Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

(a differently-toned-and-slightly-longer) hmmmmmmmm......

what's the clevererer person's basic plan to stop people getting gassed and install some kind of voting democracy in Syria? (other than just saying it)

Now you're hmmmmmming like my mother

The general basic plan for stopping two sides fighting, is to get in there and separate them.

Then you put them both on separate naughty steps.

If they persist, you expel them from the class.

Then when order is resumed, you can try and set up an election under the new Head Boy.

that sounds horribly like some kind of ground invasion plan....

Well we can continue to stand idly by...

I guess we could just flatten the place from afar, but that might require us to just pick a side (so we don't just flatten all of it)

For evil to walk the earth etc.

[thebish]

joking aside, this one is far from easy - there are some elements in the opposition that are at least as bad - if not worse than the current regime... it isn't a simple case revolutionary goodies overthrowing a tyrannical power (though it IS tyrannical)

sending in troops would lead to many deaths among those troops - and no obvious strategy or them to pursue or strategy to get back out again..

yes - emotionally - it's awful to imagine us sitting back and doing nothing - but it's not always better to "do something" just for the sake of feeling you are doing something when you might just make the situation worse...

still not sure what the "something" is that you are proposing... talk of naughty steps and the like doesn't really translate into much of a strategy that I can imagine in the real world...

all desperately sad...

[Worthy4England]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?

It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

[Lord Kangana]

Libya is still a f*cking mess.

[Worthy4England]

Indeed - better mess than if we hadn't bothered or worse?

[Lord Kangana]

Just a different mess. We've symbolically "won" (or more pertinently backed the right horse) but I doubt your man on the street is that arsed with the symbolism now.

[thebish]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?

It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

maybe - but my point is that you don't know what taking out some infrastructure would lead to - greater of two evils or lesser... also - how can you get between two protagonists and put them on naughty steps with air strikes?

[Worthy4England]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?

It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

maybe - but my point is that you don't know what taking out some infrastructure would lead to - greater of two evils or lesser... also - how can you get between two protagonists and put them on naughty steps with air strikes?

I see you've OD'd on your literal pills again.

If I waited until everything I did was 90% certain, then I probably wouldn't get very much done. Similarly you don't know what doing nothing will lead to - the greater of two evils or lesser. I didn't mention "sides", or whether action should be taken against Assad or the Rebels, frankly they're probably both barking.

Similarly I didn't view Lybia as "won" (or "lost"') in response to LK's comment.

What I do see is people dying and lots of them, I see UN inspectors being denied access to places - and that makes me wonder what people have to hide. I see people getting their hearts ripped out. I believe that's not about sides. That's about atrocities being carried out on weaker people by stonger people. If we have the capability to protect the weaker people, then sitting back doing fcuk all and watching it, to me is morally wrong.

[Dujon]

I don't think it's that straightforward, Worthy. What would you think should a 'foreign power' waltz into the UK because that power thought the country was in a shambles - and then tried to impose its own values, values that were not remotely compatible with the Westminster system of government? What did NATO interference in Libya and Tunisia really achieve? What has UN intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan really achieved? From my perspective when reading, watching and listening to reports from those countries it's not very much. If there is a line to be drawn then where should it be and who polices that line and on what base should the line be inscribed - on soft wax or in stone?

Don't ask me for an answer as I don't have one. The best I can come up with is, like a snake, 'leave well alone unless it attacks you'.

[Hoboh]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?
It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

Big problem there I'm afraid, Syria is riddled with very sophisticated Soviet anti-aircraft systems that would cost pilots and planes, The only way to strike at the regime is by missiles and if the West does stand by for all the "baby/hospitals" we hit pictures.
I'm not usually a do now'ter but if we get involved we are dammed and dammed if we don’t, it's a no win situation for us nor I suspect the people of Syria, nothing much would happen except a steep rise in the death toll.
We need the Russians to 'persuade' Assad to talk and we need to get the moderates to agree to it, lord knows with all the Looney fundamentalists running around I doubt that’s possible, the Russian task may be far easier.

[thebish]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?

It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

maybe - but my point is that you don't know what taking out some infrastructure would lead to - greater of two evils or lesser... also - how can you get between two protagonists and put them on naughty steps with air strikes?

I see you've OD'd on your literal pills again.

well - not really - because I thought you were meaning something serious in your comments - and I still haven't heard you say what in practical terms you would want the world to DO and what actual eventuality they would be trying to achieve by doing whatever "it" is... it's one thing to say something should be done - that's not the clever part - the clever part is working out precisely what - and before that, even, determining what outcome you are trying to achieve...

you had a metaphor of naughty steps and suchlike - but I can't see what those were metaphors for in the real world...

so far you have suggested bombing some stuff - presumably so that we look busy?? You seem to be saying that both sides are crazy... if that is the case - then why is it helpful to make it "an even fight"?

what capacity do we have to protect vulnerable people - and how would we achieve that - beyond saying that it is our moral duty to do so...

