Originally Posted by the_guru

Sorry, turbo, but can you point out where I said we should commit ground troops? With the exception of a few SF and liaison stff we went into Libya and made a difference. You might drip that Libya isn't completely stable, but the people are in a better position than they were under Gaddafi. I'll tel you that from personal experience.

I think we should be providing support in whatever way we can to the people of Homs and the like. Your sort of insularity is noted and in my opinion is morally wrong.
Oh and don't give me the hero shit. I am a former soldier. I'm a bona fide hero already.

It was this bit here

Originally Posted by the_guru

We should go in, but only if there are Arab feet on the ground with is and the oil rich gulf nations bankroll the gig.

Unless the "we should go in" means something else as does "if there are Arab feet on the ground with is (us)"

I couldnt give a shit about Libya or its people. It wasnt our concern why waste money on it and before you drip on about how nasty Gadaffi was it didnt stop us doing business with him up to and including selling him arms.

My opinion is not morally wrong. I owe (as does the UK owe) fuck all to the people of Homs. The last time I looked the UK is not responsible for what happens in every country around the world.
China suppresses its people all the time shall we pick a fight with them so you can get that nice warm glow inside?
As a former soldier it wont be you "going in" will it?

Originally Posted by the_guru

We can't stand by and let it happen.

We have done, frequently.

When the Bahrainis were shooting up protesters we did fuck all and said not much more. The Saudis aren't notoriously cuddly when it come to internal dissent, either.

What's so different about Syria that we have to step in in the first place and can make things better by our intervention in the second?



If it's been sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk then I'm probably pissed.

Originally Posted by stacker1

It was this bit here


Unless the "we should go in" means something else as does "if there are Arab feet on the ground with is (us)"

I couldnt give a shit about Libya or its people. It wasnt our concern why waste money on it and before you drip on about how nasty Gadaffi was it didnt stop us doing business with him up to and including selling him arms.

My opinion is not morally wrong. I owe (as does the UK owe) fuck all to the people of Homs. The last time I looked the UK is not responsible for what happens in every country around the world.
China suppresses its people all the time shall we pick a fight with them so you can get that nice warm glow inside?
As a former soldier it wont be you "going in" will it?

Well, FYI, I'm half a dozen days short of my Afghanistan reconstruction medal, so I'm still doing my bit, thanks very much. You can worship me as a continuing hero

By stating going in, I meant committing assets to try to stop a massacre, like we should have done in Srebrenica and what we did do to prevent something similar in Benghazi.

As I stated, we shouldn't do anything without support from the AL. We should be doing something.

Originally Posted by the_guru

Well, FYI, I'm half a dozen days short of my Afghanistan reconstruction medal, so I'm still doing my bit, thanks very much. You can worship me as a continuing hero

Well done you and that involved you actively fighting the taliban does it? Rather than getting a tax free wedge?

Originally Posted by the_guru

By stating going in, I meant committing assets to try to stop a massacre, like we should have done in Srebrenica and what we did do to prevent something similar in Benghazi.

As I stated, we shouldn't do anything without support from the AL. We should be doing something.

So by going in you mean bomb the fuckers? Why shouldn't we be doing anything without the support of the Arab league? I thought it was morally wrong to stand by? Surely it doesnt make a different what the arab league say or do. Unless it means its not morally wrong if the arab league don't commit.

Are you a fan of the Arab league? Its just that several of them use force to keep their people in line as well, but you think we should work with them?

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

What's so different about Syria that we have to step in in the first place and can make things better by our intervention in the second?

If it's been sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk then I'm probably pissed.

History, Opportunity, and Secondary Benefits.

Syria the Assad dynasty has a long history of pissing off the west.

Syria has been in rebellion for months. They were given the time to crush uprising while west focused on Libya and they failed to do so. Its now clear that Syrian police state has been largely thwarted by sectarian divisions. Really this should have ended months ago with a few thousand people being rounded up and spending six months to a year in a labor camp. The failure to do so has acted as blood in the water and has now attracted the sharks.

Getting rid of current Syrian government benefits many countries in different way. It clips Iranian influence in both Syria and Lebanon. A new Syrian government will be far more focused on domestic side of things then on military conflict with Israel. Hezbollah will find its Iranian arms supply cut and no longer be able to count upon Syrian army as a ally and trump card in any conflict in Lebanon.

There is strong alignment of interests between the West and Sunni Arab governments in the gulf. Both would like to see current Syrian government gone and current weakness of Syrian government is just to tempting to pass up.

I doubt you will see overt military action by outsiders in Syria but covert action is almost certain.

As easy as that, eh? Get rid of the baddies and usher in a new era, keep the beards at bay and improve security in the Middle East, all in one fell swoop.

Now where have we heard that before?

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

As easy as that, eh? Get rid of the baddies and usher in a new era, keep the beards at bay and improve security in the Middle East, all in one fell swoop.

Now where have we heard that before?

Bradford?

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

As easy as that, eh? Get rid of the baddies and usher in a new era, keep the beards at bay and improve security in the Middle East, all in one fell swoop.

Now where have we heard that before?

Shows how much you know, it worked in Ira... oh no wait a minute, it worked in Afghanist... errrr, well, Libya is okay is you ignore the infighting and possibility of weapons being smuggled in to Afghanistan from there.

Originally Posted by Captain Cnutflap

Depends on Russia. Ivan is unlikely to be keen on anything imperilling his tasty deals with the existing Syrian regime. Russia

The main problems for corrupted thieving Putin's regime are inside Russia, not outside. Syria is not so important itself and it is not so profitable arms market. Russia even doesn't need a naval base in Syria. It would be expensive and useless.

But in view of looming presidential elections (4 March) it would be politically damaging to agree with Western intervention in Syria (as it had been done in the case with Libya). Putin's agitprop claims that opposition leaders are 'paid agents of Washington'.

Russia really doesn't matter. The West would invade Syria without any hesitation (if, for example Syria would be as rich in oil as Iraq). But it looks as the West itself doesn't want to unleash a new military adventure with unpredictable side effects and result.

By the way, the West has been supported from quite unexpected direction. Al-Qaida supports Syrian rebels. So it would be pure idiotism if the West would help to create a new nest of terrorists in Syria.

I expect that the West will not begin any military action in Syria anytime soon.

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

By the way, the West has been supported from quite unexpected direction. Al-Qaida supports Syrian rebels. So it would be pure idiotism if the West would help to create a new nest of terrorists in Syria.

we should start arming and training them, it worked before with no long term issues.