Incidentally, regarding my "warmongering" and "pacifism"
I have never advocated "invading" anywhere - not would I
My suggestion was that, as the U.N. had refused to act and in the light of the massacres that were taking place, Britain, the U.S. and other willing nations should assist the Arab Spring protesters in the form of manpower and arms to stop the bloodbath as they had done in Libya - that was my analogy from the start.
I made the point that, if Syria had had a marketable oil supply, Britain and America would have had no hesitation in doing so, as they had done in Iraq and in Libya.
If that was "warmongering" and "fascism" as you suggest, then in was something the British Government was guilty of - it was exactly what Cameron tried and failed to get through Parliament - it's always given me more than a little discomfort to realise that I became that close to agreeing with a Tory Prime Minister!
Had they done so, and backed their actions with a call for a world-wide embargo of Syrian Trade and seizure of property abroad, Assad might have been stopped in his tracks, the Syrian Arab Spring protests might have developed into something worthwhile and the opportunity for the extremists to take over would not have taken place, thus closing a window of opportunity on ISIS, who was enabled to cut its teeth in that war.
As a pacifist (sort of, as I describe myself), like others who share by outlook, I baulk at the idea of taking life and have been lucky to never been put in the position of having to choose to do so.
In the light of what was happening in Syria, it would have been insane to allow Assad to continue as he was allowed to and as you appear to be happy that he was, 'champion of the fight against terrorism' as you seem to regard him.
Once again, have a good day now!!
Jim Carroll