Syria

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Doing nothing was tried in Serbia and Croatia which didn't work out so well.

I think the background to that was fundamentally different. First the geopolitical situation at the time was leaning toward a single superpower, Russia was still refinding its feet on the world stage and China was not as powerful as now. Also, in spite of anything WW1 may have taught us, I don't believe the fire of conflict was going to expand beyond the Balkans. Further there was no Iran type protagonist.

The other key points were one, it was in Europe. Two, we were not at that time weary as a nation as a result of joining in two protracted and ultimately futile conflicts that have cost British lives. Ones that cost lots of money but ultimately as a result of which people in those countries continue to die and arguably have less stability as a result.

I have no idea what the answer is and like everyone else find Assad's actions repugnant, but it is just so difficult to know what the way forward is. No person with an ounce of compassion will look at the pictures and not want to see a delivery method for extensive humanitarian support. Beyond that I don't know but veer towards non-military intervention. I'm glad we eventually went into the former Yugoslavia but don't feel the same now.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I agree that Labour might be politicking and miliband's strategy is likely guided by a spin doctor rather than his moral compass, but if public opinion is clearly that we shouldn't intervene then shouldn't our politicians take notice of that opinion, especially on an issue where the government has no standing democratic mandate?

Don't polls show some sort of majority want a death penalty brought back or some such?



I sort of agree but tbh I'm amazed so many people have been able to reach a strong opinion on 'this is what we should do'. Perhaps I am particularly indecisive. I don't feel comfortable with any other the options in front of us (for us read the western world ) on this issue and I feel that each new bit of information brings new 'guilt'.



Ultimately, if there were some vote. Then what I have heard and read leads me to much the same conclusion as viva's post about Assad not being the worst option by far.

Perhaps references to ww2 can say not how different it might have been but how difficult it must have been to make the decision to act or not to. Who really wants to start something bigger than has already been happening or make the same mistakes in attempt at recovery after that?

Fella

Milliband has really lucked out here. His position was simple politicking (he was actually prepared to support military action, he was just manouvering to discomfit Cameron). But he's now been handed a golden opportunity to appear to have been against military intervention and in tune with the public. Incredibly badly thought out by the Tories.

IMO the most telling comment was a BBC reporter who'd spent the day talking to Syrians in a hostel of some sort (i.e. the people that an air-strike would be intended to help). He said that without exception, not ONE of them viewed intervention from the West as something being done for their welfare, they all viewed it purely as the West furthering their own interests. All the proof anyone needs that getting involved is the wrong thing to do and would only lead to more problems down the line, just like on previous occasions. The West intervenes, and shortly after BOTH sides hate them. High time we stopped picking & choosing which atrocities we chose to care about & concentrated on fixing some of the problems at home.

N1AK

TruckerT wrote: »

I didn't say we should do nothing. I said we should help the innocent to escape.

And people have already pointed out the flaw with this logic. If we responded to Assad's use of chemical weapons (assuming he did) by helping him get all of the people who don't support him out of the country then you'd be encouraging any leader with a problematic opposition to use chemical weapons on them.

When burglary goes up in an area we don't respond by helping people move out of the area, we respond by increasing police patrols

N1AK

Heard on the radio this morning about a fighter plane that dropped an incendiary bomb on a school. Will be interesting to see if the people opposed to responding to chemical weapons use will go with the standard:
a) Maybe the rebels did it to themselves.
or
b) Who cares they're only Syrians and we shouldn't get involved.

Fella

N1AK wrote: »

Heard on the radio this morning about a fighter plane that dropped an incendiary bomb on a school. Will be interesting to see if the people opposed to responding to chemical weapons use will go with the standard:
a) Maybe the rebels did it to themselves.
or
b) Who cares they're only Syrians and we shouldn't get involved.

How about:

c) The world is full of wars & dictators perpetrating atrocities. Almost every time we get involved we're hated & resented by both sides & all it does is cost us lives, money & makes things worse at least as often as it makes things better.

I haven't heard too many people suggesting we invade China and look at their human rights record.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Refreshing to see democracy (frustrating, messy, slow- but still the best system we have) in action last night.

The blunt truth is that civilians are going to die in Syria (and other dismal !!!!!!-holes around the world) whatever we do. I think the least worse option is to offer diplomacy and aid while the Syrians sort out their own fate.

There is almost zero appetitie for more intervention in the Middle East, as polls in the UK (and very tellingly in the US) show. Cameron just about pulled it off with Libya (a very different scenario to Syria), but I think that will be a one-off.

Are chemical attacks on people bad? Yes.
Are bomb attacks on people to stop the bad people any better? Not really.

grizzly1911

Fella wrote: »

How about:

c) The world is full of wars & dictators perpetrating atrocities. Almost every time we get involved we're hated & resented by both sides & all it does is cost us lives, money & makes things worse at least as often as it makes things better.

I haven't heard too many people suggesting we invade China and look at their human rights record.

Whilst not on the same scale Zimbabwe has rumbled on for decades with "nothing" being done.

michaels

Ok, another question - do you think the vote in parliament last night (if it has any effect at all) will make it more or less likely that Assad will commit further atrocities aginst his people to 'win' the civil war?

lvader

michaels wrote: »

Ok, another question - do you think the vote in parliament last night (if it has any effect at all) will make it more or less likely that Assad will commit further atrocities aginst his people to 'win' the civil war?

The evidence from the US suggests that Assad wasn't aware of the chemical attack until after it happened and that he wasn't too happy about it. I don't think an irrelevant vote in the UK will make much of a difference either way. It won't make a difference to a possible US missile attack.