Genuine concern in the media today, that the UK may get involved in bombing or military action in the region, along with the US. For once, I just hope that we leave it to other countries this time and we stay well out of it.
Yeh, the rebels seem bad too. Just hope for the peoples sake it doesn't turn into a muslim brotherhood extremist type government.
Can't support the rebels or government imo. Such a difficult one. Should we leave people prone to chemical warfare? Is it our place to step in? What do we do after action? Nightmare.
To a certain extent we have already been involved. The rebels turned from a protest movement against a repressive regime with extraordinary speed. Most of their support comes from the Gulf, from the Saudis, though it's clear that the west has supported them too. Was this right? 100,000 people have died. Millions are displaced and conflict seems likely to spill over into neighbouring countries. What would make you use Nerve Gas given Assad's position? Possibly the thought that jihadists are at your door and about to kill you and eat your heart on YouTube. As usual our underhand behaviour has exposed the faultlines and the civilians suffer. There are Syrian rebels with good cause, but there are also highly sectarian elements who won't bring peace. And that should be our concern rather than aimless bombing. Every effort should be for ceasefire, though we may have to accept that we simply cannot fix this right now. Before we start bombing we should consider that kid Ali who lost all his limbs. Can we achieve anything that is going justify the strong chance that we wound innocents again like that? We should not have stirred this cauldron. When will we ever learn? So I'm with ZZ on this one.
Hehehe, I love threads like this where lots of people that have no way of knowing what's really going on, or what the political consequences of any particular course of action would be, offer their opinions. Bit disappointed with the replies so far - too hand-wringing for my tastes, but give it time.
The sight of dead children and babies in Syria, potentially due to chemical warfare is horrendous. There are no pleasant ways to die but nerve toxin would be just about the worst. Few things make me emotional but that is sickening. There is no black and white on this issue, no good guys, but doing nothing will most likely ensure this continues. This isn't an Iraq 2 (neo con revenge and oil greed) or Afghanistan ( oil again) there is a clear humanitarian need to intervene and past experience can mean we can be measured in our approach. We can intervene as we did in Yugoslavia, and that wasn't perfect, but it is better than sitting doing nothing which is morally wrong The trolley problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
To answer your rhetorical questions No. I don't know. But let's apply the categorical imperative would we want others to step in if it was us -yes! We can intervene to limit chemical weapons, air power and heavy weapons available to both sides. If your kids are hitting each other with sticks, take away the sticks, then they don't have sticks.
Talking of moral dilemmas, if you could press a button that would instantly undo every single death from conflict and war (including the present Syrian conflict) from the beginning of time, ensuring that each person died of natural causes instead, would you (bearing in mind the effect on world population)?
The trolley problem is interesting, and most people's answers are flipped when you look at it from a different view. 5 patients dying needing organs, do you kill the 1 innocent man to take his organs to save 5? Same senario about passive killing of 5 people, or the active killing of 1. But most peoples intuitions are flipped. Both sides want us to step in for them. The categorical imperitive, again it works in some circumstances and not in others, so when do you decide to apply it or not? It doesn't really help. There's still debate about whether it's our duty to help others outside our country. If you apply that then you'd have to be helping out everyone in every country there is a revolution or genocide etc, which is unfeasible. Take away the sticks they'll use fists.
"Yes Yes. To have at my fingertips such power. To know that life and death on such a scale was my choice. To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb enough to press the button, would end everything as we know it. Yes. I would do it. That power would set me up above the gods."
But you should know exactly what is going on and what the consequences are. That's the point of the thread. After Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. how do you not have an opinion? Hundred's of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops later? Either trying to bring democracy and protecting our interests is worth it or not; works or not? Clearly most people have had enough. There will be little appetite amongst the public for intervention. The public get it exactly. The can't see how it ends well and don't trust the players. But that doesn't mean it isn't unutterably awful seeing children expiring on the news. Why is being distressed about it and the lack of a possibility of stopping it 'hand-wringing'?
