[TheHistoryStudent]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-east-protests

What do we think about this? And yes yes I know it's the Guardian, but bias or potential bias aside, what are your thoughts on the points it raises?

To get us started, I personally think military intervention in Syria, even if we did it with allies and so on, would not be a good thing for Britain - with our economy being stretched as it is, as well as our troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I just don't think we would be able to do a good job there, and that in the long run it might actually be detrimental to us, and also Syria (just look at the aftermath of Iraq with the sectarian violence there, and the current situation in Afghan for e.g.). On the other hand, the prospect of military intervention does for the moment, seem to be pretty far off - as it said in the article, it'd only happen if the Annan plan failed, with the backing of the UN security council (where countries like Russia might well block it/veto it as they have done before) and even if they somehow got it through there, I think it'd take them a while to decide the exact nature of the action required, e.g. air, sea, ground forces etc...

Those are my thoughts anyway - what's yours?

[fuzznbass]

I think military intervention would be a good idea but would be difficult to implement for obvious reasons, sooner or later though I reckon it may happen.

[concubine]

I think Russia should stop pussying around.

I'm not against us getting involved militarily. It'd be messy, and people all over the world would use it as yet another reason to hate the UK, but then an increasing number of people that would give such criticism are currently bitching about the UK, US, France, the usuals, for not intervening. It's an impossible popularity contest. The only consideration of our government should be what is most likely to bring about stability and lessen casualties. And I guess the answer to that increasingly leans towards getting involved in some manner.




And I'd really like Syria (and, in an ideal world, that entire part of the world) to settle the **** down so I can go there more safely.


Though I doubt there's much conflict here -

[A Mysterious Lord]

No way.

[g_star_raw_1989]

We've done our part in the killing of Iraqi and Afghan children, the Syrians are killing their own so its unlikely we will step in as all is being taken care of.

[The Doggfather]

Enter.....the Americans

[whofan]

the BBC was caught using fake photos of the syrian massacre. the public are being brainwashed. BBc should lose its licence.


http://www.rt.com/news/bbc-iraq-syria-houla-400/

[yellowpages_r_us]

military intervention will just make things 10x worse for syria. there's not a lot of good solutions, but bombing the place and destroying even more lives has to be the worst.

the best thing the uk can do is to support democratic forces within, but NOT start another war. horrible idea. for one thing, syrians themselves do not want western invervention. they hate the uk and us governments, and rightly so.

[L i b]

I don't think any Foreign Secretary in history has ever ruled out invading anywhere, save perhaps our allies.

(Original post by g_star_raw_1989)
We've done our part in the killing of Iraqi and Afghan children, the Syrians are killing their own so its unlikely we will step in as all is being taken care of.

Get the **** out.

[Perseveranze]

Just supply them weapons and they'll handle the rest.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Just supply them weapons and they'll handle the rest.

That worked great with the Taliban, didn't it? lol...

I say just leave them to it. It's time Arabs and Middle Easterners learnt the value of our help instead of bitching when we give it and bitching when we don't. If they can't be grateful screw them. It's not like we help out Africans facing worse problems, why are they any different?

[g_star_raw_1989]

(Original post by L i b)
I don't think any Foreign Secretary in history has ever ruled out invading anywhere, save perhaps our allies.



Get the **** out.

Would you prefer if I rephrased it as "collateral damage"?

[Joinedup]

Don't think it'll happen tbh. Perhaps some surrounding muslim countries could step up to the plate for a change?

[1crazydude]

What i dont understand is although with all the charges/ accusations of human rights violations in Syria, Syria was one of the most liberal muslim countries in the world. If the US/UK and the rest of nato feel the need for military action in Syria because of these violations, why havent they intervened in other countries with far and i mean FAR worse human rights violations that are on going. In countries like Sri Lanka and even other arab countries where ethinic minorites are still being wiped out?!?

[No Man]

The west should follow Russia's and China's lead this time and stay out of it and see what happens. We already know what the result of military action would be based on the several times it's been done before.

[tc92]

(Original post by No Man)
The west should follow Russia's and China's lead this time and stay out of it and see what happens. We already know what the result of military action would be based on the several times it's been done before.

We are staying out and we are seeing what happens.

[Josh93]

I'm waiting with bated breath to hear how he plans to militarily intervene without carriers, harriers, a willing neighbour state to launch a land invasion from, the money to fund such intervention, the political will from any of our allies except the French to support such intervention, any form of legal mandate from the UN or even an organised opposition in Syria to support and in the face of outright opposition from Russia...

Honestly, we're logistically overstretched supporting 9,000 combat troops in Afghanistan as it is - if there's to be any form of military solution in Syria then first of all we would need a UN mandate (which will never happen), secondly the Arab league would need to support and finance it (which might happen but I doubt it) and thirdly the US would have to be heavily involved (which is very, very unlikely at the moment).

I want to help them as much as the next guy but rushing in guns blazing and dropping high explosives from altitude without so much as a target to aim them at is not going to help.

[Josh93]

(Original post by No Man)
The west should follow Russia's and China's lead this time and stay out of it and see what happens. We already know what the result of military action would be based on the several times it's been done before.

In all fairness I have family in Libya and as far as they are concerned our intervention there prevented complete genocide in Benghazi; I do believe that we handled Libya pretty well - unfortunately the situation in Syria is very different to that in Libya.

[Publius]

(Original post by g_star_raw_1989)
Would you prefer if I rephrased it as "collateral damage"?

I would prefer it if you rephrased it to 'i don't know what the f*ck i'm talking about'.

[L i b]

(Original post by g_star_raw_1989)
Would you prefer if I rephrased it as "collateral damage"?

I'd prefer if you could demonstrate more than a childlike grasp of international relations before insulting your betters.