Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons

[Viking]

Let Iran and Russia destroy Syria fighting through their proxies?

Not just Iran and Russia: Turkey, Saudi and Qatar are joining in. But, short of a very good reason to intervene, then I think that's the best choice for us.

[Sheilbh]

Can't see the picture.

[Viking]

Can't see the picture.

It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.

[Neil]

It's not like we're affected if Syria devolves into a dozen warring potentates.

[Viking]

It's not like we're affected if Syria devolves into a dozen warring potentates.

We will be blamed no matter what happens.

[Sheilbh]

It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.

Okay. So the compelling reason is hyperbole? I mean unless you're saying that but for Western non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen.

This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful. However given where we are in the West, especially financially, and given the sides involved I don't think there's a strong reason for us to intervene in any way. I think that's the least bad option and the need to 'do something!' is one of the worst compulsions in politics, because it normally means 'do anything' rather than actually working out what's in your interests.

I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.

We will be blamed no matter what happens.

Who cares? I mean seriously this is the worst sort of reason to do anything serious.

[Neil]

I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.

And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.

[Viking]

It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.

Okay. So the compelling reason is hyperbole? I mean unless you're saying that but for Western non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen.

This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful. However given where we are in the West, especially financially, and given the sides involved I don't think there's a strong reason for us to intervene in any way. I think that's the least bad option and the need to 'do something!' is one of the worst compulsions in politics, because it normally means 'do anything' rather than actually working out what's in your interests.

I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.

We will be blamed no matter what happens.

Who cares? I mean seriously this is the worst sort of reason to do anything serious.

The same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.

It wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.

[Viking]

I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.

And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.

Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[11B4V]

We didnt stop it in Rwanda or in Bosnia for example. So what it says on that monument is a farce to make us feel good.

[Razgovory]

The same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.

It wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.

And we want to be a party to that why?

[CountDeMoney]

Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure the girls and women of Afghanistan are thankful for delaying the inevitable for them.

[Neil]

I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.

And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.

Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody's going to be occupying Syria.

[Tonitrus]

Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm sure the girls and women of Afghanistan are thankful for delaying the inevitable for them.

We should just invade countries and take all their women, and leave the men.

No blood for harems?

[Sheilbh]

The same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.

You lost me at 'evil'.

But I think there needs to be a reason to intervene. This boils down to 'might as well'.

It wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.

In all honesty the sides of this war make me less keen to intervene, but even if there was a side we would support I'm not sure we should intervene. There'd still need to be a very good reason to do so, especially given our financial situation. But when you find this Quiet American-ish 'third force' and they can come up with some reasons why we should intervene then maybe we should.

But at the minute you want to intervene, just because, and on behalf of a group that don't actually exist.

Edit: Incidentally I hope Obama has the sense to avoid being bounced into action by the UK and France on this. Libya was enough.