Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

166 replies

holidaybug · 23/08/2013 22:06

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?

OP posts:
TwelveLeggedWalk · 23/08/2013 23:55

I think it will be surprising if the US does not act at all, given Obama 'red line' speech. Removing the international politics for a moment, does he not have to honour that pledge to retain any kind of integrity st home?

EldritchCleavage · 23/08/2013 23:57

I think Obama should do nothing until he knows (i) what outcome he wants (not as straightforward as it sounds); and (ii) that the desired outcome is achievable.

Meantime, there is nothing stopping us donating to the Disasters Emergency Committee to help the refugees.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 23/08/2013 23:59

Meantime, there is nothing stopping us donating to the Disasters Emergency Committee to help the refugees.

Sanity. This.

Lazyjaney · 24/08/2013 00:08

Applauds Eldritch. Would add (iii) that the US needs to remember the stunning success of it's past invasions of other countries since Korea.

unlucky83 · 24/08/2013 00:23

I think the world has to wait until it is absolutely confirmed as a chemical attack (not faked/old footage) AND Assad's government was to blame.
I can't see why the Syrian government would do this now...
Inspectors in their country -and if they don't let them inspect there they are practically admitting guilt -although I heard that that region is so unstable that it might be deemed unsafe for the inspectors to go there - the UN would have to step up...(Russia and China would 'have' to support intervention...)
And (I read somewhere) they were winning there ...so didn't need to do it - unless they think overall the war is as good as lost and have nothing to lose...so just vengeance against that group of people ...after what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam and if previous attacks were chemical weapon attacks - if you were Assad you would have nothing to lose..in that case it might get a whole lot worse ....
Part of the problem in the whole area is that the Western world meddled at the end of WW2...
And the US supported Bin Laden, and Saddam and Gaddafi to varying extents - and that didn't end well....and 'someone' supplied the chemical weapons ...
I agree heartbreaking but not much we can do - for now at least ...

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 24/08/2013 00:30

I think the world has to wait until it is absolutely confirmed as a chemical attack (not faked/old footage) AND Assad's government was to blame.

Perceptive post. Just to play devils advocate for a moment, I wonder what the international community would ( could ) say if it turned out to be the rebels who were responsible...... Confused

Misspixietrix · 24/08/2013 00:40

ITV News said the difference this Time is that the footage was taken by a reputable Cameraman so wouldbe harder to discredit.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 24/08/2013 00:47

the US needs to remember the stunning success of it's past invasions of other countries since Korea.

Well, to be fair, Grenada went OK..............Grin , So did Panama.

LinusVanPelt · 24/08/2013 00:49

"But saying 'send your kids to die' is not on IMO."

Er, OP, I think that what Hmmmmmmm has been pointing out is that you've started this thread basically criticising the Americans for not sending their kids to die in this war.

But you think it's "not on" for you to have to consider if you'd feel the same way, if we were talking about your own kids instead of the nameless, faceless, disposable American troops in your mind who should be "doing something" so the rest of us can feel better about this horror.

cantspel · 24/08/2013 00:50

Footage just shows dead people it cannot confirm who is responsible.

If anyone should sort it out it should be The Arab League not the west.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 24/08/2013 00:54

Cantspel- has the Arab League ever sorted anything out?

Monty27 · 24/08/2013 00:59

so if they have no business in Syria, why do they have business in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia....?

Serious question btw.

WetAugust · 24/08/2013 01:06

I was just about to post the same Cantspel but you're rightThingsthat

Saudi has massive modern Armed Forces all UK trained with a lot of UK weaponry. They could and should be leading on sorting out regional problems instead of leaving it to the West.

We go in - both sides hate us and 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' kicks in and we get shafted. Every time.

I would march against getting involved in this one.

cantspel · 24/08/2013 01:09

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Err no but if the arab world wants to sort their own affairs out then they are going to have to learn and quickly.

Monty27 I dont think there is anyone left who does thing that Afghanistan, Iraq are any of our business.

These are arab troubles so let the arabs sort it out.

justanuthermanicmumsday · 24/08/2013 01:16

Call me a cynic I think the answer is oil and connections. Libya has more so they helped there more aggressively they have no allies so full force ahead. Syria not so much oil, but allies and a strong army so let's sit in our palaces and express our deepest regrets and sympathies like we sincerely mean it.

I remember reading this article good points raised see here
www.moisesnaim.com/es/node/783

Monty27 · 24/08/2013 01:21

Cantspel I appreciate I'm talking of the past, but why did they involve themselves then and not now? It truly is a genuine question. ignorant in world affairs

WetAugust · 24/08/2013 01:22

I don't think anyone (apart from the Americans and Tony Blair) thought we should go to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Bosnia was a different matter. Very close to 'home'/ Had to make amends for the Dutch UN forces that permitted Szrebrenica.

