I think it's an ethical question.

In 'traditional' warfare, both sides risk as much, which could at least be hoped to make leaders think twice about committing troops etc to die. When it becomes this sort of warfare, you entirely lose that sort of equality (for want of a better phrase) and, with it comes a belief that it's rather easier to commit to killing 'others' than were your own people also at risk.

On the wider issue of Syria: giving arms to supporters of al_Queda?

Obama is now in his second term and has done nothing to change Israel's expansionist lebensraum policies and actions as they continue to slice-off more and more of the West Bank and continue to strangle Gaza.
I appreciate that he faces Republican opposition at home and he stands to lose a section of the voting public if he toughens-up against Netanyahu's apparently god-approved right to steal from, evict, kill and disenfranchise Palestinians ... but this is his second term, it's time to grow some cojones I reckon.

Not only are Israels actions contrary to UN rulings, they are the very core of what extreme Islamic groups are retaliating against.

Agreed.



The best way to do war, throughout the ages, has been to attack with minimal possible risk to your own side.

Drones are just a natural evolution of this. And, I don't really understand the 'ethics' of a fair fight when it is a life or death situation.

Why risk 30/40/50 men when you can hit something from a platform that sits many thousand feet in the air and is virtually undetectable to those who you are setting out to target.

I think we should stay the hell out of it! It's a battle between a secular dictator who has the support of all the minorities and the Sunni majority who mainly appear to be Islamic fundamentalists.

We should leave it to the U.N as Minty says.

We've been here before.
If the US wants to get involved, they'll get involved, regardless of the UN.
I would imagine under the last administration, Dubya/Dick/Condy, then they may well have contrived to have been involved long before now.

But also the UN isn't going to get involved without the US. The US is the only nation with the capability to get involved.

And staying the hell out of it isn't necessarily a good option, as I said see Rwanda. Inaction can have just as wide consequences as action.
As I said there are no passive options, the option to stay the hell out of it is also the option that says we don't care what happens there.

I'm not saying the US response of arming rebels is the best one, I think they've been emboldened by Libya where arming and supporting the rebels worked. But all I'm saying is that every option has consequences, including choosing not to act, especially if chemical weapons are being used in what seems to descending into sectarian violence.

Aside from an unexpectedly harsh stance on human rights Obama's turned out to be pretty much what was initially advertised - a centre-right conservative pro-Wall Street President relying heavily on the same advisers and infrastructure which served the Clinton administration.

I suspect he would have preferred to institute a greater number of positive social reforms during his presidency but given the terminal nature of the US economy (which has needed all his attention just to maintain life-support) he was always behind the eight-ball.

I'm less concerned by Obama's (admittedly reprehensible) activities than the perfect storm which will break upon us when the economy ultimately implodes and the GOP realises the quickest route to power is to go further to the right of the last Republican president.

The US has been on the knife-edge of fascism for some time now. Perhaps Obama's overarching legacy will be in holding on for so long.

I think people are less "fussed" by the merits of manned or unmanned aeroplanes than their use to conduct extra-judicial assassinations in sovereign states we aren't at war with.

According to the [iIndy[/i front page this morning, Iran is set to send 4,000 troops to help Assad.

That'll be fun.

The West getting involved in Persia, as was, created a whole set of problems. Letting Israel get away with its behaviour has also caused problems.

Indeed. But would those problems have been created anyway? Or other problems like possible war between Iran & Iraq? Or further crackdowns on Kurds or on Shia populations?
Don't get me wrong I'm not defending the war in Iraq, especially the way it was conducted, but there is a tendency amongst some on the left and in some media outlets to pretend that if only we just left alone everything would be alright.
I'm very much of the persuasion that we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves at all levels, from contributing to a decent welfare state, to giving to charities, to helping people in other countries either through aid or even militarily when necessary. We're one of the most powerful and one of the richest nations on earth and I find it difficult to just sit back and watch people kill each other when we have the capability to do something about it.
I'm not ascribing any of that to you or anyone else on here by the way, merely a frustration at the sometimes short-sighted views like those who say "get our boys out of Afghanistan". We should stay until the job is done or not have gone in the first place if we didnt have the balls to see it through.

