Syria - What happens next?

[Rincewind]

Matt I do not mean either are better at war than the other. Cameron is being defended for wanting to send troops in yet blair is considered a fool for doing so.

Maybe its because the majority on here support the Torys. It's just the impression I got. I have a dislike for war whoever is involved. Always been a pacifist.

 

I don't know too much about the situation TBH so will bow down to others superior knowledge

[Webbo]

Matt I do not mean either are better at war than the other. Cameron is being defended for wanting to send troops in yet blair is considered a fool for doing so.

Maybe its because the majority on here support the Torys. It's just the impression I got. I have a dislike for war whoever is involved. Always been a pacifist.

 

I don't know too much about the situation TBH so will bow down to others superior knowledge

Very few people have defended Cameron and Blair's hardly been mentioned, I seriously doubt there is a majority tory support on this forum.

[ADK]

Yes there are a lot of Tories on here and they don't want to be too critical of the fact their beloved leader was trying to take the country into yet another war.

[Jon the Hat]

Yes there are a lot of Tories on here and they don't want to be too critical of the fact their beloved leader was trying to take the country into yet another war.

 

It is not "yet another" Tory war though is it? Labour took us into the last two or three.  Most Tory's me included have no great love of Cameron, but anyone with compassion should see last night as a wasted opportunity to stand up for the civilians of Syria, and victory for cynical politics of the Labour leadership rather than a good thing.

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

boring thread, boring thread

[Fox in the North]

It is not "yet another" Tory war though is it? Labour took us into the last two or three. Most Tory's me included have no great love of Cameron, but anyone with compassion should see last night as a wasted opportunity to stand up for the civilians of Syria, and victory for cynical politics of the Labour leadership rather than a good thing.

But it's another general war irrelevant of politics. I think there is compassion for the civilians, however there's a reluctance to get involved. I can just see it ending in a massive sh1tstorm with the civilians suffering either way. They'll probably suffer more with America wading in and blitzing everything.

[ADK]

You can't save civilians by firing missiles from 1000 miles away.

[Webbo]

You can't save civilians by firing missiles from 1000 miles away.

Depends. You can if it stops a war.

 

Ps. I'd like to add, I'm not sorry we're not getting involved.

[breadandcheese]

You can't save civilians by firing missiles from 1000 miles away.

 

Equally, you can't save civilians with a strongly worded letter, which is pretty much all we've done in this situation.

[Captain...]

I agree with the view that both sides in Syria are abhorrent, but there is a third group of people in Syria, who are the majority, who have no defence and are being killed.  They are the innocent civilians and at the moment, there is no settlement or possible help for them.

 

I can understand the viewpoint from anti-interventionists that they want more proof that Assad's forces were behind the chemical weapons attack, or they want a better idea of what our military plans would be to ensure that we're not making a situation worse, but I cannot understand those who refuse to intervene on the basis that it's not our problem.  As Paddy Ashdown said, it's depressing and shameful.  The refusal to countenance involvement is us as a country turning our back on innocent civilians, when they need help and have no defence against chemical attack.  It is shameful.  I do wonder what the response would be if the Rwandan genocide was happening today.  Would we shrug our shoulders and say "not our problem, massacre away"?  As I say, I get and understand the need to have a clearer plan of whether we could make the situation better, and clearer evidence of Assad's forces involvement, but to turn our backs completely and rule out ever getting involved when chemical weapons are being used on civilian areas is wrong.

 

There's also the follow through effects.  If the use of weapons of mass destruction is not seen as an issue, then the barrier to their use diminishes.  It allows proliferation of them, as they're not deemed horrendous.  Others can seek to acquire them, possible even use them, knowing there will be no backlash.

 

I also think the Russians and Chinese are pretty poor in all this, abdicating all responsibilty to humanity. If they condemn the chemical attacks and think them the work of rebels, show the proof and let's get those who committed the act.  Instead, they seem to sit on the sidelines.

 

Intervening in Rwanda didn't stop the deaths of thousands of innocent people, intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't prevent the death of thousands of innocent people, and they were much more clear cut in who the aggressors were. 

 

If we could go in and stop this quickly and prevent any innocent people dying then we should, but past history suggests we will only go in and make things worse.

 

Rather than looking at going in armed to the teeth the international community should be working together to get as many innocent civilians out safely and quickly.

