Oh sure! Let's invade Syria, for no reason whatsoever (no threat to the West) and then sit back and let millions of 'refugees' flood in to ruin our countries like they have ruined their own. Let them fight to the death. It's none of our business. The more Muslims kill each other the better.

If you want any Ozzies to fight in Syria, for a bunch of hopeless fools, buy all means you go & do it buddy. Take any other like minded ratbags you can find with you.

Syria is not worth a single toenail of any Ozzie, other than ratbags like you.

Trump had almost the right idea. The only problem was not enough missiles, & they were armed with the wrong warhead. A couple of dozen nuclear armed cruise missiles should eliminate any Syrian problem, with no loss of any life of any value.

Yes! What is Prospered by further delay? Our humanitarian reputation in the Middle East? Or our indefatigable resolve?
Alan B.

Oh what freedom Islam has brought Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey Iraq and Iran. Can't help but to feel sorry for the millions caught in the political system of one bad ideology against another. You are not going to change the mind and heart of those who only agree with democracy when their form of Islam is in majority. Thank God that Israel remains a beacon of what can be done in the middle east.

So this guy is Albert Langer - a left over from the radicalism of the 1960s? Is the Arthur Dent name a reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

The article is absurd, of course. Invading Syria would cause many more problems than it would solve. What would we do with it afterwards? Install a democratic government then walk away and watch the whole thing start again? Better to let the war conclude and try to restrain the winners from massacring the losers.

This is the sadist posting I’ve seen in OLO. In his first incarnation some decades ago, Albert Langer was a worthy crusader against injustice and war, now as Arthur Dent and posing as “a left-wing political activist”, he has left the planet.

The writer brings back memories of 'The Good Old Days'

The gibberish that the Marxists produced in those days was an absolute treasure .

Thanks for the memories !

Arthur Dent Seriously? (hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy)

Having scanned through the complete drivel that is your article I agree with Aspley. I doubt that much of this could have been written without a fat joint rolled from pages of Das Kapital.

I love how the US is responsible for the 500k dead and 5m refugees because it didn't invade.

Hi Arthur,

With 1500 warring groups in Syria, with a North-South Sunni axis (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey), an East-West Shi'ite axis (Iran, the Assad regime and Hezbollah), with a multitude of ethnic groups, with Russian involvement - we have to ask: what would Batman do ? Or Trump, or presumably yourself. Ride in - bam ! zap ! wham ! pfft ! - 'install a democratic government', a Curmudgeon suggests helpfully (forget that that's an oxymoron) and 'walk away'. Piece of cake.

Even if the current Syrian war against ISIS is resolved quickly, say this year, it might simplify the remaining conflicts somewhat, but immediately it would become a more overt N-S vs E-W, Sunni vs Shi'ite war: neither side wants to lose Syria.

That would be a far more vicious and protracted war than this one, since it would be a gut-war, a war for the soul of Islam, ultimately between more than a billion on one side and several hundred million on the other, and from West Africa across to Indonesia, and up into central Asia.

It might drag in India, an ally of Iran's, and of course Pakistan, both nuclear powers. Since adherents on both sides firmly believe that they would go immediately to Paradise and the arms of 72 lusty virgins, nuclear war would be no barrier.

Hmmmmm ....... I wonder what Batman would do then ?

So, surely, it is in everybody's interests if some ramshackle semi-peaceful half-solution can be patched together, something which nobody is completely satisfied with, instead of dreaming about a quick war ? In effect, until the Sunni/Shi'ite schism is resolved ? Hopefully, that will come about when Islam is reformed. Big job: there goes the 21st Century.

Cheers,

Joe

Feeling brain damaged Arthur's Dent?

Watch "Syria for Dummies: In 43 Seconds" http://youtu.be/HZC1YWBnYdk

Saves time!

The thing is, America cant depose Assad because he is a poplar leader
to those around him. The Allawarte tribe and the Syrian army are seriously
loyal to Assad.

