I really do not like the EU.

The reason I am saying this today is because there is a vote in the House of Commons proposing that there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. MPs are being bullied by their whips into voting on party lines rather than with their conscience. A mistake I feel.

My opposition to the EU has nothing to do with a distaste for Johnny Foreigner. I like my European brethren just fine. I do feel uncomfortable at times being against the EU because there is a tendency to present anybody who is again the EU as little Englanders. A view not helped by dickheads like Nigel Farrange who never misses a chance to be insulting to people on the continent. Atheist groups have had gatherings for the past few years called Love Christmas, Hate Religion. I'd like there to be a campaign called 'Love Europe, hate the EU'.

My dislike of the EU is simple. Its unnecessary. The Europe Britain entered in the 70s was called the Common Market. That's what it was meant to be a common agreement between countries to trade freely. Then over the course of the next few decades there has been a slow creep towards turning it into a super-beaurocracy.

That is my objection. Britain already has an unwieldy beaurocracy of it's own. It's called the Civil Service. Why do we need a second even bigger one ? Beaurocracies are inefficient. I know I work for one in the council. And the bigger they are the more inefficient they are. We can never get back what we put into the EU which is the biggest beaurocracy in the world. And who does it benefit? Well there's the rub.

The people who benefit most from the EU are the political class of Europe. The EU is the gravy train that keeps on giving. Asking them to rid themselves of the EU is the perennial turkeys voting for christmas. So the status quo will continue. The EU will get larger, the political class will get fatter off the slush funds it provides and the people are voiceless.

Not Guilty

After watching Russel Grant's divine dance on Strictly Come Dancing she declared that he was her 'guilty pleasure'. Presumably because she thinks he is a bit crap but fun to watch anyway. I think somebody may have said it about one of the novelty acts (which ones aren't?) on X-Factor but I kept dropping off in it so I couldn't say for certain.


I absolutely loathe this whole notion of guilty pleasures. What is there to be guilty about, seriously ? We all know Westlife and Steps and (insert any other manufactured pop band since the 80s) are basically crap. But considering the ammount of music they put out it would be a little odd surely not to find one record with a decent tune to it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day after all.

I can't help but feel that this whole guilty pleasure thing is the last resort of the feeble minded. Like people who support Man United then apologise about it and make some tenuous link with Manchester to justify it. I much preferred the attitude of an old friend of mine who said 'screw you, I'll support who I like.'

So for the record I love Flying without wings by Westlife, Don't stop moving by S Club 7 and I loved Kylie even before the Guardian gave us the nod that it was OK again. I don't like any Steps songs, but I hear they are reforming so...fingers crossed.

His Girl Friday

What a delight this film is. I watched it last night with a good friend. I've seen it a few times before and it has to be said its one that improves with repeated viewings. The reason being that the dialogue is so quick and sharp you can easily miss things when you have to follow the story.  My friend hadn't seen it before and he kept losing the plot. For me it was pure joy. Its a film that keeps on giving. there are so many jokes and wonderful characterisations in it you get something new every time.

The cast is universally brilliant from Grant and Russell in the leads to Bellamy playing the hapless Fiance to the character actors who make up the rest of this peerless ensemble. Its a joy from start to finish. njoy if you get the chance.

The Wizard of Oz

I'm not sure what else can be said about the Wizard of Oz. Other than I can't help but feel one of the main disadvantages of being dead, for me, will be I never get to see this film again.

Cousins

Once upon a time I used this blog to talk abbout films I'd seen rather than ranting incoherently. So I thought I'd remedy that.

I watched Cousins the other day. I've seen it before and remembered enjoying it. Of course it doesn't follow that I would enjoy it again. Many times I've rewatched films I loved years ago to find them to be pale imitations of what my memory told me.

Thankfully this film lived up to its expectations. This is due mainly to the utter charm of the leads. Isabella Rossellina is a truly beautiful creation and is ideally suited to this role. Add to that ted Danson not trying to act, but just be charming and its a heady mix. Their chemistry is wonderful and you are absolutely rooting for a happy ending for the two of them.

