Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

aibu to wonder why we are doing nothing about syria

(280 Posts)
ThatVikRinA22 Fri 30-Aug-13 23:27:27

why are we doing nothing?
labour clearly sitting on the fence because of iraq as are the rest of the jittery gvt....

ive heard all the "its not our busniness" arguments - the same was said in WW2 until it was too late.

i cannot comprehend why we would advocate doing nothing - rwanda all over again.
m sickened tbh that people feel so able to wash their hands when people - children - are being napalmed and gassed.

what about what is morally right? forget politics - are we really just going to do nothing??
because its not us?

im not advocating another iraq war - but surely we cannot stand on the sidelines and watch this without doing anything?

Weasleyismyking Sat 31-Aug-13 00:37:53

It's all so horrendous.
From what I understand, (fully prepared to be educated otherwise), there are too many rebel fractions. So us going in and toppling the head will lead to even more (if possible) fighting for the top spot unless we actually govern long term.

This blog seemed to sum up my understanding more articulately and explain the chemical weapon punishment issue.
m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_world_pop

SeaSickSal Sat 31-Aug-13 00:40:50

I don't want to intervene. The attacks at the moment are horrendous. But if we get dragged in and it turns into a decades long war like Iraq and Afghanistan the people who have been hurt in these attacks will be small fry against the list of casualties.

I cannot understand people who think that the US and UK wading in will solve everything. I think they must be either deluded idealists or ignorant of British foreign policy for the last 15 years.

burstingbaboon Sat 31-Aug-13 00:43:39

Can I join this conversation?
I am not from UK ( EU country) but I am living here with my DH and two DDs and working for the past 15 years.
UK government and people in general are very very soft towards other nations. You help, give and care. You accept so many refugees and asylum seekers that is beyond believe but when it comes to problems here you don't receive same quality of help.
There are many Arab countries around Syria- rich countries and they should deal wit it. I feel every day sorry for any
soldier who gets killed, specialy from here.
Yes, peace has to be kept and yes, UK is very powerful but look how soldiers and people are being killed here( just few months ago)... In the middle of the street. Where is human right of British people?!
Uk shouldn't get involve.... My humble opinion and apologies if I offended anybody.

Jinsei Sat 31-Aug-13 00:43:40

I am really conflicted about this, and don't feel that I know enough about our options to make a valid judgement either way. On the one hand, I'm appalled at what is going on in Syria and at the recent chemical attacks, and I too would feel a deep sense of shame if the UK were to stand back and watch it happen. Attitudes like peggy's repulse me.

Having said that, I have real doubts about what missile strikes would actually achieve, and I can't help but wonder if western intervention of this nature might just make things worse for the poor Syrian people. And the cynical part of me thinks that Cameron probably has other motives for wanting to get involved that have nothing to do with the humanitarian crisis.

I don't know what we should do tbh.

zatyaballerina Sat 31-Aug-13 00:44:03

You've absorbed the war propaganda and now think that dumping bombs on peoples heads will save them and helping the 30000 foreign jihadist mercenaries plus the local ones, take over the country so they can genocide all the minorities and oppress everybody else necessary to make you feel better for 'doing something' by deluding yourself that it's for the babies (doing something, anything!!!!no matter how stupid, dangerous and ignorant, it's all about being seen pretending to give a shit).

The US and anybody stupid enough to join them will find themselves in confrontation with Russia and Iran, this is going to lead to a wider war, far worse than the violence in Iraq which is contained in Iraq (or at least has been, it's one giant training ground for terrorists who are now in Syria and coming to a country near you soon). This will spread, at best there will be revenge terrorist attacks here (blowback), at worst war can snowball, ww1 was started by far less.

We're all going to suffer as a result of a traitorous political class who are desperate to parade themselves as important on a world stage, a lazy, deceitful media who promote the propaganda of their sponsors, the arms industry, energy interests and everybody else who is set to make a fortune on yet another idiotic war, the religious nuts who believe it their duty to bring about Armageddon.......

More war won't help anybody, if the politicians gave a flying fuck about the Syrians they would lobby the Saudi and Qatar governments to stop funding arms and jihadist mercenaries in the region. There is no hope for a peaceful outcome with them there. Peace is only a possibility when outsiders stop funding violence, flaming tensions and stirring war. Take that away and Russia would be willing to ensure Assad engage in peace talks with the opposition, which he claims he's prepared to do but can't until the opposition are ready for a peaceful solution.

FlutteringButterflie Sat 31-Aug-13 00:44:54

Why do we ALWAYS have to get involved?

Australia, Germany, Canada, Italy want nothing to do with it. What can we really do? The cost of money which our country doesn't have, the loss of yet more lives.

I'm not suggesting turning our back on Syria, I am in full agreement about providing aid.

But I really hope we do not get involved in another war.

