Page 5 of 5
#161
This may have been avoided if the rest of the world chose to intervene back in 1982 when Assad was rolling through Hama, slaughtering possibly tens of thousands of civilians.
#162
Quote by daytripper75
This may have been avoided if the rest of the world chose to intervene back in 1982 when Assad was rolling through Hama, slaughtering possibly tens of thousands of civilians.


Cold War though, innit.


It's pretty absurd to judge international relations on the basis of morality, tbh. It's cold hard state interest. Occasionally, something low-cost and easy will get done that's pretty cool, but insofar as the state's primary responsibility is to its citizens, it's absurd to expect that they'll expend blood and treasure sending their young men halfway around the world for no tangible benefit.

Also, Iraq and Syria really aren't very analogous. In fact, no two interventions are alike enough to make them worth comparing, so I don't know why this thread has descended into Iraq, apart from the usual oh so controversial "We supported the Iraq war" posters.
#163
Exactly, no tangible benefit, no intervention. That said, there are benefits to intervening in Syria, I think it's just a matter of how reliable/certain those benefits are, as well as much they outweigh possible risks.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#164
Quote by Carnivean
Exactly, no tangible benefit, no intervention. That said, there are benefits to intervening in Syria, I think it's just a matter of how reliable/certain those benefits are, as well as much they outweigh possible risks.


Yeah, so much depends on the opposition, I think. If they become a coherent, credible force, then maybe there's something for outside intervention to support, and at that point, the West especially has lots to gain from getting rid of Assad. But I don't think they'd be too keen on helping any sort of Islamic groups take power over a country bordering Israel.