TBH I have a 1 and a 2 year old and when I saw the footage I honestly though 'oh but for the grace of god go me and my kids' and I got upset at the thought.

And I have not suggested that I know what the answer, as I quite clearly don't. But I know what it isn't.

And yes, you're right about the obvious and natural response to the recent footage and, indeed, the facts that we are hearing.

The solution is easy - if the "West" has a moral, humaniarian interest in the people of Syria but the Russians and Chinese have other interests (as portrayed in our media), then global agreement could easily be reached. The West could say to Russia and China that they can have whatever influence over post-Assad Syria as they want if they help get rid of him. That way every one is a winner - the West's high morality is sated as is the Russian and Chinese desire for power, influence and resources.

Thank you.

A post that reveals again (were it needed) that you really do not have a clue.

Hit the nail on the head here Mintball.

Despots, tyrants, mass murderers...call them what you will. The West's attitude has always been along the lines of 'it's ok as long as they're our despots, tyrants and mass murderers.'

In reference to the op, you therefore have to extend the question, adding 'how the hell do the Western politicians who put the tyrants in power, arming them to the teeth and selling them the intelligence and expertise to target and use those arms sleep at night?'

Any action against a sovereign state is already extremely carefully considered (for many of the reasons you mention, and many others), regardless of the eventual, possibly unforeseen, outcome or of an often not fully informed public opinion. The hurdle with tyrants such as al-Assad is that the options are limited. Other despots have already proven they have no particular regard for the welfare of their populations and have no problem martyring them in the face of tough sanctions - is that fair on the civilian population? Political pressure only has limited influence; every nation on earth could be yelling at him to stop and he can ignore them. Whatever happens he'll have enough to keep his supporters and his army supplied and fed, and that's all that matters to him.


Yes, that a power vacuum will invariably be filled by the most aggressive and/or ruthless opportunist. And that what to all intents and purposes seems an entirely rational act of intervention at the time, can often later be condemned with the benefit of history.


Going into Afghanistan was bugger all to do with helping women. It was a direct result of 9/11 and the subsequent hunt for anyone and everyone associated with Al-Qaeda. That's the simple truth of it. All the supposed 'benefits' brought to the Afghan population are after the fact. The USA went after Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden with no exit strategy, and given what had just happened in New York as far as I'm concerned they were entitled to do so.


You could say that of almost any nation. If a despot, tyrant, etc is perhaps favourable to a nation in terms of geopolitical support, trade, etc, and is doing no harm to said nation, why get snarled up in opposing them?


If you read many memoirs of those involved in the few circumstances where this has actually occured, most of them express regret, but the common theme is, "it was the right thing to do AT THE TIME. How were we supposed to know what would come next?" As ever, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Yes. But one of the 'arguments' used in the media to justify it/garner support was to stress how the Taliban treated women (and others).



History's there for a reason.

You are correct...

Its because it happened in the past.

World politics is a dirty business and always has been. Atrocities can be accepted if the overall influence of a certain regime is in line with what the rest of the world want for a region such as the middle east. Despite what we have been told, what history really teaches us is that at times (as mentioned) "tyrants" such as the Shah, Hussain, Gadaffi, Assad et al have suited the rest of the world (not just the west) as they stabilised the balance of power in the region preventing larger scale conflicts between nations.

And he who doesn't learn from it is condemned to repeat it.

Especially true of Afghanistan.

We had three goes at it previously, even the might of the Soviet army couldn't manage Afghanistan. I don't think anyone has ever successfully prosecuted a conflict in Afghanistan.

You're not into satire / extreme irony then?

Send a strongly worded letter, stating our dislike of what they are doing and ask them politely to stop.

Then, sit on the fence for a few more years.

What would you do – and would you also do something about all the conflicts FA linked to or just the one that's currently on our TVs?

If you don't think we should interfere in the others, why not? Why would Syria be more 'important' or whatever?

In other words, you haven't a clue what you would do. Right?

Yes. [url=http://viewtopic.php?tsmp=1338382800&p=16930995&sid=aedefe3b2c04d3c9315330d13b0fc12b&tsmp=1338382841#p16930995That's what I said earlier.[/url

I do know, however, what NOT to do.

Are you in favour of us getting into another war, then?

And if so, can you answer the questions I just posted?

We've got a very long history of allowing Middle Eastern dictators to commit atrocities and as Rober Fisk says: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-west-is-horrified-by-childrens-slaughter-now-soon-well-forget-7794149.htmlAl Assad will get away with it and we'll all forget about it[/url

He does not, however, suggest a solution and, indeed, touches on the problems that interference have caused.

I very much suspect many would prefer Assad to remain in power anyway – better the devil you know etc – especially with the growing political power of the Muslim Brotherhood (and others) in Egypt and questions still waiting to be answered about what that will mean.

Fisk is right, but I completely disagree that we are "allowing" anything. In the context of all the various things which are going on in many sovereign states around the globe, saying we are "allowing" all those things is not a fair or correct use of "allowing". They aren't under our control.

Very good point.

I suggest the commencement of air strikes on military targets in Syria, akin to the operations in Libya.



Yese i am all for bombing mass murderers and tyrants.



Iran. Then any other dictatorship.



Generally the interference of nations in the internal politics of other sovereign states has improved the situation: (1) Germany was better once we had de-nazified it, (2) Japan has been more peaceful and friendly since we removed its government in 1945, (3) Eastern Europe is much freer, more prosperous and friendlier since we interfered to undermine the tyranny of the socialists, (4) Afghanistan poses much less of a threat to Western security since we demolished all the Al-Qaeda training camps, (5) Iraq has been much friendlier to the West since we removed Saddam Hussein.

In contrast we have not interfered in Iran - it remains a bitter enemy committed to regional hegemony, nuclear weaponry and the support of terrorist organisations, nor North Korea which continues to post a threat to the stability of the Pacific.



NHS and EU funding.

I bet you got a stiffy just at the thought.



I bet you got a stiffy just at the thought.

Not as big as the one he gets when the GT hits his doormat.

Are we really going to fall for this con trick again?

I mean, Assad is a pretty ty guy but there's nothing new here. Once again the BBC and the usual crop of major domestic news outlets are playing their roles of war propagandists. The Beeb has been running front page, position one stories on Syria for months whilst any number of atrocities are taking place in other parts of the world.

Most likely to have an impact on the west, laudable as it is to be concerned at atrocities being carried out with machetes on some remote border in Africa or South America, it is not hurting our national interests as the politicians see it.

I'm pretty sure he didn't get one at the thought of you.