After watching the Dispatches programme on Channel 4 last night I wonder how they can sleep at night after what their forces are doing to their own people ?

You could ask the same of many people.

True. I doubt though that anyone will do anything to get him out of power.

rldrastic action being taken by governments around the worldrl

pathetic, we really should be doing more.

Like what? [iAnother[/i invasion? Bomb a few more people?

What would you suggest?

Here's a list of all the current wars
rlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsrl

I think it is this country's duty to stop them all, and so every man woman and child must be immediately conscripted, and sent into battle without delay. We would have zero unemployment, the arms industry would boom, and we could also ensure that, once we had sorted the buggers out, all them bloody forriners should speak English.

Surely in situations like this, arranging accidents for the people in power would be the quickest option? Why go through an invasion when you can just assassinate key people to bring about the changes you want?

How about what [iyou[/i would suggest?

You want to bomb more people? You want to invade, perhaps?

Big, macho things to do.

Where next? Anywhere else with nasty leaders who do nasty things?

The interfering of nations in the internal politics of other sovereign states has frequently worsened such situations in the past – see Iran as but one example – why would it be any different this time?

And see FA's post.

On top of that, consider this: in this age of austerity, what additional services would you cut to fund those bombs or invasions? Even less care for the elderly than now, perhaps? After all, they'll die soon anyway.

In asking what someone would suggest who has just said there should be no military intervention, you effectively suggest that you cannot see any other option.

I think that we – and other nations – should be very careful about what we consider.

I mentioned Iran: we (and others) helped to keep the Shah in power for decades in Persia (as it was at the time), helping remove his political opponents – and then looked shocked when the actual people of that country finally shifted him with support from ultra nationalistic/religious groups, because other oppositions had pretty much been wiped out.

We (and others) helped keep Saddam in power for years – partly because he and Iran hated each other.

There's a picture forming here, I think.

24-hour media and telecommunications technology mean that we're much 'closer' to atrocities when they happen (and when that same media selects one for our entertainment – see FA's link to conflicts that are currently going on). So it's obviously easier to start demanding something be done when an atrocity occurs in such a chosen country. But history should teach us the result of intervention. Look at Afghanistan for another example. So easy to look at the Taliban and say: 'let's go and save those women'. The reality is far more complex. And it is highly doubtful that in doing so, we have made anything better – certainly not in more than the short term.

The problem is, we've been obsessed for some years with the military solution as the default solution – Blair, with his delusions of Gladstonianism – loved it.

We need to be more creative in dealing with anything that we decide to get involved in – and we need to be very care about being selective about what conflicts we get involved in. At present, this is almost like saying that Syrian children are worth more than children in other countries ravaged by conflict – simply because we currently know something of what is happening there and are reacting in an emotional manner.

TBH anyone who doesn't have an emotional reaction to the latest news from Syria is probably dead inside.

And no, I don't have any answers either.

When the Shah of Iran was deposed, I cheered.
Then I saw what took his place.

Just deposing or bumping someone off can just leave a vacuum into which we just don't know what will rush.