Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Tue May 29, 2012 11:18 pm  

Mintball wrote:

In asking what someone would suggest who has just said there should be no military intervention, you effectively suggest that you cannot see any other option.

I think that we – and other nations – should be very careful about what we consider.

Any action against a sovereign state is already extremely carefully considered (for many of the reasons you mention, and many others), regardless of the eventual, possibly unforeseen, outcome or of an often not fully informed public opinion. The hurdle with tyrants such as al-Assad is that the options are limited. Other despots have already proven they have no particular regard for the welfare of their populations and have no problem martyring them in the face of tough sanctions - is that fair on the civilian population? Political pressure only has limited influence; every nation on earth could be yelling at him to stop and he can ignore them. Whatever happens he'll have enough to keep his supporters and his army supplied and fed, and that's all that matters to him.

Mintball wrote:

I mentioned Iran: we (and others) helped to keep the Shah in power for decades in Persia (as it was at the time), helping remove his political opponents – and then looked shocked when the actual people of that country finally shifted him with support from ultra nationalistic/religious groups, because other oppositions had pretty much been wiped out.

We (and others) helped keep Saddam in power for years – partly because he and Iran hated each other.

There's a picture forming here, I think.

Yes, that a power vacuum will invariably be filled by the most aggressive and/or ruthless opportunist. And that what to all intents and purposes seems an entirely rational act of intervention at the time, can often later be condemned with the benefit of history.

Mintball wrote:

Look at Afghanistan for another example. So easy to look at the Taliban and say: 'let's go and save those women'. The reality is far more complex. And it is highly doubtful that in doing so, we have made anything better – certainly not in more than the short term.

Going into Afghanistan was bugger all to do with helping women. It was a direct result of 9/11 and the subsequent hunt for anyone and everyone associated with Al-Qaeda. That's the simple truth of it. All the supposed 'benefits' brought to the Afghan population are after the fact. The USA went after Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden with no exit strategy, and given what had just happened in New York as far as I'm concerned they were entitled to do so.

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Despots, tyrants, mass murderers...call them what you will. The West's attitude has always been along the lines of 'it's ok as long as they're our despots, tyrants and mass murderers.'

You could say that of almost any nation. If a despot, tyrant, etc is perhaps favourable to a nation in terms of geopolitical support, trade, etc, and is doing no harm to said nation, why get snarled up in opposing them?

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

In reference to the op, you therefore have to extend the question, adding 'how the hell do the Western politicians who put the tyrants in power, arming them to the teeth and selling them the intelligence and expertise to target and use those arms sleep at night?'

If you read many memoirs of those involved in the few circumstances where this has actually occured, most of them express regret, but the common theme is, "it was the right thing to do AT THE TIME. How were we supposed to know what would come next?" As ever, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 7:17 am  

Cronus wrote:

... Going into Afghanistan was bugger all to do with helping women. It was a direct result of 9/11 and the subsequent hunt for anyone and everyone associated with Al-Qaeda. That's the simple truth of it. All the supposed 'benefits' brought to the Afghan population are after the fact. The USA went after Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden with no exit strategy, and given what had just happened in New York as far as I'm concerned they were entitled to do so...

Yes. But one of the 'arguments' used in the media to justify it/garner support was to stress how the Taliban treated women (and others).

Cronus wrote:

... As ever, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

History's there for a reason.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 7:57 am  

Mintball wrote:

History's there for a reason.

You are correct...

Its because it happened in the past.

World politics is a dirty business and always has been. Atrocities can be accepted if the overall influence of a certain regime is in line with what the rest of the world want for a region such as the middle east. Despite what we have been told, what history really teaches us is that at times (as mentioned) "tyrants" such as the Shah, Hussain, Gadaffi, Assad et al have suited the rest of the world (not just the west) as they stabilised the balance of power in the region preventing larger scale conflicts between nations.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 8:16 am  

Off! Number Seven wrote:

You are correct...

Its because it happened in the past...

And he who doesn't learn from it is condemned to repeat it.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 9:08 am  

Mintball wrote:

And he who doesn't learn from it is condemned to repeat it.

Especially true of Afghanistan.

We had three goes at it previously, even the might of the Soviet army couldn't manage Afghanistan. I don't think anyone has ever successfully prosecuted a conflict in Afghanistan.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 9:51 am  

Mintball wrote:

Thank you.

A post that reveals again (were it needed) that you really do not have a clue.

You're not into satire / extreme irony then?

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 11:19 am  

Barnabus wrote:

What would you suggest?

Send a strongly worded letter, stating our dislike of what they are doing and ask them politely to stop.

Then, sit on the fence for a few more years.

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 12:37 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Send a strongly worded letter, stating our dislike of what they are doing and ask them politely to stop.

Then, sit on the fence for a few more years.

What would you do – and would you also do something about all the conflicts FA linked to or just the one that's currently on our TVs?

If you don't think we should interfere in the others, why not? Why would Syria be more 'important' or whatever?

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 12:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

How about what you would suggest?

You want to bomb more people? You want to invade, perhaps?

Big, macho things to do.

Where next? Anywhere else with nasty leaders who do nasty things?

The interfering of nations in the internal politics of other sovereign states has frequently worsened such situations in the past – see Iran as but one example – why would it be any different this time?

And see FA's post.

On top of that, consider this: in this age of austerity, what additional services would you cut to fund those bombs or invasions? Even less care for the elderly than now, perhaps? After all, they'll die soon anyway.

In other words, you haven't a clue what you would do. Right?

Re: President Assad and Mrs. al-Assad : Wed May 30, 2012 12:59 pm  

Yes. That's what I said earlier. I do know, however, what NOT to do. Are you in favour of us getting into another war, then? And if so, can you answer the questions I just posted?

Yes. That's what I said earlier. I do know, however, what NOT to do. Are you in favour of us getting into another war, then? And if so, can you answer the questions I just posted?