Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

aibu to wonder why we are doing nothing about syria

279 replies

ThatVikRinA22 · 30/08/2013 23:27

why are we doing nothing?
labour clearly sitting on the fence because of iraq as are the rest of the jittery gvt....

ive heard all the "its not our busniness" arguments - the same was said in WW2 until it was too late.

i cannot comprehend why we would advocate doing nothing - rwanda all over again.
m sickened tbh that people feel so able to wash their hands when people - children - are being napalmed and gassed.

what about what is morally right? forget politics - are we really just going to do nothing??
because its not us?

im not advocating another iraq war - but surely we cannot stand on the sidelines and watch this without doing anything?

OP posts:
SubliminalMassaging · 31/08/2013 09:56
Kungfutea · 31/08/2013 10:05

Considering that George Galloway was a friend of Saddam Hussein and is a supporter of Hamas (who have done pretty bad things to Christians as well but that doesn't bother him in the slightest), I'd take anything he says or supports with a HUGE pinch of salt. In fact, if George Galloway is against UK involvement in Syria then maybe it's not such a terrible idea.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2013 10:11

If Syrian rebels are prone to eating the body parts of their enemies then I don't think it matters if it is George Galloway pointing out it might not be a good idea to support them. Even if it were Assad himself saying it, it doesn't make it a point to be ignored.

Kungfutea · 31/08/2013 10:44

It's not so much what Galloway said (Assad is mad and bad, rebels are too) but the motivation behind it.

There are far more intelligent and neutral analysts of the situation who are aware that it is much more nuanced than Galloway is trying to paint it. COnsidering that Galloway is a friend of Iran and Hezbollah, I wouldn't be surprised that he'd try and make out that the rebels are as bad as Assad as if he's mates with Iran and Hezbollah, he probably has a soft spot for Assad as well.

badtime · 31/08/2013 11:20

I think Galloway's point was that neither side is 'good'.

Anyway, I for one am glad that Parliament at least considered the issues, and didn't just leap in, all guns blazing.

People have been dying for a couple of years (I believe it is estimated that about 100,000 people have been killed), and frankly I don't think it matters to them or their families whether they have been killed by bullets, machetes or gas. The idea that that the use of chemical weapons suddenly changes everything for the Syrian people is nonsense. It mainly changes things for people who are not involved, for whom the deaths are abstract.

The people who are ashamed that we are not doing anything - I hope you are also ashamed of yourselves for not giving a shit for the previous two years, until the media told you that you should. The war has not been a secret.

I don't know what the best course of action is, but I do know that it is not to launch some sort of military campaign without even taking time to consider the options.

Kungfutea · 31/08/2013 11:27

The fact is though that the Assad regime caused this situation and you can't expect that the other side are going to act like angels in the face of such horrific brutality. It's not 'both sides are as bad as each other'. Not that I'm pushing for western involvement, but that's more because I think it'll make the situation even more dangerous for th whole region rather than some moral 'they're as bad as each other'

badtime · 31/08/2013 11:33

Again, I don't think the argument is that 'they're as bad as each other', rather that if Assad was removed from power, who would take his place? I don't think that is the issue either.

I agree that the real problem with going in is that there is no apparent military option which wouldn't make things worse.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2013 11:44

No, not as bad as each other, but the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Isn't there a link between the rebels and al Qaeda? Just because they are against Assad doesn't mean they hold the same values as us.

ExitPursuedByABear · 31/08/2013 12:05

The group we would be supporting are the group we would normally be against. Confused. If the rebels took power they would slaughter all the Christians.

Tis a shit situation all round but us intervening would achieve no good in the long run. IMO.

waltzingmathilda · 31/08/2013 12:07

Probably covered but its not "our" job nor the Americans job to "sort it out" - It is the job of the UN.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 12:12

Yes there is noblegiraffe, one group is outright affiliated. I've just posted a Bloomberg analysis of Syrian rebels and radical sunni islamism on another thread. 1200 groups - some of them fighting each other.

burstingbaboon · 31/08/2013 12:58

OP so what would you like to be done in Syria?
Whatever happens they will blame west. Do you think another mother, brother, sister in UK want to receive body . Their lives are NOT more important then lives of people from here.
Let them deal with their own problems. Yes, it's bad but UK can't risk own soldiers or peace here. When they were throwing themselves in the undergrounds, busses or killing people here in UK did their governments do anything?!? No, they don't care.
Even here, look Tower Hamlets, you cant walk through there of you are not respecting their law- sorry, this is England not sharia law country.
Enough is enough.

SubliminalMassaging · 31/08/2013 13:42

I think you might be confusing to very distinct issues bursting. We cannot refuse to intervene in Syria just because of a relative handful of gobby Muslims in UK ghettoes. Hmm

SubliminalMassaging · 31/08/2013 13:43

Having said that, I do think we should refuse to intervene in Syria - but just not for tenuous, tit for tat reasons like that.

