Should Britain take sides in this conflict?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....n-rebel-grouping.html

[Gromit]

We really do not have anything to lose by supporting the Syrian Rebels.

We have never had good relations with the Assad's. If they are toppled and we have supported the winners then great. If the rebels lose, then we will still have bad relations with Assad.

[Duncer]

Alternatively, Cameron could promise not to waste a single British life by promising never to send our troops there. That is the angle I want him to take, while arranging to bring back those in Iraq and Afghanistan, sooner rather than later.

[McMouse]

I hope we keep out of it. As terrible as the Syrian government is, they do not pose a threat to UK. Whereas, the coalition of rebels contain some decidedly unpleasant groups who are in league with AQ. We've already wasted too many young lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to put any more in harms was.

[Gromit]

Our support as in Hague's comments is not a commitment to send troops to help, it is a commitment yo help the rebels fight their own battles. A policy hat worked fairly well in Libya.

[Duncer]

We could keep out of it and look after our own problems.

[bazwillrun]

@Duncer

couldnt agree more

[anotheoldgit]

What would be said if Russia or even China decided to also take sides, but this time on Syrian President Bashar Assad's side?

[jake-the-peg]

I thought Russia had

They have a damn great military (naval?) base there.

Whilst there are certainly things to gain from siding with the rebels there are significant complications.

As ever in the middle East

[anotheoldgit]

jake-the-peg

Yes you could be right, more reason for us to keep our own noses out.

[FredPuli43]

Russia already has taken sides. She has a naval base in Syria and doesn't want to lose it. If the rebels overthrew Assad, she would, because she supported Assad. Russia can't see that happening at present, given the disparity in arms between the two sides. If we arm the rebels sufficiently to make a difference, she has a slight problem but may well think Assad is armed enough to need no direct help.

[Gromit]

AOG

Did you not see the Russian Cargo plane impounded by Turkey that was bound for Syria and loaded with arms? They have taken sides, about 50 years ago.

Russia has always supported the Assad regime. Most of Syria's arms are Russian. The Russians have a very strategic naval base in Syria.

[bazwillrun]

russia has a tendency to side with the arabs whenever possible.

who do you think was supplying migs and other goodies to the arabs during the yom-kippur war when the arabs collectively got another of their pastings.

youd think the arabs would have learnt their lesson by now, but no, even today whilst the israelis agreed to and observed a truce whilst the egyptian leader was visiting gaza, who do you think didnt dissapoint by firing a missile at Jerusalem ?....yes youve guessed hamas...way to go hamas

[pdq1]

Definately not if past experiences are anything to go by. In Libya they knocked out the pro Gaddafi forces and now they are on the up causing trouble.

In Iraq they defeated the Pro Saddam Hussain forces by supporting the Shias and now they have uncontrollable bombings throughout the country and the death of many innocent people.

You can expect a similar outcome in Syria if Hassad loses power.

[emmie]

not ever

[LazyGun]

Britain should act in concert with the international community, using diplomatic initiatives and economic and trade sanctions where internationally agreed.

We should not be committing armed forces to yet another theatre of war.