Today I'm angry about.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

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;

We don't really know about North Korea and will likely never know the true number, but it is not put at more than 2 million deaths, thought most estimates are close to 1.2 million. Estimates of what the Khmer Rouge did, for example, tend to surpass these. I'm not sure why it is always up to the West, Harry, but you are right - something should be done and it will be done - just not as fast as you would like. Even China must be getting a little tired of North Korea.

[Hoboh]

China has a problem that if they start to really exert pressure on them l wouldn't put it past the north Koreans starting a war deliberately something the Chinese don't want.

[Dujon]

I think you're right, Monty. I'm pretty sure that China was the main reason - along with other international pressure - North Korea pulled in its head when young what's-his-name erupted into a fit of threats to anybody and everybody. Nor am I sure that North Korea has any strategic value to China these days. It must have done back in the early '50s as China committed significant resources to the Korean war. That war was, of course, one which basically ended in a stalemate (at the cost of thousands of lives) and showed - as so often since - that 'world powers' and 'alliances' are not very good at actually winning wars despite technological advantages in most instances.

Nor are they very good at 'peace keeping', with or without UN backing. I think it was in Sudan (I'm open to correction) where UN peacekeepers were forced to stand by while they watched a massacre in progress. What is the point of putting such brave people in the way of harm if they cannot do anything about it and are likely to become targets themselves?

As thebish commented, and I agree with him, internal conflicts are exactly that and everyone else should keep out of it. Deal with the inevitable refugee problem - although that can become a conundrum in itself - and when the dust settles, if it ever does, sort out relationships with the 'winners'. Callous? I suppose it is but it depends on one's objective view rather than a subjective and emotional one. Most countries have treaties with other countries. That can be good or bad depending on your subjective viewpoint. Even so an internecine conflict doesn't really affect such a relationship unless allies have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

As an example: Should some sort of civil war begin in Australia why would any of its allies commit lots of their citizens' lives to propping up a regime that is obviously in trouble? I can go outside that and bring the good Worthy's time line even closer. "True Allies" of the day, England and Australia, fighting together in Europe had a falling out. America at least had an interest in 'The Pacific'. Winnie couldn't care less. Dear old Churchill said 'NO' to a request for the release of the Australian military to leave the European theatre and return to protect their homeland. The Aussies said something along the lines of 'Well, up yours, mate' and brought them back anyway.

So much for historical alliances. I really wonder what current alliances are really worth. Returning to the seemingly never ending conflicts in the 'Middle East' it surely must dictate that a 'hands off' attitude must take precedence over intervention. So many of them seem to be intra-denominational arguments that poking in noses from other lands seems silly.

[thebish]

Nor are they very good at 'peace keeping', with or without UN backing. I think it was in Sudan (I'm open to correction) where UN peacekeepers were forced to stand by while they watched a massacre in progress.

Bosnia?

[Bijou Bob]

The issue with Syria for me, is that it's just a small part of a much bigger picture. What is now clearly happening across the middle east is the shaping of a long conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims. We can't pick a side and neither should we. This has global consequences written all over it. For once, non intervention is the way forward imo.

[thebish]

letter to the FT:

[TANGODANCER]

letter to the FT:

Excellent...

[Hoboh]

letter to the FT:

A lot of truth in there except I think it's stretching things abit in the case of the US position.

Think we should just stay out of it.

[Harry Genshaw]

Nor are they very good at 'peace keeping', with or without UN backing. I think it was in Sudan (I'm open to correction) where UN peacekeepers were forced to stand by while they watched a massacre in progress.

Bosnia?

Certainly happened in Rwanda too. Dutch soldiers with the UN who were told not to intervene.
As callous as it may seem I'm all for us keeping well out of stuff like this. It may be morally wrong but no more wrong than us (the UK) picking and choosing which affairs we get involved in and turning a blind eye to others

[Hoboh]

The haste with which we now seem to be heading towards war, defending the innocent by bombing them! Absolutly un-fecking believeable.

[bobo the clown]

The haste with which we now seem to be heading towards war, defending the innocent by bombing them! Absolutly un-fecking believeable.

I'm certain Assad is a right b'stard and he (or his regime), along with Iran have sponsored 'state terrorism' for a very long time. They will also have treated much of their population appallingly.

However, the opposition will be no better. In fact, who are they ? Simply trading one set of b'stards for another is no solution. We will create a power vacuum which will not be filled by kindly, honest, well intended democrats we can all cuddle up with.

It's like we learnt nothing from Iraq and, more recently, from other aspects of the "Arab Spring".

I'm far from a dove, but can't we see what this will result in ?

Today, the Russians, no innocents in all this, described the west as being "like a monkey with a grenade". I couldn't agree more.

