aibu to wonder why we are doing nothing about syria

[ThatVikRinA22]

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?

I feel a bit ashamed to be British to be honest. Doing nothing is the same as turning a blind eye to a child being attacked outside your house. We can't say "it's nothing to do with me" when innocent people are relying on us to help them. Intervention probably wouldn't have involved our troops being on the ground, especially as chemical weapons could be used on us. What would have happened if we had turned a blind eye to Hitler? He wasn't attacking our civilians to start with - he was killing his own but he didn't stop there did he? We have a duty to stand against a regime that attacks its own people because if we don't, what's to stop him attacking us or our allies with the same chemical weapons - or worse?

the "it's nothing to do with me" isn't the main argument for not attacking right now though. Nor does not attacking mean that nobody cares about innocent victims. It's the problem of whether or not military intervention now would just make things a whole lots worse, with problems spreading throughout the region, increasing hatred of the west, having all kinds of other consequences. There will be loads more victims whatever is done, sadly. It doesn't mean people don't care, even if they're not sure that intervention at the moment is the right plan.

Anyone who says that those objecting to military intervention are using 'it's nothing to do with me' as their reason, hasn't bothered their arse to read the thread.

It's like saying 'pick a side in the Iran-Iraq war and support them'. It's not likely to end well, and piling in more military force into a volatile area could well make things worse, not just for Syria, but for the neighbouring countries.

I haven't read the whole thread (sorry) but my opinion is that the UK is not the world's policeman. What is happening in Syria is horrendous but can we wade in? We have the UN and they need to declare intervention as warranted and until then I think the UK can only offer aid and support to the victims.

There are far more powerful countries than us; Russia, China and Germany to name a few. They have bigger armies and more resources and only if there was a whole UN response to Syria would it make sense for us to step in. I think then this atrocity could be stopped.

It's a shameful situation and makes me think of Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq etc - not because we aren't stepping in this time but because humanity has learned nothing and can still commit such awful acts.

Pagwatch well said agree with everything you wrote

But how, even with bigger armies and more resources, would these atrocities be stopped? Who would you strike at? Who would you arm? What would be the end goal? Which of the many factions do you support and how would you do that without destabiliting everything else?

I don't think it's just a matter of armies and resources. It's that nobody really has a clue how to stop it.

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

This is more like World War 1, with tripwires everywhere. What do people think will happen if we do bomb Syria? That they and their backers will apologise and buy everyone cupcakes?

Personally it's a relief in a way that we are not supporting the US in a military strike on Syria (sorry) yes i know innocent people and children are being killed it's awful but the fact that China and Russia have made it clear how they feel if we go in is more of a concern (We do not want a WW3) after all they are very close allies like we are with the US And if we go in i honestly feel it would be the breaking point. Even though the military strike is just on Syria's weapons and military bases and not on civilians it's just to much of a risk. However i do think we will end up going it at some point regardless

It would be bonkers and irresponsible to launch in with bombings before the government has even had sight of the report from the UN inspectors. That is why the vote thank fuck was lost. I would like to think the government learnt something from Iraq about jumping in with both feet before taking your shoes off. I suspect matters will change in due course though which I fully support.

The issue is not as clear cut as some would like to make out. and to be honest, I don't understand it very well either But there are a couple of points that make me glad we are erring on the side of caution.

1. Nobody actually knows who is using the chemical weapons. It could be the Syrian government but it could also be the rebels, they are fighting within factions amongst themselves and have reportedly used chemical weapons too. So until we have clarification, storming in attacking the government to find out it's the other side would be lunacy. It's a civil war within a civil war and because we haven't experienced it here we can't imagine the complexities.

1. They aren't playing 'fair'. Prisoners and casualties have been moved to military bases in Syria already. They've had plenty of time to plan as they know the public disgust to the use of gas. Where would you then suggest we attack?

