Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No its not. That remark was about American Foreign Policy, not domestic politics.
Stop being facetious.

Yeah, I had a thread about the international ramifications of the FBI putting out a warrant for Russian agents once... then if was closed because 'US Politics'.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.

As a hypothetical, let's say Russia never got involved, or their assistance was ineffective. This led to the rebels pushing towards victory, and now they're threatening Damascus. Would you support US led airstrikes to cripple rebel forces and help Assad recover control of the country?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No its not. That remark was about American Foreign Policy, not domestic politics.
Stop being facetious.

Yeah, I had a thread about the international ramifications of the FBI putting out a warrant for Russian agents once... then if was closed because 'US Politics'.

Because thats US domestic politics.

Does the FBI operate in Syria?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.

As a hypothetical, let's say Russia never got involved, or their assistance was ineffective. This led to the rebels pushing towards victory, and now they're threatening Damascus. Would you support US led airstrikes to cripple rebel forces and help Assad recover control of the country?

No. Everything we (the West) touch turns to gak.We shouldn't intervene period.

Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.

The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.

But then Russia will nom all their delicious oil! And they will get *shivers* influence...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.

But then Russia will nom all their delicious oil! And they will get *shivers* influence...

Yeah... Leave that place be.. Middle East is the death of anyone who wants to control it. You cannot.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No. Everything we (the West) touch turns to gak.We shouldn't intervene period.

Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.

The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.

So we should stay out, but its okay if Russia piles in? Because Russia's foreign interventions don't have a habit of turning to crap?

 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah... Leave that place be.. Middle East is the death of anyone who wants to control it. You cannot.

Why do you think that it IS a quagmire? Because US and UK and French and Russia foreign policy is that it remains one. I mean, seriously, every time a stable government forms other than Israel, one of the above overthrows it and tries to install anoterh short lived dictator.

Now, why is Syria important to the US in particular?

Because eventually Israel is going to do something so horrific that not even the hardest of die hard senators could back them publicly, and so the US would have to go looking for a new ally in the region, and the first place they'll go is the Kurds.

 sebster wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No. Everything we (the West) touch turns to gak.We shouldn't intervene period.

Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.

The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.

So we should stay out, but its okay if Russia piles in? Because Russia's foreign interventions don't have a habit of turning to crap?

Yes. I'd much prefer that Russian soldiers die than British soldiers.

Syria is not our responsibility. Why should we police it? Why do we have to keep sticking our noses in places they don't belong?

Because this isn't the 19th century, and things that happen in the Middle East, or other parts of the world, have repercussions throughout the rest of the world. When you have a group that runs roughshod through one of the largest oil producing regions in the world, murdering children for not understanding religion, will have an effect on things, whether you like it or not.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Because eventually Israel is going to do something so horrific that not even the hardest of die hard senators could back them publicly, and so the US would have to go looking for a new ally in the region, and the first place they'll go is the Kurds.

A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??

B) as for the Kurds... aren't we already supporting them in various ways?

Addendum: I think we're dangerously walking in to a serious confrontation with Russia in Syria:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/us-russia-syria-implication-serious/

Oi!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Why do you think that it IS a quagmire? Because US and UK and French and Russia foreign policy is that it remains one. I mean, seriously, every time a stable government forms other than Israel, one of the above overthrows it and tries to install anoterh short lived dictator.

That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West. Because he made some good noises about reform and development, and those are things that the US, UK, France and the West in general want for countries in the region (most of the time). Problem is, Assad didn't really do much of any of that, and then when the Arab Spring led to instability, Assad responded with abductions, torture and murders.

Really, it was when Assad proved himself completely unacceptable as a ruler that you saw any action by the US and other Western powers. And even then that action was limited to support to native forces that had already taken up arms against Assad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Yes. I'd much prefer that Russian soldiers die than British soldiers.

Syria is not our responsibility. Why should we police it? Why do we have to keep sticking our noses in places they don't belong?

Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.

Now, that doesn't mean there should always be an intervention. There are judgement calls to be made - you have to assess how much good you will do, and what the chance of increasing instability might be. But to simply reject the idea of intervening at all, especially in open wars that other nations are already intervening in, good golly...

 whembly wrote:

A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??

