Should the West have interfered as they did in Egypt, Libya, Iraq? We know these leaders are often cruel and dreadful to some of their citizens (as, indeed, are many Western leaders). But should we back one side against the other? ITK believes yes, we should. I'm not convinced that replacing Assad by ISIS (as would eventually have happened and is trying to happen in Egypt and Libya and Iraq) would be to anyone's benefit. But whether or not it would have been better than the existing rulers, adding to the slaughter of innocents was not, in my opinion, a good idea.

JK2006 wrote:
ITK believes yes, we should.

... should HAVE (past tense)

... and we SHOULD have done it FOUR YEARS AGO (long before IS popped-up its head in the obvious vacuum).

If Assad had been swept aside then a new government may have controlled the entire country, instead of leaving the "barren middle ground to IS to move into"

Ah you have less respect for the extremists than I do ITK; if you're certain that ISIS (or equivalent body) wasn't around, building, growing 4 years ago, and if you think they would not have ploughed the fertile ground, you may have a point.

The problem (then) as I saw it was that both sides (Assad regime and Syrian people) had reached a virtual stalemate ... Assad had an army / air force / missiles (and lets not forget chemical weapons !!!!) and with these he was able to "hold off" the people.

The people initially had nothing (except the weapons that they could remove from the Assad regime) so were not powerful enough to overthrow Assad completely.

Into the VOID came IS !

The weird thing now is that despite 15 million people being displaced (and God knows how many killed) we are actually no nearer achieving a solution now than we were then.

Assad now controls little more than his car park ... and the Syrian people feel betrayed (because we encouraged them to rise then dropped them !)

The "coalition" is completely bonkers - the UK (to appease some MPs) bomb IS in Iraq - but not in Syria !! (Their capital, Raqqua is not far from the Syrian / Iraq border). I also suspect that at least one of the so-called coalition "partners" is actually arming IS.

And the problem then and now (as I see it) with your position is that not ALL the Syrians hated Assad. Some did, some didn't (as with Gaddafi and Sadaam and Mubarek). This is my difficulty. It's never black and white. How easy it would be if it was. So do we - as outsiders - back one side against the other? No, say I. Yes, says ITK.

JK2006 wrote:
And the problem then and now (as I see it) with your position is that not ALL the Syrians hated Assad. Some did, some didn't (as with Gaddafi and Sadaam and Mubarek). This is my difficulty. It's never black and white. How easy it would be if it was. So do we - as outsiders - back one side against the other? No, say I. Yes, says ITK.


..... and not all Germans opposed Hitler !

Should we have stayed out and done nothing ?

If it had remained in Germany, probably YES, we should have stayed out (and did). When the tyrant started spreading out of Germany, we needed to step in fast and did, not fast enough. If Assad invaded Lebanon or Gaddaffi Tunisia, I'd agree we should have moved in. But internal politics should be sorted internally.

Wasn't the Syrian Army keeping the peace in Lebanon before all this kicked off?

JK2006 wrote:
But internal politics should be sorted internally.


... and how does an unarmed (then !) opposition of people, displace a tyrant with a murderous streak, an army, air force, and chemical weapons ????

Just "sitting on your hands" has lead to this impasse - we're in the fifth year now - and we'll still be in exactly the same situation in five years time !

Have we learned nothing ?

We "propped up" the Shah of Iran (until the very last minute) and have had no subsequent influence in that area as we were seen as "the enemy".

The West "propped up" the South Vietnamese government (till the Viet Cong were kicking down the gates to the Presidential palace) - and have been pariahs in S E Asia ever since.

If you are not on one side or the other - you tend to be seen as "the enemy" by BOTH camps.

- wrote:
Wasn't the Syrian Army keeping the peace in Lebanon before all this kicked off?

It depends how you define "peace keeper" !

They were certainly occupying most of the country and backing one side in the civil war (which is why Hezbollah are repaying the favour by propping-up Assad (Beaker from the Muppets !) in Syria.

And should a foreign power interfere in UK if a section decided to take over government? You may say their excuses would not be as "valid" as those opposing a tyrant, but the principle is the same. If rebels decided to overthrow Parliament and set up a better government, should Germany send in bombers to support them?

JK2006 wrote:
And should a foreign power interfere in UK if a section decided to take over government? You may say their excuses would not be as "valid" as those opposing a tyrant, but the principle is the same. If rebels decided to overthrow Parliament and set up a better government, should Germany send in bombers to support them?

If one section - those holding the chemical weapons ! - were trying to wipe out all opposition, then .... YES ! (it is their duty - under the UN charter).