Syria

[Sarmatian]

It is good advice but it still doesn’t work.

The west will get the blame, in or out. Of course it is best to stay out, it simply costs less in both blood and treasure, but escaping blame? Someone will blame you no matter what happens. Real or not.

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

[Sir Moody]

if we don't get involved we will be blamed for the bloodshed caused by the winning side or worse if this develops into region wide war we will be blamed for not stopping it earlier...

staying out is the best option for us you are right but we will get the blame whatever happens and the worse the outcome the more blame we will get... that of course is the problem we (the west) have created by behaving like the worlds policeman and meddling in so many affairs

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

Disagree - Middle Eastern hatred of the US is based more on what the US has not done. Libyans love NATO - Syrians feel abandoned by the "Free" world.

The logic here is inescapable - if we kept backing democratic movements - other democratic movements will spring up, then we back those. However, we spent most of the cold war backing "stable" regimes, local strong men who would back our regional plays provided we gave them a means to oppress their own people.

As a result, we have alienated the democratic movements that aspire to the sort of society we enjoy.

If dictators knew that when they oppressed and brutalised their people B-52 bombers would drop incendiaries on their palaces, they would discover a sudden love of democracy. It's not a difficult concept - the monsters are craven, offer then the choice of death or abdication and they'll abdicate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isn't rocket surgery. If you consistently back democratic movements, you'll create support for democratic movements. If you claim to back democratic movements and are anything but consistent, of course its going to tick people off. Freedom and democracy is an academic discussion for most of us, but for the folks living in Syria (or Iraq, still, for that matter) this is life and death stuff. Of course they're mad.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part. Seems an odd lesson to learn from your mistakes.

[Montmorency]

I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part.

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one.

The "Right" answer is to remove Assad - and then drop 50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade. Doing nothing, letting a popular revolt against a dictator be crushed, that is unequivocally wrong. More, it is shameful and cowardly.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler - the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

[Montmorency]

letting a popular revolt

First of all...

More, it is shameful and cowardly.

Here I put on my rvg-face.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

So, now you're talking about something completely different? To what purpose, exactly?

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler

Huh, and I figured Assad was just your run-of-the-mill dictator. Have there been discovered plans for the domination of the Middle East, from Tangiers to Samarkand, or something?

the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

Nevertheless, the point is that -

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one...50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade

- the necessary means to hold down Syria, let alone every remotely similar country in the world, simply do not exist. And even if the will did exist among the West to indefinitely militarize their society to unprecedented levels to 'police' the world, I seriously doubt that China and Russia, among others, would (assuming they're not themselves targets of this incredible Western frenzy) permit, let alone fund it.

Forget moral dimensions - I figured you for a realist, so think in terms of feasibility. This is honestly some of the wildest pie-in-the-sky nonsense I've heard on this forum in a while, and I certainly did not expect to hear it from you.

Weren't you against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? What's up? I didn't take you for the biggest neo-con or Wilsonian in the world...

[Brenus]

“I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.” No need to answer, but you think Japan wouldn’t have attack Singapore? And you really thing that Hitler and his allies would have defeat USSR?