Is The Civil War In Syria Worth Starting An Even Greater War For?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-stokes-fears-of-an-arms-race-with-threat-to-deliver-antiaircraft-missiles-to-syrias-assad-regime-8634578.html

Britain and France seem very anxious to get involved, have we not learned any lessons from all the other conflicts we have poked our noses in?

[Bazile]

I'm simply posing the question - I've not got the answer - it's a difficult dilemma .

However it is very very sad to hear and read ,what's going on .

[andy-hughes]

Apologies modeller - I meant Iran.

[emmie]

AH, i just don't want to witness more murders like the soldier recently because some skewed thinking fanatic blames us for interfering in Muslim countries.

[emmie]

Baz, it is, but one thing about this, it's Muslim killing Muslim, if we get involved, that becomes western troops killing Muslims, think how that plays out.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// On that basis, it would be better to sit across the table and be able to say - "We believe you are a peaceful culture, as are we ..." Rather than - "We believe you are a murderous culture, as are we, with better equioment, bigger guns, and a paid fighting force who do it for a living ///

Oh Andy if only others had your repetitive vision of some form of Utopia, if it was possible for these dreams to come about, I would be the first to crown you 'King of Utopia'.

Please don't take this as an insulting reply to your visions, because it wasn't intended, I only tried to get over that such things hardly ever work, we can not even say perhaps in the future, because even in the 21st century we still are at each others throats, even on AB.

[ToraToraTora]

Usual twaddle above, essentially we are asking if we mind the incumbant regime killing it's own people. The usual characters have emerged, not much to discuss really. The left wing as usuall hate there own side slightly more than they care about doing somthing and the right wing would love to do something but don't really care enough about those that may need help.

[emmie]

and those killing one another in Syria are who exactly?

[ToraToraTora]

we call them "The Syrians" sorry if it's roo tricky.

[emmie]

patronising too, will wonders never cease, so what is your solution to the Syrian problem.

[ToraToraTora]

leave them to kill each other, better them than our troops.

[solvitquick]

Definitely no involvement by Britain in yet another doomed foreign adventure for these reasons:
(a) We are a small bankrupt country and powerless by ourselves.
(b) Now we do not even have influence, having contrived to fall between the two stools of Europe and the USA - ending up drowning mid-atlantic.
(c) The "recent" past has shown that we and those of similar governental systems should not try to impose our "democracy" on other states - many of which are tribally/religiously split and are only held together by dictatorship. Once "democatised" all hell breaks out. Indeed, We, France the USA etc use the political sellotape of (electoral) dictatorship because we are also internally tribal.
(d) Hence, there is no moral obligation on any state to interfere in the affairs of others because history tells us that the result is unpredictable and therefore possibly even worse!
SIQ.

[naomi24]

//Is The Civil War In Syria Worth Starting An Even Greater War For?//

No. Like Em, I'm all for giving humanitarian aid, but I don't think our involvement in the conflict will bring peace - which, I would have thought would be our fundamental reason for going in there.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "Oh Andy if only others had your repetitive vision of some form of Utopia, if it was possible for these dreams to come about, I would be the first to crown you 'King of Utopia'."

I entirely take your point - but I have to cling to my notion of a reasoned result, because the alternative simply means more of the same.

i am sure you would agree that a less than even chance of success is never good enough odds not to try - if that were applied to almost any endevour in history from Colombus to the moon landings, we would cease to advance immediately.

So yes, it is a dream - but a worthwile one, I am sure you will agree.

[emmie]

i think we already agree we don't want our troops there, so how apart from dialogue which doesn't seem to be working, do we get them to stop fighting. Those dying are those caught up in the middle, women and children.

[andy-hughes]

Tora - "Usual twaddle above, essentially we are asking if we mind the incumbant regime killing it's own people. The usual characters have emerged, not much to discuss really. The left wing as usuall hate there own side slightly more than they care about doing somthing and the right wing would love to do something but don't really care enough about those that may need help."

To whom are you referring about the 'usual characters'?

[ToraToraTora]

This has become very tricky for some. They love to moan when we do get involved but now it's getting a bit nasty they think we should but really have no easy way of saying so.

[emmie]

i hate the killings, who wouldn't, but i seriously don't think we should get involved, at least not militarily.

[ToraToraTora]

solvikwik: I do agree we shoudl not get involved but perhaps you explain how we are bankrupt?

[jomifl]

Modeller, I think it is the proxy war between the US and the USSR that was fought by Iran and Iraq or perhaps they were just testing weapon systems for the CIA and the KGB.

[solvitquick]

Further to my "no" argument above.
There are times in life when, despite the horrors we may see, we have to hold up our hands and say: "Sorry but we don't know how to stop it and anyway if we knew the answer we could not afford it - in lives as well as money". Sad but true.
SIQ.