Some grasp of the reality of the world we face today, which is a three sided game of chess (though the board game 'Risk' would be a better analogy) with Russia and China. Unfortunately neither the Russians nor the Chinese appear to have a shred of concern for democracy or humanitarian matters. The Russians continue to support their old cronies, and the Chinese will prop up and arm any regime willing to trade its country's primary resources for a mess of pottage.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

Although its better in the video, since you get that pause where you can see his brain try to figure it out...

I was reading the UK coverage of Parliament having watched the US coverage last night.

Amazing how wrong they got what happened.

Do elaborate.

Is this not a bit rich considering the US has a history of propping up regimes, particularly in Latin America for their own benefit?

That's my point, the main global players all do, and have done for centuries, though of course the main players of the game have changed over time. If the US were to unilaterally withdraw from the game it would have profound consequences.

One wonders if it is a sort of Neville Chamberlain moment. Sick of what they saw in the previous war they would rather wave a piece of paper. The overall likely consequences being less severe though.

That said, I agree with many commentators that none of the options available are good options.

Is there not anything to be said for letting a civil war play out? If we put aside the humanitarian consequences for a second (which most of us have agreed is not the main issue at play for politicians), is there any reason to get involved?

Most of us are struggling who the 'good' (and I use that word in it's loosest context) guys are. I don't know what a good outcome would be, it's like Egypt all over again, either the dictator wins out or we have a democracy run by religious fundamentals.

Lofty goals such as regional stability perhaps, but we all know that will never happen. I fear it's one of those things where politicians feel they need to be seen doing something.

I think there is the unspoken, and so far as I'm aware unnoticed by the mass media ( in the context of the civil war in Syria), link between Syria and Iran. When the "Arab Spring" took hold a couple of years ago, the regimes in several countries fell like dominos, and once Libya fell it was inevitable that the next in line would be Syria.

The Assad regime in Syria has hung on a lot longer than expected, but once it topples, the next in line will be Iran, and the itinerant band of mercenaries of varying types that have been wandering around the Middle East and north Africa since they fled Afghanistan, causing mayhem and bloodshed all the way from Iraq south to Yemen and west to Algeria, will no doubt turn their attention to Iran.

Iran was already weakened from 30 years of sanctions, but the significant tightening of sanctions a couple of years ago which has greatly reduced Iran's ability to sell it's oil, has pushed Iran to the brink of collapse. When the Assad regime falls, Iran will be the next in line.

And the point of all this? ..... The next in line after Iran is North Korea; its time will come. The game won't end for many years yet, ... and this thread might still be running a decade from now!

I don't see how North Korea follows, it wont be affected by regional instability given that it's not in the region, the people of DPRK have no idea what goes on outside their borders and Russia and China are right next door. They're happy as Larry with the status quo in that region as far as I can tell.

It's just Pulaski's right-wing wishful thinking.

FIFY

The connection is "trade". The Iranian shipping fleet spends much of it's time plying back and forth between Syria and North Korea. So far as NK has customers outside of it's own borders, they are mostly in China, Iran, or Syria. So regime change in Syria and Iran will likely cut off a substantial part of NK's supply of hard currency.

If Larry is a lamb, happy eating grass for dinner, then you are probably right.

Now that France (correctly) are acknowledged as Americas longest alliy (by Kerry), what insult should the Brits have? I just heard "Marmite eating surrender badgers" on the BBC..