The fact they've enshrined what amounts to racism into law, and embraced what the UN described as 'apartheid' before the US forced them to withdraw the report. Not just against Palestinians, either. Right now it's politically popular to scapegoat Palestinians, parties that in other countries would be called 'fascist' gaining power, and the army get's more aggressive toward civilians with every conflict with the Palestinians. Given this rather volatile combination, it's only a matter of time before someone decides that genocide is the answer.

 sebster wrote:

That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West.

Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west (in general, and the UK in specific, one of their 'interests' along with preventing any strong central power in Europe [though granted this may be over with Brexit]), it has been since the end of the ottomans, and several countries have commented on their intentions re: this. It's sort of an open secret at this point.

Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison. He also released the Muslim Brotherhood as a group from Syrian jails and embraced Hezbollah. That was the point that they stopped praising him.

 sebster wrote:

Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.

While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.

From an entirely self-centered cynical position, the longer a civil war goes on the bigger the refugee streams we have to handle become. We have a Realpolitik-interest in ending civil wars in the Middle East for that reason alone, even if we take a completely sociopathic stance on the people who live there.

 whembly wrote:


Addendum: I think we're dangerously walking in to a serious confrontation with Russia in Syria:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/us-russia-syria-implication-serious/

Oi!

I don't think you need to fear. That whole story sounds fake. The lack of any kind of specific details (location, time, units involved etc.) should ring immediate alarm bells, and the 'unverified transcripts' that have been published were definitely not written by a Russian or even a translation from Russian. They contain idiom that Russians, even if relatively fluent in English, would never ever use.

Besides that, it also does not make sense. There are Russian mercenaries in Syria, but it is highly unlikely they could mount attacks of that magnitude. These groups aren't very large, and so far, all we have seen from Russian mercenaries are relatively small actions, usually alongside Syrian militias. A large-scale attack with more than thousand fighters all on a single base does not really fit in with the way they operate (nor does it make much sense from a strategical or tactical point of view), and attacking an American base (does the US even have bases in Syria large enough to become a target of an attack of that magnitude? Afaik, the US has no real bases in Syria, only small outposts for their special forces. Even Russia has only two real bases, and Russia has a lot more men and material in Syria than the US) also seems an incredibly unlikely thing to do. Most of these mercenary groups have some connection to the Russian military. And the Russian military will do everything to avoid a confrontation with the US, because while they could easily kick the US out of Syria, doing so would be a big risk for little gain. Russia can't really afford a wider conflict with the US. So that makes it highly unlikely that the Russian military would send such a group to probe American defenses, as they would have nothing to gain from that (since they don't plan on directly fighting the US anyway). Even if the Russian military was going to test American defenses, they'd send in a bunch of Syrians, not Russians, because the plausible deniability is not very strong if you send in Russians. Mercenary groups that big don't spring up out of nowhere after all.
Basically, the whole story doesn't add up anywhere. In my opinion, it is possible that it has some base in truth somewhere (a US base or outpost was attacked on 7 february, and 2 Russians were reported killed on the same date.) but it then got exaggerated into fantastical proportions. It doesn't help that the story constantly keeps changing either.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??

The fact they've enshrined what amounts to racism into law, and embraced what the UN described as 'apartheid' before the US forced them to withdraw the report.

Care to elaborate on this?

As to the UN... I hope you're not talking about the UN Human Rights Council...

Not just against Palestinians, either. Right now it's politically popular to scapegoat Palestinians, parties that in other countries would be called 'fascist' gaining power, and the army get's more aggressive toward civilians with every conflict with the Palestinians. Given this rather volatile combination, it's only a matter of time before someone decides that genocide is the answer.

I got no sympathy for Palestinians who keeps electing governance who wants to destroy Israel. Frankly, I'm surprised how reserved Israel has been these last few decades...

 sebster wrote:

That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West.

Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west (in general, and the UK in specific, one of their 'interests' along with preventing any strong central power in Europe [though granted this may be over with Brexit]), it has been since the end of the ottomans, and several countries have commented on their intentions re: this. It's sort of an open secret at this point.

Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison. He also released the Muslim Brotherhood as a group from Syrian jails and embraced Hezbollah. That was the point that they stopped praising him.

Just goes to show how the mideast is synonymous to the Frog & Scorpion parable...

 sebster wrote:

Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.

While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.

Well... that escalated.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.

Don't speak for me.