1. Aside from physical civilian casualties if / when we become involved, war will damage the economy of Syria further which is also no good for the innocent people who have to live there during this.

Watching the news reports makes me cry and I wish it was a case of 'bomb the bastard who did it to make it stop' but it's not.

Whatever the next step is has to be so carefully thought out to avoid more hardship for the people of Syria.

But we should definitely we providing more humanitarian and medical aid, perhaps try and broker an agreement with a neighbouring country for extra aid and refuge for those who wish to flee...I don't know, there is no magic answer, it is desperately

Absolutely agree with Giddystars - you've summed it up beautifully.

The trick will be providing enough humanitarian aid to ensure a whole population doesn't starve through winter, but not to much to ensure that factions can continue fighting.

The only "expertise" we could offer is hosting and nurturing diplomatic channels, bearing witness to events, and possibly funding neighboring countries to negotiate safe zones for refuges. That and dangling a big fat carrot of trade deals and infrastructure rebuilding for a peacetime Syria.

The work that is needed will take decades to bear fruit, but that is the type of intervention I would support.

How can we fund anything if, as Cam and Osbourne continually tell us, our pot is empty? We're broke.

I've lost faith in Britain and feel quite ashamed to be British. How anyone can say they 'feel' for the Syrian people and it 'breaks their hearts to see children suffering' YET vote to do absolutely nothing because 'it's nothing to do with us' cannot really or truly be feeling anyone's pain or be sickened by what is going on.

If the shoe was on the other foot we'd be screaming for other countries to intervene.

Would you really walk on by after seeing someone being attacked? Afterall, another person is just that - the same as Syrians, other people - and taking the stance that Syria has nothing to do with us and 'let others get involved' is saying to a victim of a street attack that 'they' have nothing to do with anyone and someone else should help.

Britain is now full with self obsessed people whose only importance is money rather than the welfare of fellow human beings.

The British media may as well stop reporting on such news stories because quite clearly the British people are so hard faced, unsympathetic, uncaring and selfish to give a damned.

We've lost the 'Great' in Britain and British people and Labour have made damned sure that we are seen as running ducks in times of conflict.

The word COWARD springs to mind.

Right, Junkfoodaddict.

And bombing Syria and killing some more Syrians would help, how?

Junkfoodaddict and others who advocate our involvement

I am waiting for one of you to respond to the questions raised on here -
Who do we attack
Where do we attack
What should we attack with (men, bombs, etc)
How do we ensure we only kill the "right" people
How do we ensure no children are harmed in our attack

It's all very well for you to bleat on and on that we must do something, but none of you are suggesting WHAT we should do.

(For those who say it's like walking past someone being attacked and doing nothing, it's not like one person being attacked by another - more like a mass brawl. If you saw a throng of, say, 20 men all fighting each other how would you, on your own, stop them?)

All these people saying you're ashamed to be British and that we are just walking on by and doing nothing - have you even read the thread? People have explained over and over again that there isn't anything that can easily be done - there is no one person to bomb, one side to support, one faction to arm, none of that. It's a messy, civil war where nobody is in the right, and many of the rebel factions that could be helped by intervention are not actually who you'd want in power either. The whole thing could well spread and have far worse consequences for the region, and for the west.

Nobody knows how to make it stop. It's not as simple as saying we can't be bothered or we haven't the money or we're cowards.

What would bombing them DO? Who do you want us to bomb? How do you think this would stop it?

Seasicksal on p2 said it all for me.

I think the situation is horrendous but I can't see how US or UK intervention will learn to anything but more bloodshed, instability and animosity leading to terrorism. It's too volatile. I don't want action against Assad to appear to be action for Al Qaeda. I don't support any of what is happening or has happened but I don't see any way out, I think the West is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Given this, I would prefer no action to action with unintended deleterious consequences.

noblegiraffe said "it's like saying 'pick a side in the Iran-Iraq war and support them'". Well, we picked up a side at the time. We very much supported Iraq and this was one of the milestone moments when the West got involved without thinking much of the consequences.

