Home | About | Donate

Stop All Intervention in Syria and Let the People Decide Their Future


Stop All Intervention in Syria and Let the People Decide Their Future

Lindsey German

It's hard to listen to parliamentary debates on foreign policy without a growing sense of disbelief.

We saw one again this week, this time over the horrific situation in Aleppo. Most politicians suffer a kind of selective amnesia over past interventions. They bemoan the fact that David Cameron lost the vote to bomb Syria back in 2013, and claim that things would be better there now had MPs voted to intervene.


Ah well; as ye reap so shall ye sow. If nothing else, the refugee invasion affecting Europe should tell the bloody warmongering fools in the British Parliament what not to do, even if the common sense of the British electorate can't. The USA has once again shot itself in the foot in regards to foreign policy, as normal, but since the invasion of Iraq has also taken its allies with it unlike in the days of the USA attacks in SE Asia when the Labour PM, Harold Wilson, kept the UK out of the USA's war against Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.


Thanks for advocating self determination Ms. German, it IS the best course to follow.


Exactly. Accurate perspective. Cut the regime changing and get to fixing schools, railroads, water and sewer systems.

Collect as many weapons as possible. Ugly death merchants that make money on war are a very few perverted souls contaminating society at large. Isolate war mongers from the general population and bar them from any association with government at any level.


The author conveniently ignores the fact that it was US intervention and support of terrorists in Syria that created the terrible mess it is currently in and that Russia was the only major power invited in by the de facto and de jure government of Syria to help end the manufactured civil war.


Right on!
China is doing just that in Africa:

Source: Chinadaily.com

Against the backdrop of China-Africa friendly cooperation, China's assistance to African countries totaled RMB 76 billion by September 2009, and issued RMB 46 billion of loans by 2008. China has assisted African countries to complete over 900 projects including textile factories, hydro power plants, stadiums, hospitals and schools, half of which being related to local people's wellbeing.

When Western countries focus on "capacity building" and other "software projects", China pays more attention to investing in "hardware projects" such as roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, which deliver tangible benefits to the locals. The Export-Import Bank of China (China Eximbank), founded in 1994, plays an important role in offering loan support to these infrastructure projects. By September 2006, the China Eximbank had supported 259 projects in 36 African countries, 79% of which are infrastructure projects, including the Benguela Railway of Angola, Merowe Dam of Sudan, and the thermal power plant of Nigeria.
That was in 2009
Here is a listing of China’s involvement in Africa today: http://www.focac.org/eng/zfgx/default.htm, sixteen pages of it, but just scan through one or two of them and you will get the drift.

“The US destroys and China builds,” was how a taxi driver from Ethiopia in Washington DC responded to Chen’s question about China’s main activity in Africa.
From: http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=6110


Because Russian bombs kills civilians too? You are a contrarian if you think otherwise.


Dead on! see my post below (or above)


Well stated, really. I'm sure it took some time and thought to compose and deliver your comment back to Iceland, to his/her lazy, tautological statement. He/she didn't deserve it. I wonder what is going on when so many new names start popping up here on CD. I have yet to have seen this one neither before nor after.

I might just modify this phrase, not wanting to be critical. I would have stated that construct not with "the USA" but rather with "Clinton and her entourage of vicious neocons". The weak kneed Obama jumped on the bandwagon, only to regret the move after perceiving that it was quickly going South. How many innocent Syrian civilians have been brutalized and murdered since that decision was made?

If Mrs Clinton wins the US presidential election, she will indubitably fill the US administration with her vile, racist, psychopathic neocons. God protect us all. Armageddon may be upon us sooner than we think, perhaps even on Tel Megiddo where the Bible prophesied it would.


So are Common Dreams and Democracy Now wrong for calling for and end of the bombing?


Such an ignorant analysis just points to the deteriorated state of the current anti-war movement. So, they "oppose all bombing in Syria, including by the Syrian regime and Russia." What they're saying is that the group that is under attack should stop defending itself. This is not only a ridiculous proposal, but it clearly demonstrates that this "anti-war" group has been living under a rock and doesn't understand the true context of this war.

There is not a civil war in Syria, as this group assumes -- there is, rather, another regime change war orchestrated by the US neocons similar to the wars they have orchestrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further, Russia's military assistance was requested by the legally elected government of Syria -- so under international law, Russia and Syria are legitimately defending the country against the foreign elements, including jihadis from Iraq and other countries, and the US military and its allies.

In other words, there is in Syria a clear and legal division of forces: a legitimate government and its allies, and an illegitimate attacking force. To treat them as equals distorts the context and plays into the hands of US imperialism. A genuine anti-war movement would be protesting US imperialism that is being carried out through regime change wars. Anything short of that is a sham.


Well I seriously question the black and white narrative put forth that all opponents of Assad are terrorists and he is blameless. Regardless, what DN and Common Dreams are supporting is the end of the bombing campaign that has caused tens of thousands of deaths. A no-fly zone over Syria would not prevent Assad from defending himself but it great decrease the civilians casualty rate.