They are fantastically supported by Sean Young, who is pitch perfect as Danson's younger wife and William Petersen playing a character really without redeeming features very well.

Anyway if you haven't seen it. i wouldn't necessarily tell you to make a beeline for it but its worth watching out for on TV. Two hours very well spent.

Travelling, Rambling

I used to be homophobic. I think this was largely due to a naivety in myself. I didn’t knowingly know any gay people so they were an unknown to me. I knew a few people who were camp and I suspected of gayness. But nobody who just said it proudly. I remember with a degree of fondness how on the second week of my social work course having to suppress a childish giggle when our lecturer told us matter of factly that he was bisexual.

I’ve come a long way since then and posted a few weeks ago about how infuriating I find people’s attitudes to sexuality. So I consider myself a pretty open minded person whose attitude could be summed up in the motto ‘live and let live’.

Then we come to travellers.

And I cannot deny in this case I am prejudiced. It’s an uncomfortable feeling for me because I genuinely don’t want to be that kind of person. I’ve spent much of the last couple of days ruminating on this to try and get to the bottom of it.

I’ve come to the point where I realise I don’t hate the travellers. I don’t really hate anyone. Even when people do horrific things I can understand that there are forces beyond their control that lead them there so its not hate. Its not that I want them to live a conventional life like us squares. I’m irritated that there seems to be a fundamental hypocrisy in the arguments put forward by those who advocate on their behalf.

There have been a lot of vocal accusations from some people suggesting that the site clearance at Dale farm is ‘ethnic cleansing’. Now let’s take a moment to look at this because if you use words like that then you have to defend them. Ethnic cleansing refers to the systematic murder of one group of people by another in power. No trial, no judicial process. We want the land you live on so we will murder you to get it.

Now let’s look at what has happened in Basildon. Planning permission was given for some homes and then another group of families decided they would live there as well. The authorities told them they couldn’t and following that we have had several years of legal argument to remove them. They have been to the highest court in the land and it has found against them. To compare this with ethnic cleansing is obscene.

The fact is that in law they are on that land illegally and have to leave it. This is the thing that causes me most annoyance; the feeling that somehow they do not have to abide by the law of the land. They have had their day in court and lost. They think they are being prejudiced against…well quite honestly tough luck. If I build something illegally then it will be torn down. Why does that law apply to me and not to the travellers ?

The hypocrisy for me comes in terms of the argument that on one hand travellers’ advocates will tell us that they want to make a valid contribution to society. In that case settle in permanent accommodation then, get jobs, pay tax. That’s how the rest of us contribute. But the argument comes back. Settling down would mean death to us, we can’t be restricted like that.

Well make your minds up. You either wish to be part of our society or you don’t. British society is not a nomadic one where we all move around. There are traveller sites around the country. I realise they are not always where the travellers want them. Well I’d like to live closer to my daughter’s school but I can’t, so that’s life unfortunately. Why do we have to bend all the time to accommodate this lifestyle choice? Especially at a time when we are being asked to bend so far anyway. Job losses, pay freezes, higher fuel bills and all set to get worse as the cuts begin to bite.

My final point comes from a respected peer of mine who said that 18 million or whatever the final cost to evict the squatters is a high price to pay. Well, having had time to consider it, this is a daft argument. The reason the cost is so high is because the squatters are refusing to obey the law of the land they live in. If they obeyed the law the cost would be lower. Are we saying we shouldn’t evict them because it will cost too much? That’s not a great precedent to set. The rule of law has to be enforced whatever the cost. I say that for the travellers just as I say it for the police pursuing News international executives.

So to sum up I don’t hate travellers. I dislike their hypocrisy, I loathe the professional protesters rushing to stick their beaks in and push the costs of this sorry operation up and I’m disappointed in myself that, for all my rationalisation, it is at heart a prejudice that is driving my uncharitable thoughts.