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?

Lazyjaney Fri 23-Aug-13 22:56:12

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

The other reality is that Syria is better armed than any power the US has taken on since Korea. And its biggest backer is just over the border. And there is no oil or need for it. And the US have fucked up the last 4 major invasions. And the US people don't want to fight to save radical islamists from Dictators. And the US would be seen to take sides in a religious war while the whole Arab world is a tinderbox.

Watching British politicians posturing is the worst though - all mouth and no trousers.

The US (and the UN) have learnt some very harsh and expensive lessons engaging in political moves with russia. It is extremely dodgy ground to tread when you are not only responsible for your own civilians but also fiscal responsibility for world economy. I really wouldn't even want to begin to pontificate on a solution...

LadyMetroland Fri 23-Aug-13 22:58:08

OP, I don't want to patronise you but the 'international community' you keep referring to is the UN. And the UN Security Council will not pass any resolution allowing military intervention because Russia and China would veto it. Case closed. End of discussion.

maddening Fri 23-Aug-13 22:58:59

eldritch - this whole thing is scary - coupled with Egypt I worry for conflict spreading worldwide - with historical ties causing massive divides between currently peaceful (relatively) and powerful nations.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 22:59:58

Russia and China have gone well down in my estimation over Syria - not that my estimation counts for anything. If they veto further UN resolutions, I fear this could destabilise the the UN. Wasn't it this sort of paralysis that destroyed the predecessor to the UN, the League of Nations?

comingalongnicely Fri 23-Aug-13 23:00:38

The USA has lost 2264 people in Afghanistan to date (3364 total for the coalition - that will have changed by the end of the week). They have National Guard units that are called up for 2 years straight duty at a time. Some of these people only joined to get the healthcare.

It can't be sustained - it costs billions to keep those people over there. When everyone pulls out of Afghanistan in 2015 it'll revert straight back.

To intervene in Syria would stretch not just the US, but most other countries too. There is no evidence that the Regime is committing these atrocities - it's just as likely to be the "rebels". Until evidence is clear and unambiguous no-one should go in.

If a law was passed in this country that re-instated National Service for 2 years at the age of 18 for everyone (male or female) and these people were given 3 months training before being sent out to these places for the remainder of their 2 years would you be so keen to intervene?

I certainly wouldn't want my kids sent out there on the whim of people like William Hague...

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 23:07:59

Would you expect the international community to intervene if fhere was an atrocity taking place on UK soil? Or would you expect the outside world to ignore it because they had their own issues? Auschwitz, Srebrenica, Rwanda - we wonder how these things could have happened and how the outside world were so slow to intervene ...

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 23:08:56

There is another aspect to it, which is that to a degree civil wars have to play themselves out until someone wins. There isn't a political solution, or even a coherent united opposition movement to put in as an alternative government. Intervention by foreign powers might (just) contain the violence, but only for as long as those foreign powers had troops in situ, and then the whole thing would flare up again until one side won.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 23-Aug-13 23:09:44

How many of our young men ( or women) are you willing to see bleeding out, with their intestines in their laps, or with missing limbs on the streets of Syria, in a couple of years time?

Because that, ultimately, is what " intervention " means. Not no fly zones. Not surgical strikes.

Dead teenagers. Ours, or American.

cricketballs Fri 23-Aug-13 23:10:20

Simple answer...no oil

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 23:14:14

In an ideal world, I wouldn't want any of our young people injured/dead but I know this is a reality of war. What is the alternative though? Nations gassing their people safe in the knowledge that no outside nation will intervene?

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 23-Aug-13 23:15:00

Because none of us need oil, do we?? hmm

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Fri 23-Aug-13 23:18:01

I would not sacrifice one British life for a futile intervention, which would possibly see a Jihadist regime- who would detest us- brought to power.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 23:18:07

I've just been reading on the Guardian that Russia has stepped up pressure on Syria so hopefully there will be a unified international position.

comingalongnicely Fri 23-Aug-13 23:20:02

At the end of the day - when we put someone into power, at least half of the country see them as illegitimate & the minute our troops stop enforcing their rule, they're overthrown....

Again I ask - why should our people bleed for them?

If you're that bothered, sign your firstborn up with the recruiting office - I'm sure they'll have some funky artificial limbs by the time they need them...

LEMisdisappointed Fri 23-Aug-13 23:20:13

I find that attitude difficult to understand - I have every admiration for the wonderful troops who CHOOSE to fight for their countries and for "the right thing" in other countries. I would never be brave enough and they are all heros every single one of them. But the thing is, they choose to do this - those children have no choice and no voice if the rest of the world sits by and lets this happen. I don't know the answers - it may well not be right to send in the troops at this stage or at any stage but this must not be allowed to continue. What would be the aim of military intervention? what would it acheive - those have to be the questions. I am glad that i am not the one who has to come up with the answers.

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 23:21:09

The world is more inter-connected than that - we can't ignore what happens in other countries.

slenderman Fri 23-Aug-13 23:21:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LEMisdisappointed Fri 23-Aug-13 23:22:05

why are our people more important than theirs? I just don't understand it - are we some sort of mater race or something?

LEMisdisappointed Fri 23-Aug-13 23:22:46

wow slenderman, thats a very intelligent and considered post hmm

Lazyjaney Fri 23-Aug-13 23:23:10

In an ideal world, I wouldn't want any of our young people injured/dead but I know this is a reality of war. What is the alternative though?

Not letting our own or American kids die is a very good first start, followed closely by keeping our noses out of a civil come religious war.

in "All Quiet on the Western Front" the author argues that if all those who wanted to send young men to die in wars, were made to go instead, the world would be a very different place.

See on the the next plane out OP?

holidaybug Fri 23-Aug-13 23:23:11

comingalongnicely, I find your comments very strange

slenderman Fri 23-Aug-13 23:25:32

the war will go on for years and years

we will see footage of kids bodies for years and years

whats the solution then

nancy75 Fri 23-Aug-13 23:25:39

Russia and china have gone down in your estimation op? Does that mean you thought well of Russia & china before this?

EldritchCleavage Fri 23-Aug-13 23:26:04

Actually I think one of the most constructive things that could be done is for the EU (which has been the middle man for some time) to try and foster talks between Iran and the US. They are the ultimate power-brokers here.

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