Economist foriegn editor argues for intervention in Syria.

[Boris Johnson]

Anyway considering:

1) last couple of threards on Syria have been a f**k
2) Syria is still explosion tastic.

I thought we could have another go on this, hopefully by focusing on a preexisting and accessible argument.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook ... 3081803001

So... with reference to the video (oh no.. you have to watch NEARLY 8 MINUTES OF VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111)

Is it now time for the west and the arab world. To intervene in Syria.

Points I'd like to highlight
1) Syria is spewing refugees into neighbour countries now for like over a year, humanitarian crisis in and of itself but also hardly a stabilizing factor on the region.
2) Violence in Syria now comparable to Iraq at height of insurgency.
3) The assad multi-sect system, is now gone forever, its a choice between different levels of short term pissed of sectarian options.


Please leave your retardation at the door and if anyone comes in and starts acting the fool, just ignore them guize, Nor is that the same as someone coming in an actually making an argument for continued isolationism. k thx bai.

[The Comrade]

who do we help though? syria is a mess of religious and ethnic sects all fighting assad and vying for control.

[Clarino]

Why does the video cut off halfway through his sentence?




WRT The issue, I can't help thinking there's basically nothing we can do which wouldn't draw negative consequences. We could, I suppose, offer the same support we did in Libya, but the lack of unity among the rebels makes that less likely to succeed. My preferred option would be simply decapitating the regime using Special Forces and leave them to figure out what they do next.

That would probably not save too many lives though, but at least it would for a while at least level the playing field and allow Syrians to decide their own fate.

But without a strong outside force controlling the violence, I think it fairly unlikely we're going to see any positive progress in the next decade or so.

[Spider]

You guys go ahead.

After the way our forces were utilized (and then diminished after the fact) in Libya, I don't think there is any need for US participation.

[Kane]

No more. With the Europeans so focused on their "monetary union" little attention will be paid to other affairs. I don't want the US to take on something unilaterally but with broad consent from our peers...and then get smacked for it.

No more. People want freedom, want to help those trying to fight for it in their own homelands, by all means go help them. We've been doing it for a while now with ulterior motives of course, but doing it nonetheless. It has net us disdain.

No more.

It's time the world grew up...that means the US is going to take a step back and refocus its energy on internal developments.

[Sparse1]

He's optimistic to say that there is Arab support for intervention, the Turks, Saudis and Iranians are all playing politics and backing different factions in Syria, there may be agreement from the Gulf states on action but that doesn't mean that the other key power-brokers in the Middle East will wear it.

I don't see that there is an argument for intervention, Syria is far too factionalised to offer any hope of success. Get rid of Assad and you just start another civil war between the various rebel factions.

Sorry but the Russians and Chinese are right, the threat to the rest of the world from Syria comes from the non-state actors with guns not from the Assad regime.

[PoS]

[Boris Johnson]

[Boris Johnson]

[The Dharma Bum]

Looks like you are envisioning an all out conflagration that will engulf the entire Middle East and involve all the powers of the world.

Holy crap.