DXBtoDOH

Lots of talk in the papers these days about another Syrian intervention.

Your thoughts?

My instincts say hell no.

I'm not unsympathetic but it's a quagmire and what exactly do we do with the intervention? Drop a bunch of bombs and then what?

ExpatAl

I fear that if Assad is deposed, it will make way for even more evil and turbulence in the country (as what happened with the Arab Spring)

scrubbedexpat141

I expect the average American doesn't want to see their tax dollars dropped all over the Middle East in the shape of bombs......for nothing......again.

However maybe the recent chemical attack and images / footage of people will make people think twice about ignoring it?

Depends how much the Russians are and further get involved which is the provocation America needs to get involved?
Repeat above for Iran and KSA.

Unfortunately it's civilians being killed for a couple of proxy wars / dick swinging.

DXBtoDOH

Exactly. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as two lessons not to be ignored. Or Libya.

Unfortunately the best thing to do is likely to leave Assad alone to turn the country back into the tyrannical police state it was. At least it was at peace and people could just get on with life.

As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

IKnowNothing

Why would Assad do it? What reasons would he have for doing it? Both sides have chemical weapons. The convenient attack pretty much a year ago (April 2017), it still hasn't been proved that Assad did it. Why attack a city 3 days after the USA decides to pull out? Who gains?

I think the other lot did it on their own people to force the West to get involved and depose Assad as they can't do it on their own.

Take a look at http://video.foxnews.com/v/5767243543001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips, (yes I know it's Fox News, but have a listen).

UKCityGent

Sort of begs the question - why intervention now rather than other 85 times chemical weapons have been used since 2012/13 ?

mikelincs

because it will suit Strump?

Miss Ann Thrope

John Bolton

scot47

Afghanistan. Iraq, Libya. i say NO

But of course the decision will be made in Trumpistan.

Millhouse

Probably the right thing would be to prop up Assad and help him behave. You're not going to get rid of him and a dictator is what is needed. Look at Egypt, much better after Sisi came in.

Ultimately, it's not a problem I can control, thus it falls into my don't give a **** bucket.

weasel decentral

Some realpolitik is required similar to Egypt, do some bad such as propping him up in order to do a greater good. Or in Assad's case a lesser evil.

The alternative to Assad in Syria is endless stone age tribal/sectarian warfare.

scrubbedexpat141

A Syrian friend said this. At least under him you knew what was what. Now it's chaos and any new order will be chaos for a long period of infighting.

jam25mack

Same as Iraq. Saddam was a nightmare but he kept all the loonies in line.

scrubbedexpat141

Yeah but he had WMDs....

Boomhauer

Trump has appointed neoconservatives to senior positions in the US government who want to war against Assad and Israel on behalf of Israel. They are looking for any excuse to wage war, and if the excuse isn't forthcoming, they will create one, like the bogus WMD claims against Iraq.