[Sonic67]

If Libya was Afghanistan we could. Unfortunately it isn't and again you are making your usual mistake of thinking all wars are the same. I remember in an earlier thread you seemed to think we should be involved in Syria. You aren't going to win every war going by bombing from on high regardless of what you think.

[BISHI]

Ok, no we've done the usual Afghanistan debate, what about Syria..?

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

If Libya was Afghanistan we could. Unfortunately it isn't and again you are making your usual mistake of thinking all wars are the same. I remember in an earlier thread you seemed to think we should be involved in Syria. You aren't going to win every war going by bombing from on high regardless of what you think.

I'm not making any mistake Sonic - you asked if democratic election was a metric of success. I pointed out that depended on how they were achieved.

[tapzilla2k]

Originally Posted by Dave

I believe that if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against it's own citizens then military intervention is the absolutely right thing to do.

Might go against the grain but there we are.

If Chemical Weapons are used then there would be no real choice but to use military intervention to stop it. Otherwise all those treaties about not using chemical and biological weapons would be worthless (I do know that Saddam used Chemcial weapons against Iran and his own people, but Saddam was the West's stooge back then).

One of the dangers with Syria is that it could spark a regional war that drags in the countries around Syria along with a split between sunni and shia muslims. It's a recipe for disaster the longer the rest of the World Procrastinates over it.

[BISHI]

It could spark an Islamic civil war which nobody except Shia is Sunni extremists would welcome. The UN is a waste of time as it simply divides along national interest lines. The USA could intervene but it would result in Russia and china drawing a line in the sand at Iran - thus resulting in the development of nukes unimpeded becoming more probable.
China or Russia could send in peace keepers - but the USA wouldn't allow that.
France and ourselves could do a Libya ...... Not ..!
So the only way I see this continuing is just the way it is going now..!

[simonblue]

Originally Posted by BISHI

It could spark an Islamic civil war which nobody except Shia is Sunni extremists would welcome. The UN is a waste of time as it simply divides along national interest lines. The USA could intervene but it would result in Russia and china drawing a line in the sand at Iran - thus resulting in the development of nukes unimpeded becoming more probable.
China or Russia could send in peace keepers - but the USA wouldn't allow that.
France and ourselves could do a Libya ...... Not ..!
So the only way I see this continuing is just the way it is going now..!

I think your right

[Rasczak]

Looks like some form of intervention in Syria is nearing - Francois Hollande, the French president, has confirmed that France is working with 'close allies' on establishing buffer zones within Syria:

France confirms it is working to establish buffer zone within Syria - Telegraph

As to how this buffer zone would be enforced is yet to be determined. The article moots that Turkey and Arab States would take the lead and there will be no deployment of Western forces - but I suspect the West will offer non-ground intervention forces (e.g. intelligence assets and sea/air power) in support if required. Perhaps similar to the Libya model of conflict then...

[simonblue]

The thing is Syria is not Libya.

To me its just Mr Hollande,wanting to make his mark in the world forum,like all new leader.

[BISHI]

A buffer zone is not a military intervention but a safe zone for refugees along the Turkish border. Putting troops on the ground and jets on the air will only invite reciprocal action by other interested parties.

[karkus30]

I think giving refugees a safe haven is an imperative.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by BISHI

A buffer zone is not a military intervention but a safe zone for refugees along the Turkish border. Putting troops on the ground and jets on the air will only invite reciprocal action by other interested parties.

A buffer zone, as is being talked about here, is assured by small scale military intervention - whether that comes from Western or more local forces is, of course, debatable.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

A buffer zone, as is being talked about here, is assured by small scale military intervention - whether that comes from Western or more local forces is, of course, debatable.

A 'buffer zone ' is what was supposed to be implemented in Libya. Western mission creep will not be tolerated again by Russia and china and will therefore be vetoed at every chance. We shot ourselves in the ass like I said before .

[Mshulla]

One has to suspect a "buffer zone" is being used as a guise to allow some foreign intervention in Syria.

Isn't it easier to setup refugee camps in Turkey where the west can pay for their care if Turkey are worried about the cost?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Mshulla

One has to suspect a "buffer zone" is being used as a guise to allow some foreign intervention in Syria.

Isn't it easier to setup refugee camps in Turkey where the west can pay for their care if Turkey are worried about the cost?

Refugees are a considerable expense and a potentially lengthy liability, keeping them outside you border is both politically and economically expedient. There is already proxy foreign intervention taking place, how else do you think we have seen so many Syrian government aircraft taken down, and to expect no Iranian assistance on behalf if Assad is nuts.

[Mshulla]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Refugees are a considerable expense and a potentially lengthy liability, keeping them outside you border is both politically and economically expedient. There is already proxy foreign intervention taking place, how else do you think we have seen so many Syrian government aircraft taken down, and to expect no Iranian assistance on behalf if Assad is nuts.

Is this a reply to my post? as you seem to have missed the point.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Mshulla

Is this a reply to my post? as you seem to have missed the point.

It was designed to back up your point with a slight amendment ie keeping the refugees on the Syrian side of the Turkish border. Basically I think we concur..!