ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
to wonder why the USA isn't taking a more forceful stance on Syria?(167 Posts)
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?
I would love for the UN to decide to do something which would stop the bloodshed and bring peace to Syria. I just can't see an action which wouldn't cause civilian deaths. Plus more when eventually UN troops move out of Syria and the country settles back to full independence.
So donate to the DEC, campaign for support for refugees and prevent more weapons entering Syria is all we can do without risking making things worse.
I am astounded Eldritch that you think my post is anti-Semitic when I am merely stating a reason for the US not to get itself involved in Syria - i.e. to do nothing. So being passive, by not getting involved in a war is anti-Semitic is it in some weird twisted way?
Or are you construing it that the supposed anti-semitcism is present because I think the US should get itself involved in Syria bit cannot do so because of the feeling of some of it's minority communities - because if so, that was not what my post stated at all.
What's anti-Semitic about that? It is a pure statement of fact.
Why jump to label someone who is )as another poster has already pointed out just giving a real) politik observation of the state of affairs as she perceives it?
If this is the quality of debate on this board it's hardly surprising it doesn't get many contributors.
*This is the quote from Wetaugust's post:
"A civil war that keeps Syrians occupied stops them supporting Hizbollah, if only temporarily and that suits Israel and the Jewish US communities."*
Jewish US communities have absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in Syria. And, yes, I think that sounds anti-semitic.
I'm with you all the way, Kungfutea.
Sometimes trying to 'do good' actually results in more harm than good.
Without looking him up so this is from memory, Assad's father was the President of Syria for donkey's years. He was training his eldest son to take over from him while the younger son went off to study to be an optometrist and ended up working in the North of England.
Unfortunately Assad's eldest son got killed which meant the youngest (the optometrist) was next in line to be President when his father died. Father did die, Assad the elder did eventually die and younger inherited the Presidency
In a nut shell
I don't know a lot. I appreciate the education here.
What I DO know is that it is bitterly ignorant having the 'it's not our problem'/'not with my taxes' argument.
We live in a globalized society and do not live in isolation and separation from the middle east.
I have no idea who Assad is, he is married to a British women, i know that. Who is he?
Most importantly, there are human beings living there being killed.
Oh, and I took a leaf from your book Wetaugust and had a look at your previous posts (even though what you said I'd posted wasn't true). I noticed that you're a rabid UKIP supporter (well, there's a surprise!) and that you have accused other posters of using racism to stifle debate. Plus le change, plus la meme chose.
You'll probably report this as a personal attack which admittedly it probably is but since you felt comfortable doing it, maybe it's OK, let's see...
Slightly miffed that my post was deleted since it didn't break any guidelines in my opinion.
This is the quote from Wetaugust's post:
"A civil war that keeps Syrians occupied stops them supporting Hizbollah, if only temporarily and that suits Israel and the Jewish US communities."
Jewish US communities have absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in Syria. And, yes, I think that sounds anti-semitic. This breaks no Mumsnet guidelines - it's not a personal attack, it's no goading, it's not breaking the law. It pisses me off that posts are deleted willy nilly because someone doesn't like what was posted.
I think both the US and the UK are weary of being the world's policemen.
When you see footage like we've recently seen from Syria it's only natural that people say "Something should be done".
What that 'something' actually is and who does it are both rather more difficult questions to answer.
Still reading through the thread, but I find it interesting that generally people are complaining that politically the US sticks their nose into everything and now they are not jumping in with both feet people are STILL complaining. I'm not really a huge Obama fan, and I'm American, but I'm not really sure what to think on this one. Yes, it's horrible, but the US isn't the world's police either - why does the US have to take the lead (and then take the criticism for doing so)? Why doesn't someone else step up?
I've never heard of rabidly pro Jewish views. What an interesting turn of phrase wetaugust. Is it in the protocols of the elders of Zion?
