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?

[emmie]

i am all for humanitarian aid, but i wouldn't think it a good idea to be sending arms or any service personnel, we should have learnt our lesson by now.

[bookbinder]

The reasons for the UK's not getting involved seem to be obvious to everyone, but could the government have a hidden agenda?

[andy-hughes]

Of course we haven't learned.

Forces superiors want wars - it's their job.

If you are a career solider and you are at the top of your service, would you rather see your troops playng soliders of the South Downs, or being soldiers somewhere abroad?

That means they pursuade governments to get involved in conflict because conflict uses troops and machinery and everything else, including the excitement and adrenaline, that the rest of us would run a mile to avoid.

The sad fact is, governments are pursuaded - by a combination of power hunger, and a desire to be written into history - perferable their own version of it.

[Bazile]

This begs the question , doesn't it ? - and not just in respect of this conflict , but with respect to any conflict .

1. After what level of slaughter of innocent peoples should other countries stop sit back and do nothing ?

2. Should other countries sit back and do nothing , irrespective of the number of people who are being slaughtered ?

[jno]

it's interesting that it was an ex-soldier - President Eisenhower - who first coined the phrase Military-Industrial Complex, recognising the vested interests in going to war. I expect Britain's arms industry has lobbyists working by the dozen over this.

[Bazile]

//...stop sit back and do nothing ? //

stop sitting back and do something - even

[andy-hughes]

I think Bazile makes a valid point, but I would prefer to see other options rather than military support.

We supported Sadam in his conflict with the Russians - look where that ended up!

[emmie]

so baz we send troops, to what effect, who will we be fighting, Assad and his regime. doesn't that mean it will escalate, as Russia are supplying them with arms, so France and other countries get involved, what then, it's no longer a civil war but becoming a global one, as they say from little acorns. what happens when our troops in Syria get killed, how is that going to bring the end to the civil war that is raging, wouldn't it be better for sanctions, and more and more talking.

[jno]

we supported Saddam against Iran too.

We haven't been making a lot of headway, really.

[andy-hughes]

I agree em10, there is far too much of a keeness to send soliders in to sort out situations which need dialogue and reason because surely history has taught us that in mor situations tham not, military confict does not achieve the desired aims - evewn assuming we are aware of what those aims are - which woud make a nice change!

[emmie]

not to mention that we have had our fingers, toes and a lot more besides burned by our interference in these conflicts, we see terrorists on our streets, giving the cause for their anger as our interference in their countries, so why should we be drawn into another folly, one that could see more people being killed here - not a good plan

[emmie]

we should stand down, not send military might, nor indeed do much but mediate.

[jno]

I believe we have a Middle East Peace Envoy about the house somewhere; perhaps he needs soemthing to do.

[emmie]

Billy Liar you mean, what the hell would we want with him.

[anotheoldgit]

Bazile

/// 1. After what level of slaughter of innocent peoples should other countries stop sit back and do nothing ? ///

/// 2. Should other countries sit back and do nothing , irrespective of the number of people who are being slaughtered ? ///

The point is Baz, we send in troops, and innocent civilians get killed or injured as is the general case in war, then the British are first to be condemned by some for 'murdering' innocents.

[andy-hughes]

Indeed AOG - and this - as if any were needed - is fuel to the flmaes of Islamist extremism which purports that the West are a bunch of gun-toting Muslim-killing war pigs.

Do we really need to live up to their skewed vision of us?

[emmie]

a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. i would rather we were damned for not sending in troops

[emmie]

AH, they may well hate us no matter what we do, that is more than half the problem, if we are the infidel, and their religion demands that they kill the infidel, where do we go from there.

[andy-hughes]

em10 - I have always put forward the solution of dialogue, since the militarty option is patently a failure.

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 ..."

[modeller]

andy //We supported Sadam in his conflict with the Russians //

What conflict are you talking about ?