Sadam used chemical weapons against its population several times. Nobody did anything and it was very clear who was the attacker and the victims. You can google 'Fallujah white phosphorus' for instance. Depleted uranium was used too by the US-UK coalition in Iraq.

After all, the chemical weapons issue is not as evident as they want us to believe. The difference between blowing up people and poisoning them is not that important for most of us. Evidence of war crimes being committed existed before the Chemical Weapons reports. All indicated that the US wants to intervene and was looking for an excuse.

I am not British, but I feel proud that the Parliament stopped something that seems too messy and driven for the wrong reasons.

I agree with timeforabuiscuit. Let's put the incredibly high amount of money and resources a military intervention means into helping refugees out of the country. Let's help the neighbouring countries taking the burden. Find a way to leave only those who want to fight each other inside the territory.

Missile attacks. The estimated death from the chemical weapons is 1,400. I wonder what the 'collateral' death rate from missiles will be?

I don't know if there is even a 'right' thing to do. However, I hate those remote control killing devices. It's like a video game for the guys operating them. Good business for the armaments industry though. And the countries that manufacture them. And the governments that get funding from their buds in those industries. Yep, it's completely about the moral thing to do.

Will their conscience force them to act on North Korea and China soon?

I don't feel ashamed to be British, I am just sad that the world does not work in the simple way we think it does - my dh is from the middle east, and his political opinions, along with all his friends from similar countries, are that no matter what happens, the US is to blame. He somehow manages to blame the US for absolutely everything that happens out there. And he blames the UK if they're involved too. Believe me, if we 'strike' Syria, it won't have the outcome we hope - it will all turn around on us and become unbelievably ugly, with the middle eastern press publishing pictures of babies which 'the West' have supposedly killed in their 'strikes' etc etc.

We can't win - I am sorry that that's the case, but it is far, far better that we effectively wash our hands of it, because we simply do not know what we are dealing with. These people have been brought up entirely differently from those in 'the West' and their political opinions are frighteningly aggressive towards the US and the UK.

Pinkfelttippen,
I hope you have some understanding about why former colonies have a pretty bad image of the UK. And looking at what the US has done around the world, it also explains a lot of aggression.
Many of us have been brought up with a bad image of the Middle East, the muslims, their link to terrorism and extremism, etc. Most of us have not set a foot in the Middle East.
Many people have never been in Syria, seen its incredible beauty the warmth of their people. For most of the West all Middle Eastern countries (and African) are the same. I know many persons who would have never understood the difference between Syria and Iran, lets say 5 years ago

The people in the Middle East have some understanding of the West, watch Western news, Western films, etc. They are not totally ignorant either.

No doubt they show pictures of death kids as excuse for their own purposes. As it happens here.

I am glad that (for once) the politicians aren't just going with, "we have to do something so let's do anything". Because the track record so far, in so many areas, is that they rush in too fast with no real thought for consequences.

And the situation in Syria needs way more than a kneejerk reaction.

Syria has not asked the WEst to come with the bombs. Is it that strange to think they will not be grateful and rather suspicious of the Western intentions with their intervention?

I have been in Iraq a few times in the past 3 years. Most business, politicians, oil platforms are run by US-UK firms and personalities. It generates a lot of problems and the only truth is that there is no clear solution for this.

According to some news here (www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520) Britain sold never gas chemicals to Syria 10 months after the war began. No clean sides to look at.

I was saying to my husband that when chemical weapons are used, the people who manufactured and supplied them should be are responsible too. The purpose of chemical weapons is to kill/poison people.

Yes, the world certainly does not work in the simple way we think it does. Certainly if Britain and other supply chemical weapons and them turns around and deplores their intended use, i.e. poisoning people. There is absolutely no 'clean' purpose to chemical weapons. Same as land mines.