Problem is that the Muslims when they profess to hate UK/US forget that The West (i.e. UK and America predominantly) helped them out in Bosnia, helped them regain Kuwait from Sadam, helped them retrieve Afghanistan from Taliban grip, assisted them in overthrowing Gadaffi etc etc etc. So we'll sit this one out and see how they get on themselves.

Bit like the French I suppose - they've never forgiven us for winning World War II

cantspel · 24/08/2013 01:22

They might not have much oil but they have something like 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

WetAugust · 24/08/2013 01:25

Also, Syria supported Hizbollah.

A civil war that keeps Syrians occupied stops them supporting Hizbollah, if only temporarily and that suits Israel and the Jewish US communities.

cantspel · 24/08/2013 01:26

Monty WetAugust has pretty much covered it. Going into Iraq or Afghanistan was just a bit of willy waving by Bush and Blair and accepted by most now to have been illegal and none of our concern.

Monty27 · 24/08/2013 01:32

Wow, thanks for that Wetaugust and Cantspel

Love the willy waving by Bush and Blair. I resigned from a long term membership of the Labour Party then.

I stay away from world affairs in some ways because it appals me so much. But seeing those children on the news, and the mention of chemical warfare is horrendous.

I've always detested the UK putting their hand in the fire as soon as US did. Since my O'level history days. Blush

WetAugust · 24/08/2013 01:33

Daddy Bush didn't have the balls to go all the way to Bahgdad so Baby Bush finished the job for him using 911 as an excuse to do so.

The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan had been pushed to the very northern limits of the country by the Taliban so the fact the Osama was being sheltered by the Taliban meant that we could provide air support to assist the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban. And that's where it should have ended. Should never have been any UK/US boots on the ground in Afghanistan. No politician ever explained convincingly why we were there - various explanations e.g. keeping the streets of Brattain safe from Al Quaida, etc. Rashid is probably closer to the mark in his book Oil, the \Taliban etc. It was an attempt to permit an oil pipe line to be built across Afghanistan from the northern former USSR 'Stans to a warm water port in Pakistan.

GoshAnneGorilla · 24/08/2013 01:44

Oh dear.

Right. Now I've got that out I shall begin.

Whoever it was upthread who said "It doesn't make sense for Assad to do this", have you been missing the part where he's been murdering his own people for the last two and a half years, starting with some teenagers in Derra, whose only crime was to write some graffitti against the regime.

This is regime which sent a teenager to prison (Tal Al Mallohi) for writing poetry on a blog, where every school child, every day had to swear undying loyalty to the Assad regime. Over 100,000 people have been killed and vast chunks of the country rendered uninhabitable. All this in response to the people asking for peaceful reform of the regime.

Sense, as we would understand it, doesn't come into it.

Also, there seems be great confusion as to what intervention would entail.

No one is asking for Western troops on the ground

Repeat

No one is asking for Western troops on the ground

By intervention they mean either:

1)Arming the rebels

2)Maintaining a no fly zone

or both.

This would bring the current war to a swifter conclusion and ensure the removal of the Assad regime. The regime staying is not an option at this point.

The majority of the rebels are Free Syrian Army - they are fighting for a democratic state, this is what the opposition Syrian National Council want to, as do the majority of the Syrian people.

The Islamist rebels would then either have the choice of coming on board with the reconstruction or not. There would be extremely limited support if they wished to perpetrate a terrorism campaign post settlement - Syria is not like Iraq demographically.

Comparing Syria to Afghanistan is facile. Afghanistan was brutalised by the Soviets for 10 years and then suffered further years of internal conflict. Syria is not at that stage. Also, people seem to be forgetting the very dubious precept for the Western invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm not sure what I've written will change any minds here. There seems to be this underlying sentiment, that Syrians aren't quite like us nice, decent British people, so why should we care?

Except I have family in Damascus and I can tell you that they are very much like you, they have children and families and their lives much like yours (bar the having no political freedom of course). They deserve better then the world turning its back on them.

EldritchCleavage · 24/08/2013 01:52

Daddy Bush didn't have the balls to go all the way to Bahgdad so Baby Bush finished the job for him using 911 as an excuse to do so

Or: Bush Snr recognised the quagmire a full regime change would become and declined to go tramping into it. Bush Jnr, a much more dogmatic neocon, went in anyway.

There seems to be this underlying sentiment, that Syrians aren't quite like us nice, decent British people, so why should we care?

Not on my part, thank you very much.

And I don't see a no-fly zone as any kind of easy step to take. It is ruinously expensive, fraught with risk where the country concerned has a decent air force (as I think Syria does) and very vulnerable to 'mission creep'.

justanuthermanicmumsday · 24/08/2013 01:59

Wet August not entirely true everything you said and history books show that , west went in too late they let the slaughter happen first in Bosnia thats a fact. As for Afghanistan it's still in Taliban grip that's why Americans Brits want to move out quick its a no win situation. Some countries have already moved out.

Swipe left for the next trending thread