If I thought our intervention would end the conflict, bring peace to Syria and end the cycle of death, I'd support it.

But I don't think it will end the conflict. I think our intervention would only escalate the conflict, drag more nations into the War and result in even more death and destruction in the long term. None of our so called "humanitarian interventions" ever result in a happy ending. We leave a trail of destruction in our wake, broken nations, millions dead, and power vacuums that guarantee long term conflict.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. We have a very poor track record, and yet you want to continue??? It wasn't that long ago that we were lied to in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. What else are we being lied to about? We're even risking a direct conflict with Russia. And if that happens, then this Syrian War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan are NOTHING compared to what will come.

Its long past time we stopped waging war on emotive but ultimately ill thought out reasons like "human decency" and started being a little more pragmatic and realistic. You claim moral superiority, citing lofty ideals like "human decency". I call B.S. Your course of action will result in more dead in the long term, all to serve your ego.


If we get more directly involved, it'll be our second Iraq.

Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.

Plus, you didn't argue that we shouldn't intervene because it wouldn't work, you argued that it wasn't our responsibility in the first place. That's inconsistent with saying you'd support an intervention if you thought it'd work.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.

Right, and we've done so well since Yugoslavia.

What makes you think our intervention in Syria will have the result of Yugoslavia, and not Iraq or Libya?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.

Plus, you didn't argue that we shouldn't intervene because it wouldn't work, you argued that it wasn't our responsibility in the first place. That's inconsistent with saying you'd support an intervention if you thought it'd work.

Those aren't mutually exclusive.

Its not our responsibility.
I don't think our intervention would work.

If I thought it would work, I'd support it. Or at least be more open to the idea.
But I still wouldn't think its our responsibility to intervene.

I'm not arguing one way or another for an intervention in Syria, I'm simply pointing out that your "intervention is doomed to fail!" narrative doesn't hold up.

I don't see the bad results of intervention as the problem, it's a complex issue where even the best intentions can make things worse. It's the complete lack of learning from past experience that's the problem.

whembly wrote:
Care to elaborate on this?

As to the UN... I hope you're not talking about the UN Human Rights Council...

Aside from getting wildly OT, I'll give you a bit.

I was, among other UN reports, referring to the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia report, who's uncensored report flatly accused Israel of Apartheid as defined by the UN. This goes hand in hand with the South African Human Sciences Research Council findings, and the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law makes very clear that marriages between Israelis and Palestinians will be punished were possible. Further, the proposed 'Jewish State' bill which is working it's way through the Knesset might as well be named 'Jim Crow, Middle Eastern Edition'.

Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz, Editorial, Nov 28, 2017 wrote:
“In Israel there aren’t really political parties. A single governing bloc is made up of interchangeable parts, including everyone who seeks legitimacy by donning right-wing costumes. They’re ready to expel foreigners, support anti-democratic legislation, observe the Sabbath and keep it holy, stick a note in the Western Wall, and let the settlements do as they please. There’s no coalition or opposition; there’s a ruling party and there are subversives, leftists who support terror, traitors to their nation and homeland. There are no minority parties, there’s a fifth column. There’s a free press, but it is persecuted and crushed.”

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Don't speak for me.

And then turns around and prooves me exactly right...

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its long past time we stopped waging war on emotive but ultimately ill thought out reasons like "human decency" and started being a little more pragmatic and realistic. You claim moral superiority, citing lofty ideals like "human decency". I call B.S. Your course of action will result in more dead in the long term, all to serve your ego.

and throws a barb in implying that I actually want all this as it would 'serve (my) ego'. Fact is that in this case, intervention actually can't make things worse. When you're gassing civilians in the streets, there's actually not of room left for things to get worse.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its not our responsibility.
I don't think our intervention would work.

And there's the lie. It is your responsibility (in fact, it's literally the result of something you, UK and France and the US' actions). I mean, seriously, 'we shouldn't get involved because history, but it's not our fault because history is irrelevant'. That;s some staggering hypocrisy there. Whether it would work or not, you admit is your opinion, which i respect, but if you don't think this is your fault, I recommend reading up on the Sykes-Picot Agreement and then come back, and with a straight face, tell me the modern middle east in it's entirety is not exactly the fault of England, France, the US, and Russia.

And then turns around and prooves me exactly right...