Given the success of our interventions so far in recent years hand in hand with the presiding regime in America I would like us to stay out of this. We cannot be the world's policeman unfortunately. All over the globe there are some rather nasty conflicts going on. Dictatorial regimes, obscene differences in wealth between a small elite and the rest of the populace. The best thing to do is get the Arab League involved to broker a ceasefire and bring in their own troops. The problem here is the sectarian division between Sunni and Shia there with all the possibilities for a bloody sectarian conflict with minority groups such as the Alawite and Syriac Christians also likely to suffer heavily. Akin to the idiotic decision to participate in Iraq with it's own particular ethnic and religious divisions. And how certain groups evolved within the mess to move forward with in some cases rather extremist ideas but because they were opposed to the Baathists they were our friends for a time. Ideally it would be nice to see a secular orientated, educated group enter into power but as we have seen in Libya and Egypt this has not been the cases and extremists have held the whip hand at least until recently in Egypt. One also has to wonder about the Sino-Russian stance on this. When it came to the Balkans conflict Russia did not come to her erstwhile ally Serbia's aid. Would they do so this time ? They may well provide weaponry. It could lead to a dangerous escalation say for example if units of the Black Sea Fleet decided to enter the eastern Mediterranean as units of the Sixth Fleet move there and another cooling in American Russian relations. Though the new Iranian president is more moderate how will it help him in his desire to move Iran away from the religious theocracy if we do put men on the ground. There will be a push from Iranian hardliners to send troops to support their allies and it could lead to another bloody protracted conflict. It is a messy situation and we could once more get embroiled in a long term conflict although at the moment boots on the ground seem a very unlikely option given the overstretched armed forces, budget constraints and unpopularity with the majority of the electorate. And at the end of the day when it is all over and should everything end up neatly tied up we won't get any thanks for our efforts.
I don't think we want to give them democracy, it doesn't seem to have a good track record in these brown sandy countries
You can give people the appearance of democracy, but you can't change the culture of countries where these freedoms are not historically normal.
It does take time. We only had universal suffrage for all regardless of gender or wealth in the last century. An evolution that took some 750 years.
im with cthulhu on this one. innocent people are dying, there needs to be some sort of intervention and the current sanctions are not working. im not saying we should side with one group or the other, but we should not just sit here twiddling our thumbs. there needs to be some form of UN intervention to create neutral zones and a firewall between the two sides allowing ceasefire talks to occur.
I did like how George Galloway found a way to blame Israel for this, saying Israel gave Al Qaeda chemical weapons and Al Qaeda are using the nerve gas in Syria. I think one of the biggest threats in the region could be turned into another war against Israel. Might be frightening times to live there knowing the instability in Egypt and Syria. A few days ago Hezbollah fired 3 rockets into northern Israel. Could all be the starting point for a war against Israel.
Nope. And that shouldn't be motivation. I'd also argue our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan is more of a reason to do the right thing here, not only morally but also in terms of self interest. If we show the Middle East that we aren't just crusading invaders but want to actually do something to prevent their suffering, that makes it harder to recruit anti western terrorists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html You know what. **** it all. The world is run by ****s. And there is basically **** all all we can do
I'm happy the Philippines aren't enemies with anyone. When this all kicks off I should be safe under my kitchen table. Seriously though cthulhu has got it about right. We are mere very dispensible worker ants in the big picture. We kid ourselves we have a voice in our democracy but we are all at the whim of a few people.
It is complicated and the only thing for certain, is that there is no easy solution. It is a terrible, terrible situation. I don't buy in to the notion that, if the UK was to "go in", it would be taken as a positive by the Muslim extremists. We stick our neck above the parapet, and there will always be one group or another ready to shoot it off - particularly, if our only partner is the US. Why is it always Britain acting in isolation or near isolation? Yes, if there is truly a worldwide effort through the UN, Britain should play it's part, but lets not set ourselves up again in isolation when so many other leading nations seem to avoid doing so.