You said civil war in Syria suits Jewish communities in the us. Look at your post. Of course there's a pro Israel lobby in the US but thats different to the Jewish community (itself not a homogeneous group) and they are not responsible for US inertia anyway. If the US intervenes it'll be against assad, obviously, so it makes no sense what you're suggesting in any case
There's a difference between the state of Israel and American Jews.
Saudi Arabia would be quite capable of helping to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. Saudi participated in the enforcement of the Iraqi no-fly zone for many years.
This is not a job for NATO. No NATO country has been attacked.
To initiate a no-fly zone would need a UN resolution and the enforces would be a coalition of the willing. A few problems with that:
Russia and China would not support a UN resolution
The proposers would be expected to be willing to assist in it's enforcement. Historically the area was French controlled so France could float a UN proposal.
And you also have to consider the effect on Turkey and their own struggles with their own Kurdish minorities . They don't want to give indirect support to any Syrian Kurds, as that could inflame the situation with their own Kurds.
No 'tis a mess.
I think saying that civil war in Syria suits US Jewish communities is appalling
There you go again - misquoting me.
I've reported your original accusation to MN
I also took the opportunity to do a search on your previous posts and I am not the first that you have accused.
You have accused other people who do not hold rabidly pro-Jewish views or even question Israeli policy as "racist".
I refuse to engage with bigoted zealots who cannot dispassionately discuss current affairs.
Thanks for the link cantspel it's a bit clearer now
Civil wars are always the most vicious, damaging and unforgivable IMO.
But to accuse WA of anti-Semitism?
A nation supporting a terrorist organisation that is opposed to the existence of Israel, a nation that in my lifetime joined with surrounding Arab nations to try and wipe Israel off the map and failed, is now in the grip of a civil war.
This may well curtail their efforts to destroy a neighbouring country for a while.
So the citizens of that country and their supporters wherever else they may live may feel that the destructive focus being turned elsewhere, or inward is something they can feel relieved about.
I think that is a fairly logical emotion to have, and to recognise.
I think saying that civil war in Syria suits US Jewish communities is appalling.
SilverApples Yes the whole sorry mess should be left to the Arab league but so far all they seem to do is monitor what is happening without getting involved.
They should be investigating the chemical attacks and they should be taking action against who ever is using chemical weapons. For once leave the west out of it. We have learnt our lesson is Iraq and Afghanistan.
a very good over view on no fly zones, how effective they have been in the past and who would need to police it.
So, the West and America stay out of the messy political and on the ground interventions, the UN continue to bumble around being ineffectual and the humanitarian aid goes to support the refugees.
The majority of direct interventions don't seem to work, perhaps the ME Arabic communities and countries should be allowed to have a go at sorting out the issues which they understand more clearly than those that are not a part of it.
No fly zone - area forbidden to Assad arcraft, no take offs allowed. If an aircraft in the deemed area takes off, it will be shot down. Either by SAM, or aircraft supplied,presumably, in this case by Nato. Or in a parallel universe where they gave a shit,the Saudis.
I think accusing WetAugust of Antisemitism for explaining realpoilitik is appalling. Reported.
A no fly zone is an area of sky which air craft are not permitted to fly over. It has to be enforced by someone so i assume if one was imposed on syria they would expect the US to enforce it from bases in Jordan.
The only way to enforce it would be to shot down any craft in the no fly zone and is only a very short step from having boots on the ground.
I know I'm probably being a bit thick but what is a no fly zone?
I'm really in 2 minds over whether the attack was carried out by Assad he doesn't seem to have anything to gain from it.
I think the west have to tread very carefully and the us going in all guns blazing could possibly draw Iran and other sympathetic countries into the conflict.
As much as I hate to say it I think it maybe the best course of action in the long run to do nothing.
marking place as I'm learning a great deal
Crescentmoon - Exactly.
Kungfu - Syria is not Iran in 1979.
Those who are still talking as if troops are going to be sent there, that's not an option, nor what's under discussion. Afghanistan and Iraq are very different circumstances, so not worth conflating.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.