Hardly. You want to paint me as some sort of heartless monster, and yourself as the compassionate white knight who wants to wage war to right the world's wrongs. Tony Blair had a similar attitude to Iraq. Look where that got us.

I call BS. I think the course of action you're advocating will have far reaching and unintended consequences...just like Iraq and Libya. You're in a hurry to do something. Anything. Just as long as we do something. No matter how poorly thought out and short term.

and throws a barb in implying that I actually want all this as it would 'serve (my) ego'. Fact is that in this case, intervention actually can't make things worse. When you're gassing civilians in the streets, there's actually not of room left for things to get worse.

You lack imagination.

Hey guys! You are going off topic.

Hardly.

He wants the West to wage war on Syria and enact regime change.

My argument is that its a very bone headed, dangerous idea, because chances are that we'll just feth it up like all our previous attempts at regime change.

Its entirely on topic.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west

No. History is important, but it's beyond stupid to think post WWI foreign policy has remained unchanged until today. I don't agree with a lot of existing ME policy today, but it is miles from the colonial attitude of the early 20th century.

Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison.

There's more to it, but I agree that the praise for Assad came from a place of very, very low standards. But that is my point, far from being keen to intervene in Syria, the West was happy to talk the guy up, give him legitimacy and stability. That only changed as Assad starting doing some pretty horrific stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Don't speak for me.

If I thought our intervention would end the conflict, bring peace to Syria and end the cycle of death, I'd support it.

But I don't think it will end the conflict. I think our intervention would only escalate the conflict, drag more nations into the War and result in even more death and destruction in the long term. None of our so called "humanitarian interventions" ever result in a happy ending.

But that's what I don't get. You reject intervention from the West because of Iraq etc, but then say you don't care if Russia is there. But Russia's got a history of Afghanistan, Chechnya etc that are at least as awful, and probably worse.

So, if we believe that there's nothing the outside world can do militarily, then surely the best stance would be to keep out, and work to make sure other countries also keep out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't see the bad results of intervention as the problem, it's a complex issue where even the best intentions can make things worse. It's the complete lack of learning from past experience that's the problem.

I think a lot of the problem is, to paraphrase, that functional countries are all alike; every disfunctional country is unhappy in its own way.

Lessons should be learned, but its a mistake to think the lessons of Somalia would help in Afghanistan, whose lessons would help in Iraq. The problems and situations in each country are unique. Stuff that ended up working in one country were often tried elsewhere, to dismal failure. The Taliban was overthrown by a fairly small number of US special forces with a lot of airpower, with the bulk of fighting troops coming from the various tribes opposed to the Taliban. A similar theory was formed early in the planning for Iraq, but it was stupid because there wasn't a natural alliance willing to ignore their difference because they hated Saddam. And then on the flipside, Iraq was stabilised through the surge, putting in more troops but more importantly using a pile of cash to buy off a lot of key warlords. When the same was tried in Afghanistan it went nowhere because the culture and economic dynamics were nowhere near the same.

I don't have answer for this, by the way.

 sebster wrote:
But that's what I don't get. You reject intervention from the West because of Iraq etc, but then say you don't care if Russia is there. But Russia's got a history of Afghanistan, Chechnya etc that are at least as awful, and probably worse.

I didn't say I don't care that Russia is intervening, I said that I'd prefer Russian soldiers die than my own country's soldiers. I don't think Russia should be there either really, but if someone has to intervene, I'd prefer it not be my country.


This isn't coming from a place of sociopathic disdain for human suffering, as Baronveagh falsely suggests. Rather, its a complete lack of faith in the ability of my country's Government(s) (Tories and Labour) to not feth it up and made matters worse, based on their past track record.

I mean, seriously. Do you trust the UK Tory Government to run a successful intervention? Or the US Trump Administration? Are they the people you wish to entrust with dealing with a conflict that could become our next Iraq?

So, if we believe that there's nothing the outside world can do militarily, then surely the best stance would be to keep out, and work to make sure other countries also keep out?

And how do you propose to do that, short of shooting down Russian warplanes and bombing Russian ground forces or mercenaries? (the latter of which may have already happened).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I didn't say I don't care that Russia is intervening, I said that I'd prefer Russian soldiers die than my own country's soldiers. I don't think Russia should be there either really, but if someone has to intervene, I'd prefer it not be my country.