Do you think its beyond someone in the Rebels to use chemical weapons on innocent civilians in an attempt to bring the US to their "red line" and join the conflict against the Syrian government?
I think it's been quite clear that there will be no 'boots on the ground' and that any escalation in the form of chemical weapons would lead to better arms and equipment for the rebels, thus, a false flag attack by the Rebels would benefit them. I'm no Military expert but what tactical advantage would there be by Assad to release a chemical attack on civilians, I'm sure rebels would be the target but there seems to be no bodies of rebels? Would Assad be silly enough to release a chemical attack so close to Damascus when UN inspectors were so near? Hopefully Parliament will be called back early to deal with this....
No. Wouldn't put it past them. But I don't think we are talking about entering on their side, but rather neutralising some weapon capabilities and acting as peace keepers. As I've said before think blue hats, no flys, occasional cruise missiles, defending civilians rather than shock and awe, and yanks in tanks and apaches blowing everything up - team America style. I'd love to see someone else lead but realistically there will need to be some Americans and UK troops as other countries either don't have the resources to contribute or are major league ****s Whatever happened it would be better if there were less chemical weapons in Syria - so take them out. And then maybe name the UK companies who have been supplying them with the chemical and material means to make them so I can avoid using them As we have recently seen leadership of middle eastern countries is never perfect in our eyes. I think we leave that aspect to the people of Syria. Islamic extremists with popular support or tyrant seems the only two options - we might want a secular liberal government but it will probably not work, so leave it upto them. We do have responsibility for this though. We invented and developed nerve gases and supply them.
We want to get in there so we can sell them guns and buy their oil rather than the Chinese and and the Russians, the UK & US Governments don't really give a **** about chemical weapon attacks, *cough Saddam *cough wmds *cough didn't care when we were arming him and he was doing it to Iran or when the US did it to Japan, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
I'm being slightly pedantic here, but the Germans invented Sarin, which is suspected here, and is most lilkely to havecome Russia, who have made it since the early 50's.
Fair enough. We have however developed many nerve agents, used chemical warfare and supplied material to produce what they have
I think it's equally possible that a rogue unit of government forces used chemical weapons without permission from the Assad regime. If this were the case, would military intervention be justified? After all, it's not like our own soldiers have been squeaky clean over the years...
The Yanks have already made their mind up by the looks of things, guess they've given us till Friday judging by Parliament being recalled on Thursday. Let's hope this doesn't escalate further - desperate countries do desperate things and I wouldn't put it past Syria seeking revenge in an attack against an American ally... I.e. Israel. I doubt Iran will sit by idly and do nothing either.
Perfect time for Argentina to attack the falklands, or Spain to attack Gibraltar if we do send military personnel over to Syria.
Right, several things wrong with that. Argentina hasn't got a navy to speak of, are they going to walk there or fly through anti aircraft defences ? Their airforce is equally as impressive as their navy - old planes literally falling apart and unsafe to fly. The Argentine Navy is under-funded and struggling to meet maintenance and training requirements, as a result only 15 out of a total of 42 navy vessels are in a condition to sail. The 2013 defence budget allowed for the 15 operational vessels to each spend less than 11 days at sea, whilst the submarines averaged just over 6 hours submerged in the whole of 2012.[20] ARA Espora spent 73 days in late 2012 stranded in South Africa for lack of spares. The Almirante Brown-class destroyers are short of spares and their ordnance has expired whilst the Antarctic patrol ship ARA Almirante Irizar has been under repair since a fire in 2007.[20] On 23 January 2013 the Type 42 destroyer ARA SantÃsima Trinidad sank at her moorings having been mothballed for ten years.[21] Spain isn't gong to attack Gibraltar with our warships in the med or indeed ever, that would be insane.