Deposing Assad, would bring America into direct conflict with the Syrian army
and also, most likely Russia as well.

That is hardly likely to result in a peaceful ending to the war in Syria as the writer
of this article should have the insight to see, when studying the civil tribal war,
the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Suddam Hussein resulted in

Get the whole flock out of there and over to face off with China, is the more enlightened approach to world peace!

Dan,

As Gandolph, with extreme powers to order vast numbers of people here and there, like some medieval sultan, Yeah, that might work in a Hobbit or Harry Potter book. But in the real world, (apart from the obvious question: 'Why China ?!'), not one country in the world has ever had anything like such powers.

What do you mean by 'the whole flock' ? Including Syrians, in their infinite variety ? Including the Americans ? Kurds ? Iranians ? Russians ? Islamists ? Yazidis ? Saudis ? Turks ?

Or am I too thick to realise that you are being extremely and cleverly satirical, which everybody else is fully aware of ?

Joe

Joe.

You are too polite to be anti-anything. You are blinded by the comforts of old age and over security, which to some it brings! (I've concluded).
China is unquestionably more threatening than Syria to world peace, and to US world dominance, and should be challenged sooner rather than later, on the strength of that simplicity.

Dan,

Ah, so by 'the whole flock', you mean primarily Russia and the US ? That they both face off against China ? That Syria or ISIS or Iran or Islamism are not the main issues ? Okay, leaving ISIS and Iran and Islam generally, all aside, why should Russia join in any attack on China ? How might Trump persuade Putin to do that ?

Almost by definition, in a multi-polar political world, there are bound to be points of conflict which are especially crucial to different powers, including those between Russia and China: central Asia might become one ground for contestation. But China has concerns which do not involve or worry Russia, the South China Sea for one. And Russia has concerns which are of little interest to China, Ukraine and eastern Europe, and of course Syria. Currently, the issues that divide them are of far less salience than those which make them allies, such as US dominance or influence generally.

Or do you mean by 'the whole flock', the US and its allies generally, such as Australia ? That they should leave the Middle East alone and focus on China ?

On the other hand, if China seizes the initiative over Korea and resolves that situation, there goes any such rationale for direct action by the US against China ?

Joe

Bastard's mad. Always has been.

Sorry, EJ, which particular bastard are you referring to ?

Joe

Or do you mean by 'the whole flock', the US and its allies generally, such as Australia ? That they should leave the Middle East alone and focus on China

Yep Joe, that scenario!

And I agree with EJ...it's a mad world brimming with mad people. He may no more ignore mad people therefore, than you or I Joe!

Hi Dan,

Be careful what you wish for: China may be the key to dampening down the threat of war in North Asia, now and well into the future. I don't understand the craving for mutual destruction - nobody would win, certainly not us here in Australia, if China (and the bit-player, the US) don't hose down that craving. I suspect the South Koreans are probably just as anxious.

I would still favour a deal to offer North Korea a massive expansion of its Economic Zones (currently with mostly South Korean and Chinese firms) in return for suspension of its nuclear and missile programs. Of course, it wouldn't be a perfect solution, nothing ever is. But I'm not keen on seeing, even if North Korea's missile are rudimentary, South Korea and/or parts of Japan obliterated.

But if you want to volunteer to get up there on the front line, go for it.

Cheers,

Joe

If a neighbour of yours threatened violence against your family Joe, how would you respond?
If he threatened to lob a grenade into your back yard while your children played on the swings, what would be your response Joe?
Appeasement by moving the boundary fence closer to the swings, in hope he may rethink his mission?
Your not serious Joe, whereas I am!

Dan,

To anybody with a skerrick of imagination, there would be many options to weigh up:

Yes, as you might like, you could jump the fence and beat the living crap out of him;

OR you could ring for the police;

OR you could try to reason with him;

OR you could take the children inside;

OR you could offer him money - in away, this is my option in relation to North Korea.

OR you could pray to Runner's god;

OR ..........

Even you may get the gist. There are usually many options, even to nuclear war.

Joe