(one easy thing we could do right now is send massive piles of cash and resources to the surrounding countries taking in millions of refugees - we could do that today if we had the political will)

[Worthy4England]

I don't think it's that straightforward, Worthy. What would you think should a 'foreign power' waltz into the UK because that power thought the country was in a shambles - and then tried to impose its own values, values that were not remotely compatible with the Westminster system of government? What did NATO interference in Libya and Tunisia really achieve? What has UN intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan really achieved? From my perspective when reading, watching and listening to reports from those countries it's not very much. If there is a line to be drawn then where should it be and who polices that line and on what base should the line be inscribed - on soft wax or in stone?

Don't ask me for an answer as I don't have one. The best I can come up with is, like a snake, 'leave well alone unless it attacks you'.

I don't think it's at all straightforward. As for foreign powers waltzing into the UK, we have a fairly long and rich history of that happening - what did the Romans ever do for us? I didn't suggest, I don't think, that we impose any "value structure" particularly, other then giving the powerless folk on both sides the right to determine their future.

The UN resolution for Libya was something like "protecting civilians by all means necessary" - it wasn't about changing regime (honest ) - but regardless as to whether there was an intention to change regime as a bi-product, I think we did help bring a conclusion to the main fighting quicker and probably with less loss of life. I'm not sure how far we were involved in Tunisia?

On Iraq - they certainly don't have any WMD's anymore - we've checked. I suspect the Kurds are a bit happier that they're not getting gassed.

Afghanistan, I think Al Qaeda is weaker as a result of us doing a weeding exercise.

I'm not sure there's an interventionist policy that's workable that'll "Westernise" any of the Arab states (nor at all convinced that's what's required). I do think, as with Libya, if we can stem civilian deaths from dickheads with pointy sticks, then I see that as "better" rather than "worse"

I guess a lot of it depends on what you think is a "good result". If we were expecting Big Ben on the 10 O Clock news in each of the countries, then we've missed the mark. If we think we've helped stem the loss of life somewhat, then I think that's quite a noble achievement.

[Worthy4England]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?
It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

Big problem there I'm afraid, Syria is riddled with very sophisticated Soviet anti-aircraft systems that would cost pilots and planes, The only way to strike at the regime is by missiles and if the West does stand by for all the "baby/hospitals" we hit pictures.
I'm not usually a do now'ter but if we get involved we are dammed and dammed if we don’t, it's a no win situation for us nor I suspect the people of Syria, nothing much would happen except a steep rise in the death toll.
We need the Russians to 'persuade' Assad to talk and we need to get the moderates to agree to it, lord knows with all the Looney fundamentalists running around I doubt that’s possible, the Russian task may be far easier.

There is conjecture as to whether Syria has an upgraded sophisticated AA system or whether Russia hasn't shipped it. I'd be more than happy for the Russians to lead on sorting this out, rather than the US.

[thebish]

I don't think it's at all straightforward. As for foreign powers waltzing into the UK, we have a fairly long and rich history of that happening - what did the Romans ever do for us? I didn't suggest, I don't think, that we impose any "value structure" particularly, other then giving the powerless folk on both sides the right to determine their future.

yes... I can say amen to that - but I don't really understand how that is achieved in Syria. who are the powerless folk - and how do you remove the current tyrant in such a way that the currently powerless folk (mostly - those fled across the borders into refugee camps) are not simply ruled by the very nasty factions of the current opposition...

replacing one tyrant with an equal or worse tyrant is change - and it is doing something - yay! - but with the cost of lives involved in getting there - could you be sure it would be worth it? I can't see how we can be clear about that - even partially clear as the situation is now...

yes - lesser of two (or more) evils IS sometimes the best you can do - but I don't think we actually know which of the many evils is the lesser - and if we don't know that - how do we design a strategy to achieve it?

[Worthy4England]

I don't think it's at all straightforward. As for foreign powers waltzing into the UK, we have a fairly long and rich history of that happening - what did the Romans ever do for us? I didn't suggest, I don't think, that we impose any "value structure" particularly, other then giving the powerless folk on both sides the right to determine their future.

yes... I can say amen to that - but I don't really understand how that is achieved in Syria. who are the powerless folk - and how do you remove the current tyrant in such a way that the currently powerless folk (mostly - those fled across the borders into refugee camps) are not simply ruled by the very nasty factions of the current opposition...

replacing one tyrant with an equal or worse tyrant is change - and it is doing something - yay! - but with the cost of lives involved in getting there - could you be sure it would be worth it? I can't see how we can be clear about that - even partially clear as the situation is now...

yes - lesser of two (or more) evils IS sometimes the best you can do - but I don't think we actually know which of the many evils is the lesser - and if we don't know that - how do we design a strategy to achieve it?

We can't because we don't have the information required, but I'm sure there's plenty of people with much more directly related information than you or I.