[Zingari]

boring thread, boring thread

many consider this ( rightly or wrongly ) to be the possible beginnings   of  WW3 and you find it boring ?

 

 

maybe there's better stuff in the main forum 

[breadandcheese]

Intervening in Rwanda didn't stop the deaths of thousands of innocent people, intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't prevent the death of thousands of innocent people, and they were much more clear cut in who the aggressors were. 

 

If we could go in and stop this quickly and prevent any innocent people dying then we should, but past history suggests we will only go in and make things worse.

 

There was no grand intervention in Rwanda, that was the problem. Putting that aside and addressing the main point, what's the lesson to be learnt?  You're on your own as the West won't help.  

 

At least the arms industry will be happy as groups stock up on weapons in the knowledge they have to look after themselves. 

[James.]

Intervening in Rwanda didn't stop the deaths of thousands of innocent people

 

Eh? We didn't intervene, that was the problem.

[Jon the Hat]

How many people have to die before this becomes a problem no one can ignore?

[Guest MattP]

No idea how accurate and can't be verifies obviously, but an interesting read.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html

How many people have to die before this becomes a problem no one can ignore?

 

If it was black Africans name your number.

[James.]

How many people have to die before this becomes a problem no one can ignore?

 

I don't think anyone is ignoring it, it just strikes me as far too complicated (as things stand right now) to know what direct action to take to be perfectly honest. Strike against Assad in any meaningful way and you help the rebels, largely consisting of terrorists. Support Assad and you effectively condone the murder of thousands of people.

 

For me the only solution has to be a non-miliatary one. Right now I have no idea that form that would take, reflecting the complexity of the situation.

 

I see no value in a token strike that doesn't have any meaningful impact - being seen to be doing something isn't justification for doing something.

[Zingari]

No idea how accurate and can't be verifies obviously, but an interesting read.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html

 

If it was black Africans name your number.

blimey Matt , quoting from Prison Planet ( Alex Jones)could put you with us loonies 

[Captain...]

Eh? We didn't intervene, that was the problem.

 

Well the UN did, sort of, and made matters worse, the refugee camps became disease ridden death camps, and despite international intervention people still died, and arguably more did than if we hadn't.

 

My point is intervention, whether it is UN peace keepers, or direct military action is no guarantee of civilian safety and has in many circumstances made things worse.

[Guest MattP]

blimey Matt , quoting from Prison Planet ( Alex Jones)could put you with us loonies 

 

 

It was retweeted on Twitter, it certainly wouldn't surprise me, would it anyway?

 

Do people really think Al Queda or Al Nusra wouldn't stoop to something like this....it's as likely and as logical as Assad doing it on the day he invites UN chemical weapons inspectors in.

[Guesty]

No idea how accurate and can't be verifies obviously, but an interesting read.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html

 

 

Anything Alex Jones says I have trouble taking seriously. 

[Webbo]

Anything Alex Jones says I have trouble taking seriously. 

She's quite good on the One Show.

[Captain...]

I don't think anyone is ignoring it, it just strikes me as far too complicated (as things stand right now) to know what direct action to take to be perfectly honest. Strike against Assad in any meaningful way and you help the rebels, largely consisting of terrorists. Support Assad and you effectively condone the murder of thousands of people.

 

For me the only solution has to be a non-miliatary one. Right now I have no idea that form that would take, reflecting the complexity of the situation.

 

I see no value in a token strike that doesn't have any meaningful impact - being seen to be doing something isn't justification for doing something.

 

Exactly, there is no clear enemy here, there is no clear resolution to direct military action, the priority is protecting innocent civilians, adding more weapons and soldiers into the mix doesn't sound like the best solution, negotiate a cease fire, provide means to allow innocent civilians to leave, and set up well run and sanitary refugee camps.

[ADK]

The way I see it, no matter what we want to do, you can't really stop people who are intent on killing each other from doing so.

[MooseBreath]

Well the UN did, sort of, and made matters worse, the refugee camps became disease ridden death camps, and despite international intervention people still died, and arguably more did than if we hadn't.

My point is intervention, whether it is UN peace keepers, or direct military action is no guarantee of civilian safety and has in many circumstances made things worse.

For once I agree with the captain. If there was a way we could intervene and guarantee significant lives would be saved them there would be no hesitation. But we can't, so there is.

[Jon the Hat]

Actually this sums up what I feel rather well!