If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[Borachio]

Why did the protesters demand that Assad go? Wasn't it something to do with the "Arab Spring"?

And have you forgotten 30 years of his father?

As for what the UK would do? Yes, go back 2 or 3 hundred years (or whatever) and you'll find some pretty repressive measures taken all round. Doesn't make it right, today, in Syria does it?

 

[red_elk]

As for what the UK would do? Yes, go back 2 or 3 hundred years (or whatever) and you'll find some pretty repressive measures taken all round. Doesn't make it right, today, in Syria does it?

I don't know. May be British government in case of armed uprising would not take repressive measures and try to restore order, instead would immediately resign. But I doubt it, especially if there will be evidences that uprising is financed and directed from outside of the country. Of course the government wouldn't use chemical weapons against own citizens, but it doesn't mean these weapons can't be used by the other side. In the situation when the government forces will most likely be blamed for this usage, and the fact can be used to justify foreign intervention.

 

[Traitorfish]

What if such peaceful protests happen in your country? With protesters demanding no less than deposing your government, and don't want to hear about any "incorporation". What if protesters disrupt normal activities (road traffic, etc), and start violent actions against police who tries to stop them? And then, with financial support from foreign countries and military support from radical islamists, start armed uprising. What would your civilized country do?

Britain is not a civilised country.

 

[red_elk]

Britain is not a civilised country.

Didn't know about that.
Looks like this is an answer to my question. Though these days, most likely, protesters will be incorporated into political system with rubber bullets and tear gas instead.

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. May be British government in case of armed uprising would not take repressive measures and try to restore order, instead would immediately resign. But I doubt it, especially if there will be evidences that uprising is financed and directed from outside of the country. Of course the government wouldn't use chemical weapons against own citizens, but it doesn't mean these weapons can't be used by the other side. In the situation when the government forces will most likely be blamed for this usage, and the fact can be used to justify foreign intervention.

I was expecting you to bring up Northern Ireland. It fits a lot of the things you might have chosen. The funding by outside parties, the use of random acts of violence by both sides, etc.

Northern Ireland was (and is) an interesting situation. And how the UK authorities handled (or mishandled) it is also interesting.

(There is, of course, a big difference in the scale of the conflict in Northern Ireland compared with Syria.)

Governments in the UK can be, and are, changed by events/crises. Shouldn't the Syrian government be similarly constrained?

 

[red_elk]

I was expecting you to bring up Northern Ireland. It fits a lot of the things you might have chosen. The funding by outside parties, the use of random acts of violence by both sides, etc.

Northern Ireland was (and is) an interesting situation. And how the UK authorities handled (or mishandled) it is also interesting.

(There is, of course, a big difference in the scale of the conflict in Northern Ireland compared with Syria.)

Governments in the UK can be, and are, changed by events/crises. Shouldn't the Syrian government be similarly constrained?

It should be constrained, like any other government. The thing is, the situation in UK and Syria is very different, UK doesn't yet have large number of people which can serve as a base for country-wide violent protests. Syria is also poorer and have less social stability. I cannot say for sure that British government would have acted much differently, facing the same problems, Assad had to deal with. Your point of view on the events is "Government shooting at peaceful protesters", but it can also be interpreted as "Legitimate government tries to quell an armed uprising".

 

[Traitorfish]

Is Red Elk suggesting that the US should have responded to the Troubles by putting a cruise missile through the roof of 10 Downing Street? Because I'm really 100% behind that proposition.

 

[Dachs]

Is Red Elk suggesting that the US should have responded to the Troubles by putting a cruise missile through the roof of 10 Downing Street? Because I'm really 100% behind that proposition.

I see no flaws with this.

 

[bhsup]

Nay! We should have responded by invading Ireland, bringing them democracy, and then yanking it right back by handing them back over to the English, beaten into submission. This being done as a good will gesture and showing that our special relationship DOES work both ways.

 

[red_elk]

Is Red Elk suggesting that the US should have responded to the Troubles by putting a cruise missile through the roof of 10 Downing Street? Because I'm really 100% behind that proposition.

Yes, with McCain and Cheney riding it.

Link to video.
That would really solve all problems. Almost.

 

[Borachio]

It should be constrained, like any other government. The thing is, the situation in UK and Syria is very different, UK doesn't yet have large number of people which can serve as a base for country-wide violent protests. Syria is also poorer and have less social stability. I cannot say for sure that British government would have acted much differently, facing the same problems, Assad had to deal with. Your point of view on the events is "Government shooting at peaceful protesters", but it can also be interpreted as "Legitimate government tries to quell an armed uprising".

I've little doubt that this is indeed how Assad sees himself.

But wouldn't 100,000 deaths of your citizens give you something to wonder about?

Wouldn't you be asking yourself whether your methods didn't lack some finesse, perhaps?

What's Assad's strategy going to be in the long term? Kill every person in Syria who isn't Alawite? Or persuade them to leave? Isn't this what they call ethnic cleansing?

And if in the end he must instead begin to negotiate with his opponents, why didn't he do so 2 years ago?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Assad has offeres to negotiate with anyone who put down their gun. Even the Commies took him up on it. There has to be something to it.

War is bloody, which is why grievances need to be addessed. But when you have the gun and someone offers you a way out, to keep the gun means you have another agenda. The "opposition" has another agenda.

 

[Borachio]

A lot of the opposition does have another agenda, I agree. The trick is to marginalize them. The main FSA leadership is fairly moderate.

I wouldn't call Assad a moderate. Nor would I be inclined to trust him.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Trust, no. We only control ourselves, and our cruise missiles.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nay! We should have responded by invading Ireland, bringing them democracy, and then yanking it right back by handing them back over to the English, beaten into submission. This being done as a good will gesture and showing that our special relationship DOES work both ways.

I'm not sure that dropping the British back into a mess they spent 1916-1922 trying to claw their way out of could be construed as a "good will gesture", exactly.

 

[red_elk]

What's Assad's strategy going to be in the long term? Kill every person in Syria who isn't Alawite? Or persuade them to leave?

Persuade people to disarm and return to peaceful life. Those who can be persuaded. Forcefully disarm or kill the others, who can't. That's what is called civil war, all sides of it have basically the same objectives - seize the power and crush all the resistance. And so-called civilized countries are not immune to such events as well. They are merely better in prevention.

And if in the end he must instead begin to negotiate with his opponents, why didn't he do so 2 years ago?

If I remember correctly, Assad was ready to negotiate since the beginning.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure that dropping the British back into a mess they spent 1916-1922 trying to claw their way out of could be construed as a "good will gesture", exactly.

It would be hilarious, though. Especially given the present state of the Irish republic.

 

[Pangur Bán]

If we are talking about 100,000 deaths, then as a reminder about 100,000 people die in road deaths in the USA every 3 years. Why does Fox or CNN not go on campaign about tightening America's poor quality driving license standards or increasing public transport? Would cost a lot less than a war in Syria, wouldn't increase the number of people dying, and it would be your own citizens you'd save (as well as boosting your economy btw)!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Nay! We should have responded by invading Ireland, bringing them democracy, and then yanking it right back by handing them back over to the English, beaten into submission. This being done as a good will gesture and showing that our special relationship DOES work both ways.

Silly imperialist. Like the barley planted over the graves of croppies, Irish resistance to foreign rule always renews itself with equal vigor.


Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

If I remember correctly, Assad was ready to negotiate since the beginning.

That's not how I remember it. I remember peaceful demonstrators being shot at.