We've tried the Diplomatic routes and various embargos, that's worked not one jot.

I've said on many posts that I certainly can't be sure (I think), and maybe the people with better Intelligence (Intel, not IQ) can't be sure either.

How can you be sure that doing nothing is worth it? I can't see how you can be even partially clear about that either...

So it's opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

[thebish]

We can't because we don't have the information required, but I'm sure there's plenty of people with much more directly related information than you or I.

I'm not sure they do - that's part of the problem...

We've tried the Diplomatic routes and various embargos, that's worked not one jot.

I still think that's the best course of action - using Russia...

How can you be sure that doing nothing is worth it? I can't see how you can be even partially clear about that either...

I can't. but why risk the lives of UK/US troops on pure guesswork? to commit the lives of troops - surely you have to have some confidence in a better outcome. I don't think anyone has that confidence - which is why caution is being used... There IS stuff we could do - we could respond to the massive humanitarian problems that are being caused by millions of refuges fleeing over Syria's borders... if we have cash to splash on bombs and missiles and planes - then given the uncertainty over their effectiveness - why not spend some of it on food and water and tents and accomodation and education for refugees?

So it's opinions. You have yours and I have mine.


well - yes - but you and I have both said that we don't really know what is going on...

[Worthy4England]

We can't because we don't have the information required, but I'm sure there's plenty of people with much more directly related information than you or I.

I'm not sure they do - that's part of the problem...

I'm absolutely sure that there are plenty of people with much more directly related information than you or I.

We've tried the Diplomatic routes and various embargos, that's worked not one jot.

I still think that's the best course of action - using Russia...

We can only do that if Russia is wanting to play. The original uprising occurred over two years ago...

How can you be sure that doing nothing is worth it? I can't see how you can be even partially clear about that either...

I can't. but why risk the lives of UK/US troops on pure guesswork? to commit the lives of troops - surely you have to have some confidence in a better outcome. I don't think anyone has that confidence - which is why caution is being used... There IS stuff we could do - we could respond to the massive humanitarian problems that are being caused by millions of refuges fleeing over Syria's borders... if we have cash to splash on bombs and missiles and planes - then given the uncertainty over their effectiveness - why not spend some of it on food and water and tents and accomodation and education for refugees?

I suspect the reason that no one's committed to do something more than "Jaw, Jaw" is more to do with the position of Russia and China, than the level of confidence in whether they could militaristically lessen the killing on both or either sides. Not necessarily by undertaking a ground invasion.

As for why not spend it on humantarian effort, I'm happy to do that too, but that's trying to solve the effect not the cause...

So it's opinions. You have yours and I have mine.


well - yes - but you and I have both said that we don't really know what is going on...

[Hoboh]

I think the 'best' case in Syria is we (the West or more to the point the US) remove most of Assads ability to use 'next level' weapons and that both sides arrive at some sort of stalemate, none of them gaining the upper hand. There will be casualties and this is an awful thing to say, but I think we in the West could manage to live with a slowly rising rate as opposed to the mass extinctions such as just happened without pricking our precious conscience too much, unpalatable but probably true.
Convenient blindness is mankind’s long term useful tool.

[Hoboh]

Well, we didn't put "boots on soil" in Libya...So how's that for the start of a strategy?
It's not always better to "do something", similarly it's not always better to "do nowt".

We could take out some infrastructure to make it a fairly even fight and see what happens next, then again, we can just sit here knowing we could've done something, but be happy in the knowledge it could've made it worse, so we did fcuk all.

Occasionally the lesser of two evils is a better place to be than the greater of two evils.

Big problem there I'm afraid, Syria is riddled with very sophisticated Soviet anti-aircraft systems that would cost pilots and planes, The only way to strike at the regime is by missiles and if the West does stand by for all the "baby/hospitals" we hit pictures.
I'm not usually a do now'ter but if we get involved we are dammed and dammed if we don’t, it's a no win situation for us nor I suspect the people of Syria, nothing much would happen except a steep rise in the death toll.
We need the Russians to 'persuade' Assad to talk and we need to get the moderates to agree to it, lord knows with all the Looney fundamentalists running around I doubt that’s possible, the Russian task may be far easier.

There is conjecture as to whether Syria has an upgraded sophisticated AA system or whether Russia hasn't shipped it. I'd be more than happy for the Russians to lead on sorting this out, rather than the US.

http://world.time.com/2013/06/03/syrias ... -in-power/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Syria-SA ... yment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... UE20130508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And for balance

http://american.com/archive/2013/may/sy ... ble-or-not" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Harry Genshaw]

Whilst what is going on in Syria is truly upsetting - the UN/West have continued to sit on their hands for the last 40 odd years regarding human rights abuses in North Korea. When the true number of how many people have been tortured, murdered, starved and worked to death I'm sure it will exceed anything we've seen since WWII

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23791114" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;