This isn't coming from a place of sociopathic disdain for human suffering, as Baronveagh falsely suggests. Rather, its a complete lack of faith in the ability of my country's Government(s) (Tories and Labour) to not feth it up and made matters worse, based on their past track record.

You're all over the shop on this. All at once you're trying to claim that you care about people and its just that you think an intervention by your country will make it worse, and at the same time you're claiming you don't care if Russia undertakes an intervention that makes things a lot worse.

I mean, seriously. Do you trust the UK Tory Government to run a successful intervention?

Politicians are driven and constrained by domestic politics. It is impossible to hope for any kind of international operations while the domestic politics of so many countries is as incoherent as it is. Instead we get the first stage of an intervention hyped up, driven by shocking stories of atrocities. Then within months that fervor dies down, and people start moaning about mounting costs, about unclear end dates, and freaking out if there are casualties.

That's what needs to change. We need mature conversations about how difficult intervention can be, and how long they can take. But how, ultimately, they can be worth it because the alternative of doing nothing is plainly abhorrent. With a proper understanding of long and how tough these things can be, it means there will plenty of interventions we decide simply aren't worth the cost, but if we do decide to go ahead, we will actually commit the resources and the time to do it properly.

And how do you propose to do that, short of shooting down Russian warplanes and bombing Russian ground forces or mercenaries? (the latter of which may have already happened).

It isn't possible in Syria now, because we're multiple countries chose to intervene. But following your 'no country should interfere rule' you establish a ban on any foreign fighters entering the country, and limits on what supplies can be provided. Penalties for breach would be economic sanctions and asset confiscation. Much as we've seen the US do to Russia over their actions in the Ukraine.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You lack imagination.

Believe me, I'm recovering from exposure to high concentrations of caustic vapors atm, I know of which I speak. Or type, atm, since talking is a bit hard for me right now.

 sebster wrote:

No. History is important, but it's beyond stupid to think post WWI foreign policy has remained unchanged until today. I don't agree with a lot of existing ME policy today, but it is miles from the colonial attitude of the early 20th century.

If it's so far from it, why have the UK and US continued to enforce it? You do know that the first Iraq war had very little to do with defending poor Kuwait, but rather to prevent Iraq from becoming a strong central power in the Middle East. The Iraqis actually asked the US if it was OK to invade Kuwait and the US response was 'Yes' since Kuwait had literally been stealing Iraq's oil out from under it. When Saddam actually did it, someone pointed out that they would now effectively dominate the region, and the US and England flipped.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

You're all over the shop on this. All at once you're trying to claim that you care about people and its just that you think an intervention by your country will make it worse, and at the same time you're claiming you don't care if Russia undertakes an intervention that makes things a lot worse.

Because, and, this is what I actually accuse him of, not being heartless, but being racist. He cares not one whit if other people die, as long as his own are safe.

and, Shadow, let me add, if intervention never works, I'm impressed with your English skills for all the German that you must be speaking in England these days under the Reich.

I'm racist? Last I checked, Russians are Caucasian, like me. Thats not racism, its nationalism. And NO, they are not the same thing. I don't really want Russian troops to die either, but if any soldiers are to die, I'd just prefer it not be my own countrymen.

Please go back and read what the feth I actually wrote. Not once did I say that interventions never work. I'm generally in favour of defensive interventions, to defend one nation against the aggression of another nation. WW2. First Korean War. Falklands War. First Iraq War. If North Korea invaded South Korea again, I'd advocate intervention.

What I DID say is that I do not trust my Government not to make a mess of it. I do not want another decade long Iraq style ground intervention where our troops get bogged down in peace keeping operations, occupying a nation so we can enact regime change.

And finally...invoking Godwin's Law I see. Charming. If you're having to resort to personal insults like this, I'm going to assume you have nothing further to say that is worth responding to and will consider this conversation over. Have the last word if you like, I don't care.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm racist? Last I checked, Russians are Caucasian, like me.

And what color are the civilians in Syria that you are so against saving, even long before Russians came into the discussion?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

And finally...invoking Godwin's Law I see.

Not knowing what Godwin's law actually is or says, I see. Since at no point did I compare something to Hitler, merely pointed out that if intervention did not work, England would be under the Reich.