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.

to wonder why the USA isn't taking a more forceful stance on Syria?

(167 Posts)
holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:06:43

I don't profess to know or understand the full details but I am surprised that Obama isn't taking a stronger stance on this. Hasn't the line been crossed for sure now?

LEMisdisappointed Fri 23-Aug-13 22:08:33

I agree the line has been crossed, i don't know why it would just be down to the US to respond. Like you, i don't understand the intricacies of these things but i can't bear to watch the news anymore - what would possess anyone to do such a thing, i just can't understand it. And they say God made man in his image shocksad

hiddenhome Fri 23-Aug-13 22:09:40

Nobody knows for sure that it was the regime that sent those chemical weapons. They were discussing this on the BBC news yesterday and someone stated on there that it could actually be the rebels who have done this latest attack to try and force the world into overthrowing the regime for them. Cynical perhaps, but this has to be considered as a possibility.

Cremolafoam Fri 23-Aug-13 22:13:09

Yes I've noticed all the ' mild sounding' comments from Obama and Haig. I'm sure it's a political tactic. All of them are adopting quite a distant stance.
Must ask dd as she's into middle eastern politics.confused

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 22:13:47

Because there are no good choices.

Because there are actually no good outcomes: Assad and the Alawites are evil but have provided stability; they go and we get either fundamentalist Sunnis or repressive Shia.

Because we are a lot nearer to Syria but Europe seemingly has nothing to say about it as a bloc or from individual countries, and is offering no concrete support.

Because even the almighty US is sick of spending money on fighting.

Because he risks another Middle East war but this time, one in which the enemy has a very powerful backer (Iran) and there are other parties (Saudi, Gulf states) all watching and waiting.

Hands up who wants a massive Sunni/Shia conflict kicking off now?

Hands up who wants to see Israel play their joker?

Polyethyl Fri 23-Aug-13 22:15:25

What would you consider to be a forceful stance? What would you do?

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:16:32

From what I've seen on the news, Hague seemed to be taking a stronger stance - made me feel proud to be British actually. He thinks it was the Assad regime - I don't think he would say this without evidence ...

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said Mr Hague.

"I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

SinisterSal Fri 23-Aug-13 22:17:32

he did say today if UN inspectors do find proof of the use of chemical weapons it will warrant the attention of the US.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SilverApples Fri 23-Aug-13 22:19:34

I'd like to see the UN sending in independent chemical weapons analysts to find out exactly what happened to whom and who was responsible.
Why is it the job of the USA to be an international police officer?
The UN should get its shit together and become a lot more effective.

Oh I'm sure they'll be reacting before the year is out. I predicted a conflict with Syria almost a year ago. Syria has oil.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:26:23

The UN is trying to gain that access.

The reality is that the USA is the most powerful nation on earth - their stance on these issues counts.

SinisterSal Fri 23-Aug-13 22:27:32

is the notion that the chemical attacks an 'inside job' seriously mooted? How propogandised are the reports coming out?

SilverApples Fri 23-Aug-13 22:27:47

They might be tired of all the flack and venom they get when they intervene.
Perhaps China could take over as an important super power in a few years?

MacaYoniandCheese Fri 23-Aug-13 22:29:14

I think they have ruled out that it's a fake attack by the rebels sad.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:35:43

It wouldn't be the first time they have taken a more internalist stance. They maintained neutrality in both World Wars for several years before participating. It's just a sad state of affairs really isn't it? Human rights atrocities being committed and it seems to be the less powerful nations like GB and France who kick up most of the fuss.

Parietal Fri 23-Aug-13 22:39:09

I agree that the situation is impossible, but if you want the US to do more, what should it do? airstrikes - against who? troops on the ground - where, what should they do? the US doesn't have the money or energy for a complex mid-east war. and even if they did, it isn't clear what they could do to make things better.

The situation in syria is waaaay more complex (politically) than say Iraq/ Afghanistan. Compare it more to russia.

cantspel Fri 23-Aug-13 22:45:28

The US should stay well out of Syria as should the rest of the west. Let them sort out their own affairs.

BettyandDon Fri 23-Aug-13 22:45:57

I read today that it is because the rebels are largely considered to be anti-American.

I agree it is for the UN.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:47:03

The US and the international community have the means to take action against Syria. I know I've 'picked on' the US in my thread but only because it strikes me that Obama took an initial forceful line in terms of the use of chemical weapons crossing a line. That line has been crossed by all accounts but no action yet. I know these things take time but I expected a more forceful statement. We've been here so many times before, how many massacres does it take for the world to sit up, take notice and take action?

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 22:47:11

Yeah, let's not forget Russia is in this too as a backer of the Syrian regime. So taking action in Syria is difficult for that reason as well. The UN can take no action against the regime as Russia (and possibly also China) will veto that.

GB and France may fuss but do nothing concrete either. Does rhetoric even matter, in a situation like this?

I'm very worried about Syria, not just the human suffering but the potential for a wider, drawn-out conflict. I really fear some action by Assad that will draw in Turkey. If Turkey invokes clause 5 of the NATO treaty (the requirement that fellow NATO members offer assistance to any member that is attacked) then we're all in Syria, like it or not. Which is terrifying. And will not even end the human suffering any time soon.

LadyMetroland Fri 23-Aug-13 22:49:37

The USA has no appetite (or cash) for another Middle East war, particularly one with so many external players ie Iran/Hezbollah. And what could they do anyway? There's no way Russia and China would agree to a Security Council decision to intervene militarily.

It's enough to make me want to switch off the news and pretend it's not happening as it's so depressing and we're powerless to do anything to help.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:51:09

cantspel, can you explain that stance? Shouldn't we intervene in human rights atrocities? I know every nation has its issues to deal with but these are thousands of innocent people being gassed indiscriminately? If this happened in our country, wouldn't you expect the international community to intervene?

Viviennemary Fri 23-Aug-13 22:54:06

I was thinking the US should 'do more' and it did annoy me when Obama came on and said he was doing more or less nothing. But now I'm thinking what can he do. Send in troops to a country where they won't be welcome. I wish the UN would take some sort of stand against those atrocities. Otherwise they might as well disband.

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