Advanced search

So let me get this straight,

(36 Posts)
WinkyWinkola Wed 28-Aug-13 22:10:13

shooting, stabbing and burning the Syrian people does not warrant action but the use of chemical weapons does?

We now have a responsibility according to William Hague.

This chequered morality confuses me.

2cats2many Wed 28-Aug-13 22:14:04

Yes, and in order to punish Assad for killing Syrians we are going to....errr....kill more Syrians confused

Yani Wed 28-Aug-13 23:58:54

I'm not very politically aware, but why is it always us and the US who jumps in to 'stabilise' a situation? Don't we need to have UN approval?

I think Iraq was the proof in the pudding as to how much the usa needs un approval when it comes to military actions.
i.e they don't.

nancy75 Thu 29-Aug-13 00:07:59

Looks like this time we might wait for un approval. To be fair I think our govt have been calling for action for some time, but to do anything legally un must approve

thismousebites Thu 29-Aug-13 00:20:18

I don't think we'll do anything in Syria. They may have chemical weapons but they don't have any oil.
Whereas Iraq had no chemical weapons but did have oil.
It all boils down to economics.

Yani Thu 29-Aug-13 00:21:21

For UN approval, does there have to be a majority vote? Hasn't Russia already said that it wouldn't support an attack/invasion?
Does Russia's opinion or lack of support actually matter?
(Not being antagonistic, just trying to gain understanding...and improve my awareness)

2cats2many Thu 29-Aug-13 06:58:58

There has to be a unanimous vote in the security council, not just a majority vote. If Russia vetoes it, it won't be approved.

SilverApples Thu 29-Aug-13 07:00:44

What are the Arab League suggesting as a way forwards?

working9while5 Thu 29-Aug-13 07:58:24

Is it not because action in this case is likely to move us towards WW3? I am feeling very nervous about action in Syria for this reason. I think it is horrifying and appalling but does US and UK intervention ever actually stop these horrors? The track record doesn't seem great. I am not exactly a sophisticated analyst of the situation but it seems trickier politically say, than failure to act in Rwanda. Going to war just seems to increase atrocities where they are occurring and lead to even more loss of life. Am I being totally stupid?

HorryIsUpduffed Thu 29-Aug-13 08:16:49

Interesting article in the Independent today pointing out that if we go into Syria we will be working with Al Qa'eda and Hezbollah. Also that the same "neurochemical" symptoms are being reported in other parts of the region.

englishteacher78 Thu 29-Aug-13 08:18:12

Russia will veto the action most likely so it won't get security council approval.

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 29-Aug-13 08:31:51

I never in a million years thought we'd get a leader as fundamentally evil and corrupt as Blair. Sadly I'm now wondering.

niceguy2 Thu 29-Aug-13 09:07:12

I disagree Onesleep. Blair wasn't evil & corrupt. Just vain and let this and the adulation of the US president get in the way. But Blair knew exactly what he was doing.

Sadly I'm not so sure of Cameron. I honestly think he thinks a few cruise missiles will teach them. This is one of the problems when we have career politician's rather than people who have grown up in the real world.

Onesleeptillwembley Thu 29-Aug-13 09:16:49

Nice guy, I agree Blair knew what he was doing, but I have to say you'll never persuade me otherwise on the rest.

pictish Thu 29-Aug-13 09:17:38

What thismousebites said.

ivykaty44 Thu 29-Aug-13 09:21:28

I think we need to stay out, the west goes in and nothing good happens, it doesn't stop and makes things worse.

Even russia never did any good going into afganistan and admitted defeat in the end and came out without getting anywhere. The americans worked with the taliban back then.

CoteDAzur Thu 29-Aug-13 09:26:01

"if we go into Syria we will be working with Al Qa'eda and Hezbollah"

Which is probably why US/UK would prefer going in themselves and eventually installing a friendly government to just supporting the rebels and letting them come to power.

ResNullius Thu 29-Aug-13 09:26:18

The complexity makes a poor choice of any decision.
This is an eye opener for anyone who (like me) struggles with maintaining an overview.

Ahlaam Fri 30-Aug-13 07:01:29

Thank you Res! That was quite an eye opener.

The region is very volatile and unstable and I hope after yesterday's vote DC has woken up from his slumber.

HorryIsUpduffed Fri 30-Aug-13 08:12:12

I understand that last night's voting means the UK can't go into Syria, or certainly not without a UN resolution and a revote.

edam Fri 30-Aug-13 08:30:31

Wow, thanks Ree, that chart is quite something.

noddyholder Fri 30-Aug-13 08:55:39

installing a friendly govt? Yeah like that's been our successful strategy thus far in the middle east

ivykaty44 Fri 30-Aug-13 09:31:39

we helped created this --fucking-- mess

claig Fri 30-Aug-13 10:12:35

The creation of Syria was years ago and it is not really behind what is happening today.

You have to ask why is this happening now and who is funding the rebels and why.

Some analysts and many so-called "conspiracy theorists" believe it is about the huge gas finds in the region and the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. There is a huge geopolitical battle for control of gas and oil in the region. The problems in Greece and Cyprus are also possibly linked to this as Greece and Cyprus have ercently discovered huge oil and gas reserves off their coasts, with Greece potentially becoming the richest country in the EU due to it! Some "conspiracy theorists" believe that that is why Greece is being busted to force privatisation to place the assets in the hands of outside interests. The whole region is super rich in oil and gas and all there are players involved in the chess game of determining who will control and profit from the assets.

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