[thebish]

The haste with which we now seem to be heading towards war, defending the innocent by bombing them! Absolutly un-fecking believeable.

I'm certain Assad is a right b'stard and he (or his regime), along with Iran have sponsored 'state terrorism' for a very long time. They will also have treated much of their population appallingly.

However, the opposition will be no better. In fact, who are they ? Simply trading one set of b'stards for another is no solution. We will create a power vacuum which will not be filled by kindly, honest, well intended democrats we can all cuddle up with.

It's like we learnt nothing from Iraq and, more recently, from other aspects of the "Arab Spring".

I'm far from a dove, but can't we see what this will result in ?

Today, the Russians, no innocents in all this, described the west as being "like a monkey with a grenade". I couldn't agree more.

it had to happen one day - I am in total agreement with Bobo here on a political matter! (that's pretty much what I have been saying over the last few pages...)

[bobo the clown]

it had to happen one day - I am in total agreement with Bobo here on a political matter! (that's pretty much what I have been saying over the last few pages...)

I may now change my view, for I am, surely, wrong.

[William the White]

The haste with which we now seem to be heading towards war, defending the innocent by bombing them! Absolutly un-fecking believeable.

So right...

[Prufrock]

Was Iraq that much of a failure? I don't remember several thousand Kurds being massacred any time recently. Kosovo went pretty well too.

I'm not saying intervention is always right, just that it isn't always wrong either.

I'm not sure, objectively, that the risk to troops' lives ought to make much of a difference either. If we don't think intervention will make a difference, we shouldn't be doing it anyway; if we do, then whilst risks should obviously be minimised, one of the costs of a military is that people might die, sad as that is.

[William the White]

Was Iraq that much of a failure? I don't remember several thousand Kurds being massacred any time recently.[/b] Kosovo went pretty well too.

I'm not saying intervention is always right, just that it isn't always wrong either.

I'm not sure, objectively, that the risk to troops' lives ought to make much of a difference either. If we don't think intervention will make a difference, we shouldn't be doing it anyway; if we do, then whilst risks should obviously be minimised, one of the costs of a military is that people might die, sad as that is.

Maybe you don't remember it because you were extremely young on March 16 1988...

And that will be why you don't remember the Western powers were supporting and arming Saddam Hussein at the same time... Amazingly, also, did not manage to create much of a fuss about it at the time...

And, the successes of the Iraqi 'intervention' (nice euphemism) are... what?

Pretty spot on if you are a supporter of Iranian clericalism... but, on the bet that you are not... they are? Please enumerate...

[Harry Genshaw]

I actually thought Cameron sold it quite well at his press conference today and I say that as someone wholly opposed to UK intervention as well as Cameron himself.

In a nutshell he said it wasn't about going to war or getting embroiled in the Syrian conflict, but supporting a possible strike against chemical weapon stockpiles. Now I know its unlikely to be as clear cut as that but under immense pressure I thought he made his case quite well.

I'm going to hate myself for saying it but I think he's shaping up to be a half decent Prime Minister

[Prufrock]

Was Iraq that much of a failure? I don't remember several thousand Kurds being massacred any time recently.[/b] Kosovo went pretty well too.

I'm not saying intervention is always right, just that it isn't always wrong either.

I'm not sure, objectively, that the risk to troops' lives ought to make much of a difference either. If we don't think intervention will make a difference, we shouldn't be doing it anyway; if we do, then whilst risks should obviously be minimised, one of the costs of a military is that people might die, sad as that is.

Maybe you don't remember it because you were extremely young on March 16 1988...

And that will be why you don't remember the Western powers were supporting and arming Saddam Hussein at the same time... Amazingly, also, did not manage to create much of a fuss about it at the time...

And, the successes of the Iraqi 'intervention' (nice euphemism) are... what?

Pretty spot on if you are a supporter of Iranian clericalism... but, on the bet that you are not... they are? Please enumerate...

I wasn't born yet. I'm not sure what the relevance of the reaction of 'the west' is to my point now?

The success of the Iraq intervention would be, as mentioned, the lack of three and a half thousand gassed Kurds, and rid of the guy who did it so he can't do it again. What happens afterwards is a separate matter. What's the alternative? Sit back and let Saddam gas some more?

[Hoboh]

No one would class me as a Dove, a hawk maybe but that is when there is a threat to the UK and it's genuine interests, I would not go poking my nose into something we have no real comprehension of.
The extermination of civilians by the Syrian government is appalling and we should condem it but to have all the previous suspects who vilified past intervention suddenly becoming 'bomb the Bast*** crazy' beggers belief!
Cruise missiles and B2's are not toys, they are serious business.

[Bruce Rioja]

No one would class me as a Dove, a hawk maybe...........

No, keep going.