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.

Well said.
To me there's not a huge amount of difference between the killings of innocents by terrorists in the UK and what the US does with drones.

The disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay looks like it's moving to a slow resolvement, at long last, after the Presidents early promises.
Better late than never?

[urlhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/obama-to-name-d-c-lawyer-to-lead-guantanamo-bay-closure/[/url

Of course it is simplistic to suggest there is a direct link between his administration and rising US poverty. It would be like saying the global financial crisis of 2008 never happened and made no contribution to this and increasing poverty was all down to deliberate policies similar to those being enacted by the UK government now that you could realistically argue will push people into poverty.

Perhaps I'm just disillusioned by leaders of all political persuasions, in what are meant to be leaders of the richest countries in the world, in the 21st century, still unable to make basic provisions for the poorest in their respective societies.

You can maybe excuse that Dave, perhaps you are a Foodbank contributor?

I can't!

And if you think it's only the t0ssers cutting benefits (you know, the ones with the least) in this country, think again.

[urlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/poverty-in-the-u-s-a-nearly-50-million-americans-on-food-stamps/5328986[/url


Shocking.

[urlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/six-million-in-the-us-with-no-income-but-food-stamps/16853[/url

I don't disagree with that at all but I think that is a slightly different issue to linking the increase in poverty to one particular administration. I'll be simplistic now and suggest in the USA the increased incidence of poverty has more to do with the consequences of the financial crash and world recessions than it does here where things like bedroom taxes and benefit caps are a direct assault on the poor.

I don't really know if benefits have been cut under Obama in a similar way but if they have I'd bet my house it was down to Republican's wringing concessions out of the Democrats to get [iany[/i legislation through.

Regardless of that there is still a problem as you say the richest countries in the world still have leaders who say we can't afford to make basic provisions.

The problem is people believe them. The propaganda works

And also we can't vote for a government that will change tack anyway and change priority. There is no credible alternative and the right have won the argument re benefits cheats and so on.

With growing numbers of UK citizens turning to foodbanks, it really does take a special kind of stupid to tweet this:

[iDavid Cameron ‏@David_Cameron

This is the menu for the #G8UK dinner. I’ll chair a discussion on tax, trade, transparency and Syria at 830 tonight [/i

Has anyone on twitter pointed this out to him?

It should read [ibrazen[/i shin of beef.

I hope Cameron chokes on his food and everyone else leaves him to.

CallmeDave took Sam out to Pizza Express before meeting Putin.
He left a 50 quid tip.
That's about 110% of his bill.

You could say it's generous.
But, if he thinks staff are underpaid, why doesn't he increase the minimum wage?

So, because we have a few unfortunates who somehow have slipped through the Social Security safety net, we all should head down to Aldis? And what exactly is the problem with this menu? It's a perfectly adequate, if slightly mundane choice for the Great and the Good.

Would the Comrades be happier to see something microwaveable from Tesco's Value line being dished up?

Come the revolution we may all have to eat mushy peas, but until then, I for one will still enjoy a bit of culinary satisfaction.

Looks like our pub menu. I'm sure the French can share another joke about awful British food. Honestly, an apple f*****g crumble or cheese and buscuits? Did they eat at a Harvester?