On Israel, I agree entirely. Israel is the single biggest cause of anti-western sentiment by a country mile. And sadly this generally leads to both religious and political extremism in the region.
If the Israel problem could be overcome I'm convinced moderate views and eventual democracy would come to the region.

It's possible to dream up any number of apocalyptic future scenarios for the region. That said, it's worth recalling that Kurds, Sunni and Shia Muslims and even Jews have lived, for the most part, in peace alongside each other for centuries.

Let's not allow potential conflicts to outweigh the threat posed by current ones.



Anyone who has lived knows only too well that happens. But this shouldn't encourage us to drop our pants and let rip on people below.



I think it was Chinua Achebe who highlighted the relationship between first world states ideologically committed to helping the "less fortunate" and the accumulation of fortune.

It's a comforting thought - despatching our brave warriors to distant quarters in order to protect the helpless. But wars are not fought for such reasons. War is a racket. Always has been. Always will be. Whilst I'm sure many (most) of those involved genuinely believe they are fighting for something noble - let us not be so childishly naive in thinking altruism trumped avarice in the decision to commit.

I don't see it that way.
To me, staying out of it will be terrible for those involved ... but intervention stands a good chance of making it far worse whilst leaving the underlying issues unresolved (see Iraq and Afghanistan) and also adding to the list of real and perceived grievances for which Islamic extremists would seek retribution.

Only 30 odd blown to smithereens today.
Post Iraq War utopia.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22925436[/url

That about sums up my view of the situation. Our getting involved is unlikely to reduce the overall death toll, or alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians. There are no upsides to our involvement, and fxcking hundreds of downsides. I hope that whatever Obama decides to do, we have the sense to stay out of it.

See our imbecilic PM who made Syria one of his two main objectives got a good kicking: www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61048.html

See our imbecilic PM who made Syria one of his two main objectives got a good kicking: www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61048.html

^

This.

*1 or *2 are the only viable options. There were enough weapons, including man pac surface to air missiles looted from Libyan arms dumps to keep anyone with an interest in this particular bout of Middle East madness happily engaged for years. We have no need, apart from the obvious provision of medical aid, food , shelter etc to get involved.

Sarah Palin made what was possibly her only intelligent comment so far in politics. "Let Allah sort it out" I heartily concur.

Presumably Palin would be less keen on allowing Allah to sort out his followers on US soil that are intent on domestic terrorism?

If the American people have one thing they can truly be grateful for, it's that she never got as much of a sniff of any real international influence.

Entirely agree.

Could the precedent set by 'The West' in response to other internally conflicted countries be a reason that many countries find themselves in conflict with the hope that 'The West' will barge in and solve their power struggles?

Intelligent?
Sounds more like an dimwittedly xenophobic dismissal of a serious situation to me.

She can still see Russia from Alaska though.

Wasn't the point being made that if you can go to war without risk to your own people you will be more likely to do so? It's not about fairness as such but about what may tempt you to act and you could argue the ability to act with impunity (i.e. zero chance of casualties on your own side) is likely to make you a bit gung-ho. Shoot first think later sort of thing whereas having to risk pilots and a potential public backlash at high losses back home might make you a bit more considerate.

The Pentagon and Ministry of Defence have artfully ensured that public debate on the issue of drones is framed purely within tactical or economic horizons rather than political or moral.

Whilst I appreciate that a drone system costs significantly less than a front line jet fighter - is this really a [imore important[/i question than whether the US should be able to ignore the rights of sovereign nations (with whom no state of war exists) and not only enter but garrison their airspace at will?

Similarly, I can see the benefits of replacing humans with machines - in certain circumstances - with respect to the problems posed by stress, fatigue etc. But it's utterly degenerate to prioritise this issue above the question of whether it is acceptable to use drones as part of a targeted extra-judicial assassination programme (against not just foreign nationals but US citizens) whose methods, motives and judgements are - like almost all the United States' "Black Programmes" - effectively beyond house oversight.

Obama is oratorially excellent, I have heard a number of outstanding speeches, but actions speak louder than words.
American citizens living in poverty have risen under his administration!
Simplistic?
But sadly a truth.