Nice find. Interesting reading the official press release versus the MSM take on that release.

We can do much hand wringing and discussion with sad faces. MPs are debating it in the House at the present time and I doubt there are more than 75 MPs present. Perhaps the rest of them are Christmas shopping.

Really? So much like in Libya and Ukraine, this started out as peaceful protests, then attacks on government offices and employees.. and then it all kicked off. It's your basic agit prop & canned coup.

Thereby lies the problem . the Commons is having a debate on this with unity on the need for action between both main parties - apart from the Corbynistas and Conservative, pseudo UKIP, Putin apologists.

There's questioning of whether they got it wrong by doing nothing in 2013, and suggestions what to do now.

But the pre-requisites of doing something are that Obama decides to act, or that Britain and France do.

Obama can't now act in his last weeks, , and has been risk adverse - and his successor is an anti-moslem, Putin fellow fan.

But the pre-requisite of UK action, is having adequate armed forces , and having not spent too little on them since the early 2000s. Russia still has very limited capabilities it can deploy overseas, its airforce isn't fit to tangle with western airpower , and is overstretched already in Syria. Its in no position to challenge two other nuclear powers, operating with the sort of capability they had in 2003 , or even 2010.

But we now can't do anything , as we no longer have the ability to operate in defended airspace, without the US , or the numbers of available aircraft to impose a no fly zone , or run, protected, aid drops. When you have a third of the assets , you had when we had our last, 1998, defence review, that looked at what was needed, not what fitted the budget, and have lost key capabilities, you can't face Russia down.

The contrast is a few miles to the south. The israelis fly where they want in Syria, and hit what they think they need to. They fly missions, almost up to the perimeter of the Russian airbase, and put suppression packages into missile range, to make the point how vulnerable the Russians are. Putin doesn't challenge equal or superior power. The Israelis don't have to shoot Russians down - the Russians just know that their Syrian force wouldn't survive a few hours of Israeli attention.

If you turn up with no capability. though, Russia ignores you, and you end up just condemning any genocide going on.

Assad is in charge of the legal government, he may not be a nice person but I hope him and his Russian allies win so that the killing can stop and stability and rebuilding begin. Assad is not atleast a relgiouse fundamentalist unlike the opposition. Sometimes its better the devil you know, just wish we had thought that with Saddam and Gaddafi, as look how both their countries turned out after they were dipposed.

Not unlike many demonstrations we saw in the UK/US prior to a popular revolt by the citizens etc. Revolution is not pretty and I am not under any illusions that it will have a happy ending.

The reports about attacks on 'a building housing up to 100 unaccompanied children' are particularly sickening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38301629

What hope of that is there when the extra-judicial killings by the Assad regime is what prompted many to rebel?

More a case of vicious dictarors using any force they have available, to keep themselves in power . Llibya had nothing to do with the west - it starts as an anti-dictator movement ,fueled by economic failure, and turned quickly into a tribal contest. Syria is a tribal conflict, with the Sunni- Shia war on top. Putin and his followers just backed the side that offered him most, regardless of what the bulk of the Syrian population wanted. Putin's propaganda machine have ince just tried to confuse the issue - by claiming any Sunni resisting being massacred, are terrorists.

Again Western propaganda. The rebels are doing the same too!

This is the thing that bothers me. Nobody is going to come out of this without massive amounts of blood on their hands, but the fact that you've mentioned is incredibly sad. An autocratic ruler who has slaughtered his own people, and forum members here are praising him. It's sad.

No-one is praising him. The alternative to him is just as bad!

There were multiple alternatives, you're boiling it down to a binary 'either assad or ISIS' which is unnecessarily simplistic.

That's the thing, it just isn't. Assad only needed to step down and hand over power to a power sharing coalition whilst the elements of western style democracy could be introduced and conducted fairly.

Of course it would require Western oversight but it is darn sight better than a autocratic dynasty brutally ruling over it's subjects.

Someone. And we had that rather embarrassing helicopter moment. But they had the 'yellow helmets' shooting at people, the people started shooting back, and next thing we know is we're providing air support to the rebellion on their way to go kill Gaddafi.

But suppose we had a mob who decided it'd be rather jolly to say, burn down the Conservative party HQ, shoot some people and call for May to stand down so they could form a new, legitimate government.

Do you think that would also be 'brutally opressed' by 'vicious dictators' in the UK? Or would any armed insurrection be handled swiftly by our police & security services?

I know there are 100's of possible alternatives.

Why would it require Western oversight? If the civil war in Syria was a 'popular uprising', then Assad would be gone by now. Especially given the amount of weapons that have been poured into Syria. Instead, it's relied on importing fighters to fight against the government forces, and a population that doesn't really want to be another Sunni fundamentalist state.

Compare it to the coup attempt in Turkey. That started much the same way, but failed because there was no popular support. And then of course Erdogan cracked down on anyone who may have been involved.

The government would be right to step in. The UK has a functioning democracy, a free press, the right to protest and regular elections. If that particular group want their voices to be heard they can always vote for someone else or go out in the streets whip up a protest march in Westminster.

Western style democracy is a spectacularly bad fit for societies where power is traditionally shared among local chiefs.
This is something western leaders are slow to realise - most of sub-sahara Africa, most "Arab" countries.
We have had centuries to get used to the idea that political differences within a country which are magnified by notions of winning and losing power don't necessarily have to lead to civil war. You can't dump a binary "me right/you wrong system on places that have operated on attempting consensus.

Because Syria would fall into chaos as other strongmen and regional actors would vow for power and crush true moderate elements looking for a peaceful transition. Without a framework to work to, the population would turn to the safest, easiest option if even that meant Assad Mk III.

Yet the UK got there and became the dominant military and political force on the planet establishing an Empire that ruled over countless overseas nations. You are correct, the UK has battled through violent episodes like the English Civil War, Magna Carter and came out the other side with evolved democratic principles.

There is no reason why any other nation cannot achieve that in time. It however has to start from somewhere.

Well Boris just said it. We can't operate in Syria without Russian permision. The RAF is too vulnerable....

Meanwhile, a week ago
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Co...n-Syria-399299

The Israelis attacked north of Damascus, and hit the Syrian's most important strategic depot - within 120 miles of the Russian main base ignoring Russi's surface to air missiles, and going straight through Syria's densest air defences. They also often buzz Assad's presidential palace in Norh Damascus , and have stacked aircaft within missile range of the Russian airbase, to make the point who is vulnerable there.

The equation is rather obvious. if you want to be able to act as you think necessary, you need both will, and to buy the necessary capability, to have a say.

The western press says he's a 'dictator'.

Oh I see.

What kind of ruler is Assad then?

I'd say he's a different sort of bad, tbh.