Original poster
ThatVikRinA22 · 31/08/2013 13:45

i dont understand the argument for giving aid but nothing else, especially when we have people saying "look after our own" first......

so we should allow children to be nepalmed and gassed because we will give them money afterwards to help??

i AM NOT advocating sending in troops - but to disable their ability to use CW on their own people could be done by remotely striking with missiles. I saw those images of those people following the chemical weapons attacks - how anyone can watch that and fail to be moved to act is beyond me.

what do people think is going to happen if we do nothing but give aid? seriously - is this not what happened during WW2? we sat and did nothing until we were at war.
hitler could have been so easily stopped before he became a genocidal maniac - the year before poland was invaded he "tested the water" by moving troops into Rhineland which was demilitarized to see if he got any resistance - he didnt.

since the genocide in Germany we have had Rwanda and Czechoslovakia - are we REALLY just going to let it happen again?

OP posts:
SubliminalMassaging · 31/08/2013 13:50

I think someone should intervene too Vicar. I just do not think it should be us. It's a big world out there - they have much closer neighbours who understand far better than us the psyche and the modus operandi of the of various factions involved, and who have far more money to spare on direct action than we do. We've done enough meddling for one decade don't you think? And Iraq and Afghanistan are still pretty much the two of the most dangerous and god-forsaken places in the world.

Ahlaam · 31/08/2013 13:53

Vicar - Where was everyone when US used white phosphorous on school children in Falujah not too long ago?

The rest of the world kept quiet and minded their own business. US is known for doing nothing more than causing more mess than good, anyone remember Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? I don't think any of them are too happy at the state we have left their countries in.

US does not give a rats A$$ about the Syrian people and for that reason, I'm out. Besides we are all broke and as the Tories keep reminding us, we need to tighten our belts. So I don't want my tax going to the weapons industry. I'd rather feed the family round the corner who are forced to go to Food Banks.

Original poster
ThatVikRinA22 · 31/08/2013 14:01

DH is researching this for me - he doesnt think we can air strike the CW bases as they are housed in populated cities. The arab nations do not want Assad in power.

so why dont we cut energy supplies to Syria and the countries who are dependent on Syria for trade - that is China, Russia and Iran.

The free syrian army are already being supplied with weapons - where do people actually think these are coming from??

if people DONT WANT millitary action then cut trade with Syria - cut them off. That will affect China, Russia and Iran - This would isolate Syria.

but i think doing nothing is totally wrong. We should do something. Im dismayed that so many want to look the other way.

OP posts:
ExitPursuedByABear · 31/08/2013 14:06

But why Syria and not North Korea?

burstingbaboon · 31/08/2013 14:07

It's very hard to separate heart from brain subliminalMassaging, but I am not talking about handful of people . Tower Hamlets was just example , you should see ather areas in London , but somehow it's always them being victims.
It's not the only reason tit for tat, it's much bigger issue- enough of dead British soldiers, enough of making everyone's life better then lives of ul citizens. Who is getting housing, benefits, NHS priority???? Not the people of this country.
I am paying tax for what? Someone who comes with 7 kids because their religion doesn't aloud contraception. And the same person who is helping the in whichever sence has a DS or DD giving life for their country. Why their man can't go back and defend their country? Becouse it's their Human right to come to UK to get EVERYTHING! No, they should deal with their own problems. Pls re- read all my posts in this thread and you will understand why I feel the way I feel.

burstingbaboon · 31/08/2013 14:08

Ul= UK

burstingbaboon · 31/08/2013 14:09

Sorry for bad typing- I am on this phone and didn't check.

camaleon · 31/08/2013 14:12

Ubud and others agreeing with this view. It must be great for you to see Syrians as 'animals'; as some kind of less human beings that you and I are.

It is quite something that you don't understand the UK intervenes in other countries because they have interests on it. The situation in the Middle East, all of it, has been largely caused by the former colonial ambitions and present neo-colonial ones. The UK, France and the US have been interfering with who was or not in power for many years. I don't know where you live Ubud, but probably not in a country with the ambitions to dominate the others.

I don't want a military intervention in Syria because I don't see the point of it. Only if British/Americans/French, where happy to accept that the Syrians would be able to hit back in London/Paris/New York, this would make some sense. To attack a regime/country with the security they won't hit you back home means you are making decisions in total uneven ground.

The UK provides money and aid to many countries. But it is not for free.

noblegiraffe · 31/08/2013 14:14

There are already trade restrictions on Syria
www.gov.uk/sanctions-on-syria

AgentZigzag · 31/08/2013 14:16

'But why Syria and not North Korea?'

North Korea's "only" starving their people, chemical weapons can be used against Syria's neighbours.

World politics can't be assessed along the same line as local politics, totally different kettle of fish.

Swipe left for the next trending thread