Can we PLEASE attack Syria now?

[Ronin]

What did Nazi's in France have to do with Churchill?

Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

Assad must be stopped

that's like.....your opinion man.

It is manifestly worse that Gadaffi, and from my point of view the failure to intervene in Syria, and resulting esclation, vindicates that intervention too.

this is just like Libya....a civil war.....who are we to pick who is going to win? why is that our competence exactly??? not to mention what do we have to profit from sticking our collective noses in yet another mess?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Ronin;2053425238]Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

that's like.....your opinion man.

So, along with everything else he should be allowed to kill famous Western journalists for criticising his regime? I don't think so.

this is just like Libya....a civil war.....who are we to pick who is going to win? why is that our competence exactly??? not to mention what do we have to profit from sticking our collective noses in yet another mess?

We get to not look week and morally bankrupt.

Libya mah not become a great democratic nation, but precious few people criticised Tony Blair for going into Kosovo. Those few people who do deploy the same arguments as with Libya, "but we caused MORE deaths", despite Somalia and now Syria giving that the lie.

[Ronin]

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

that might have make for pretty and heroic sounding press statements by Mr. Churchill but it isn´t exactly right.
if the Nazis had taken over all of Europe you guys were next....that's pretty clear.

We get to not look week and morally bankrupt.

again..that's a matter of opinion....I do not consider picking the fights we get into, based on our interest or lack thereof, to be either weak or morally bankrupt.

[rvg]

Let's not be hasty here. First of all the opposition is fragmented and exhibits signs of infiltration by al-qaeda. Those explosions in Aleppo specifically bear all the hallmarks of al-qaeda.
Second, if we do ouster Al-Assad, the minorities in Syria (alawites, christians, etc) are screwed: the sunni majority will tyrannize the far worse than Assad did.
Third, delivering Syria to a sunni majority rule might upset the balance in the region between sunnis and the shias.

So yeah, let's stay put and give Assad time to crush the rebellion. Yes, many people will die, but many more will die if we interfere.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Let's not be hasty here. First of all the opposition is fragmented and exhibits signs of infiltration by al-qaeda. Those explosions in Aleppo specifically bear all the hallmarks of al-qaeda.

Am I missing something here, or didn't deserters from the Syrian army claim credit for that?

Seems not unlikely, Assad's army has a long standing issue with people realising that they might be better off without him and feeling in a position to effect some change. These are often enough career soldiers, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pull it off -- they have the training, the experience, and it can't be too hard to get at the equipment.

[Vuk]

We should stick our noses out of it. We should only go to war with someone if it is to directly protect our interests and we get an immediate and important gain out of it. No offense to anyone in Syria, but they can take care of their own problems...we got plenty of our own. Syria and Assad are not worth one drop of innocent American blood. Even if we go in there and kill Assad, someone just as bad will take his place, and we will have succeeded in is wasting tons of money and getting innocent Americans killed.

A place like Iran poses a serious threat to our interests, and letting them do what they are doing could lead to Israel being wiped out, and there being a unified anti-American Middle-east that would pose a serious threat to us. I would hate to have to go to war with Iran (another war is the last thing we need), but at least that would benefit us. How would knocking Assad off help us? We should just stick our noses out of things for once. Look at the horrible things we did and let happen in Serbia because we had to go and be the hero.

[Viking]

I am not totally convinced that an outside intervention is in the best interest of the Syrian people at the present time; the country is somewhat religiously heterogeneous. I have also been led to believe that the Syrian air force is potent enough to, as a minimum, cause losses on any interventionist's side.

Syria and Assad are not worth one drop of innocent American blood.

Launch the paedo air force.

[Papewaio]

Civil wars are the worst ones to get involved with. Just compare the number of casualties in the US civil war to all other US conflicts.

There is no UN mandate and unlikely to be one either as neither Russia nor China want to get involved and I'm betting that the rest of the veto holders are silently praying that this remains the case. I don't see the EU having the capacity to do this.

If local countries like Turkey choose to get involved then their might be more of a reason for countries tha are further afield to intervene.

But to get an idea how long these conflicts can last look at the one hundred year war, north vs south Korea and how well Lebanon is going.

Of course some of these are wars by proxy so last far longer then if one side loses its outside benefactor. Vietnam is probably in the long term better off once western powers capitulated and it could build as a unified nation. The one takeaway point is that Vietnam would be better off now if western investment had not been curtailed for so long.

[The Stranger]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053425242]

Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

he only wore out his entire luftwaffe and few tons of bombs to bring england to its knees and not to mention sending his most able general to kill the brits in africa. he just had an irrational fear for the british homeguard and their coastal defense + navy. if he had just invaded the island, and lets be happy he didnt... luckily he had an even bigger and more irrational fear for russia, lets be happy for that too!