OldMacEIEIO Sat 31-Aug-13 00:44:58

which side should we join ? the rebels against the dictatorship ? or the rightful leader against the Al Quaida terrorists ?

burstingbaboon Sat 31-Aug-13 00:47:42

FlutteringButterflie! Well said.

glampinggaloshes Sat 31-Aug-13 00:49:08

you dont need to understand it. no one said it would solve everything. the situation is incredibly complex. i am not deluded. i did not agree with the invasion of iraq and blairs motivation. but that is no excuse for inaction. really- are you suggesting that we no longer involve ourselves in any persecution of a people ever, because our foreign policy is always flawed. really? you are never prepared to consider that your view may need to modify? that inaction is the higher moral ground?

well not in my view. persuade me of alternative courses of action (not inaction), but just don't tell me that the best course of action is to turn our backs. i simply don't buy it.

AgentZigzag Sat 31-Aug-13 00:53:06

It's a case of the West thinking it can sort out the troubles of the world, 'If only they were more like us, it'd all be happy and we'd be friends'.

Naive, unrealistic and manipulated by the media.

Of course we're all humans and I have compassion for them, of course using chemical weapons is appalling, but there are so many more serious situations it's just not feasible to tackle them all.

Look on your own doorstep and you'll see children being tortured, starved to death and murdered, you don't have to look all the way over to Syria.

How about getting outraged on their behalf? (I know you can do both!)

OldMacEIEIO Sat 31-Aug-13 00:53:16

glampinggaloshes, I would love to see you painting your head blue, grabbing a rifle and standing in the trenches.

or would you prefer to see someone else risking everything so that you can sit on that very high horse

glampinggaloshes Sat 31-Aug-13 00:53:21

response was to seasicksal.

cantspel Sat 31-Aug-13 00:54:22

We are not turning our backs as we can offer humanitarian aid to Syria without the need to bomb anyone.

glampinggaloshes Sat 31-Aug-13 00:54:46

there is no discussion of troops

burstingbaboon Sat 31-Aug-13 00:56:36

They should deal with it themselves with countries around them. Why no Arab country wants to help them?

Relaxedandhappyperson Sat 31-Aug-13 01:01:11

The best thing the politicians have done in a long time, voting no to the proposal to get involved in Syria. Hooray for the MPs (something I never say)

Syria is awful, a dreadful situation, but it's not going to be made better by a few cruise missiles...

OldMacEIEIO Sat 31-Aug-13 01:01:23

there was a discussion of troops in Parliament yesterday. It was ruled out.
I wonder what other action might be considered appropriate.

Aid ? well I send aid to a cattery to make sure the cats are well fed.
(sending money is easy)
Outrage ? mmm go ahead
make loud noises ? - mmm go ahead

glampinggaloshes Sat 31-Aug-13 01:01:54

oldmac. yeah its a high horse. all ears to hear alternative approaches for resolving this crisis from this lofty height of mine but i favour action not inaction. i cant ignore it and don't want my elected government to either.

we live in a democracy with a parliament that listens - aren't we lucky! so lets see .

SeaSickSal Sat 31-Aug-13 01:02:01

glampinggaloshes so if you don't expect it to solve everything what do you expect it to solve?

What exactly do you think air strikes will achieve? Are you too young to remember that we used to regularly air strike Baghdad between the gulf wars and it led to the sum total of fuck all good? It didn't stop Saddam using nerve agents.

I think we should involve ourselves in foreign conflicts when we have a UN mandate to do so.

AgentZigzag Sat 31-Aug-13 01:03:23

'which side should we join ? the rebels against the dictatorship ? or the rightful leader against the Al Quaida terrorists ?'

That did make me think for a while, but it has to be whoever's using the chemical weapons on civilians.

Both sides have claimed the other's used them, but Obama coming out saying it looks like the government did do it this time, that must mean something.

Wasn't there a lack of evidence before? The news was showing footage claimed to be the govt bombing the area they'd used the weapons to get rid of the evidence.

AgentZigzag Sat 31-Aug-13 01:07:13

Some conflicts can't be resolved glamping, and go on and on and on for hundreds, even thousands of years.

Thinking intervention is always the way to go would be the end of us.

OldMacEIEIO Sat 31-Aug-13 01:09:00

Galumping, I dont have any solutions.
In my honest opinion, the UK ruled itself out of the game yesterday, with that vote in Parliament. There will be no UK military intervention in Syria.

If private individuals , or even organisations wish to aid the refugees, thats fine. But I cannot see much more happening

FWIW I am still not convinced that chemical weapons were used. I am old enough to remember being lied to about WMD in IRAQ

and I do not want to be taken for a fool again

AgentZigzag Sat 31-Aug-13 01:13:54

You weren't a fool OldMac, they lied.

OldMacEIEIO Sat 31-Aug-13 01:18:40

AgentZigZag.
This UN report. they are saying that the dictator fired nerve gas on Damascus, several times.

They live in Damascus. Who would fire nerve gas on their own doorstep, when they know that if the wind changes their own kids might kop it ?

It just does not make sense to me. I watched the news tonight , and I thought no. This stuff is to be fired at people hundreds of miles away. NOT in the next street

givemeaboost Sat 31-Aug-13 01:19:52

Oldmac-how exactly do you think those people died then? if chemical weapons weren't used, why have many got nervous system symptoms and burns all over their bodies? what else could have caused what has happened?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now