[CountArach]

How many local journalists are dead from this conflict? The only reason we care is because she is a famous Western journalist. Her death is a tragedy, but so are the deaths of all who die in this sort of senseless violence.

Putting our own western hands into a local civil war will only exascerbate things and push one side or the other even closer to radicalised forces who can play the anti-Western card all the more easily. We should just supply what aid we can to those who are affected by this and stay out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Germany was at war with Britain. I'm not sure how the two situations are comparable. It's wonderful that you're concerned about the latest media spectacle. There are many millions of human beings around the world that could benefit from a version of that concern that doesn't involve dropping bombs and picking sides in civil wars. What's going on in Syria is a power play between vying factions. By embracing the FSA, the Sunni faction has dropped the facade of a peaceful movement and engaged the state in open conflict. If they aren't prepared to win that conflict, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

The self-righteous mindset behind these interventionist movements is dangerous. We have to stop thinking of small nations as conditionally sovereign.

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

that might have make for pretty and heroic sounding press statements by Mr. Churchill but it isn´t exactly right.
if the Nazis had taken over all of Europe you guys were next....that's pretty clear.

This has never been a convincing argument. The evidence points to Hitler prefering peace with Britain at least in the medium term, because Britain was the greatest Super Power at the time, a status we gave up to defeat Hitler. If you look at a lot of the correspondence, you see Hitler wasn't keen on fighting the British - our ethnic and political and cultural status (in his eyes) mitigated against it.

again..that's a matter of opinion....I do not consider picking the fights we get into, based on our interest or lack thereof, to be either weak or morally bankrupt.

Unarmed civilians have been begging for military intervention for a about eight months, now they have started fighting back on their own. they have more reason to hate the West than before, and they are now turning to the terrorists because they are the only people who will help them, train them, and supply arms.

This isn't Iraq or Afganistan, where we went and foun d a regime opponent, this is Somalia where if we don't back a faction the whole country will go up in flames. Have you SEEN was Somalia looked like in the 80's? Mogadishu was like Paris, and after twenty years the schools and hospitals are just reopening.

he only wore out his entire luftwaffe and few tons of bombs to bring england to its knees and not to mention sending his most able general to kill the brits in africa. he just had an irrational fear for the british homeguard and their coastal defense + navy. if he had just invaded the island, and lets be happy he didnt... luckily he had an even bigger and more irrational fear for russia, lets be happy for that too!

The British went to Africa to fight Hitler, consider instead the situation immidiately following Dunkirk, or before.

[The Stranger]

you are right.. sorry he went to africa to aid the italians. i guess what you say could be true for '39 and early '40 but not after that. but maybe he resolved after he saw that it would come to nothing and the brits would not make peace. i dont know. i do know what you say is true about the americans. however politics is politics and i think its too simple to say churchil did what he did because he was morally outraged... about what? the germans hadnt done much that was really against the moral code, they broke about all the political treaties, and you can call that immoral but its not that outrageous.

the politicians went in for politics, and they sent the soldiers and the soldiers went for ideals, money, love for their fellow human, to rise within the army, because they had no other options.

[Lemur]

I was worried that our Libyan playtime would give people ideas. I was right.

[PanzerJaeger]

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

More propaganda, and more repetition of the same lies that have been disproved over and over again in the past in regard to Libya. There are approximately one million people in the city of Homs alone. Do you honestly believe they'll all be killed if government forces restore control over the area? Of course not. As with any of these rebellions, only the ringleaders and their most ardent and open supporters are at any real risk - apart from those who become collateral damage between the two factions.

Even if one accepts that the international community is right to intervene during genuine genocidal activity, it is most definitely not the West's responsibility (or right) to play bodyguard for the Muslim Brotherhood or any other local rabble rousers. Standing up against a Middle Eastern government is brave, but comes with certain known risks. And apart from that, the actual level of popular support, and even Sunni popular support, for this movement is indefinite at best. To claim this is the government versus the people instead of the government versus a particular group of historically rebellious people is dubious indeed.

The WW2 comparison is laughable. That Britain was not willing to tolerate an expansionist Nazi Germany just across the channel and everything that would entail has absolutely no bearing on the Syrian situation.

[Centurion1]

you want to do it phillip? do it with your countries own bombs and treasure.

this does not concern me and i find these rebels questionable.

[lars573]

I echo the let Syria fight it's own civil war. Also if foreign intervention is required, let Israel do it.