Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
MurderOfGoths · 01/09/2013 10:42

claw I think they get around that by supplying the ingredients and then denying that they knew they'd be used in that way. Which is a little unlikely, but can't be proved.

poppydoppy · 01/09/2013 10:59

Do you really think that it was the Syrian government who used the chemical weapons on its own people?

Who gains from War ?

What country has started the most wars ?

What countries are dependent on oil from that region ?

Who makes and supplies the weapons?

burstingbaboon · 01/09/2013 11:09

That's the problem as I mentioned earlier on. If or when west gets involved they will be blamed and if they don't get involved they will still be blamed.
I feel sorry for people who are saying that they are ashemed of being British. Why?
GB is giving lots of help to lots of countries- a lot. Look at London- everyone is here and everyone is given everything.
GB is a beautiful country with very compassionate people. Not every time GB needs to sacrifice soldiers. I am very happy that Cameron stepped back. I will say again, muslim and Arab countries should help, not wait for the west and whichever way it goes, As I said West Will be blamed---- as usual.

camaleon · 01/09/2013 11:14

Lots of evidence suggest it was the government of Syria using chemical weapons on their own people. The supply of weapons works on many directions. Not a single side to look at; nobody acts thinking they are doing the wrong thing.
Assad is convinced of doing the right thing, as Obama and Cameron are. They all have a point. They are all ambitious narcissists personalities with thirst for power. This is why they got there in the first place.
Sorry I feel klike a proper downer today

camaleon · 01/09/2013 11:16

As for the use of chemical weapons, if you are interested in the technical side of it, this is a good blog following the conflict brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

camaleon · 01/09/2013 11:18

This is a decent summary of the situation in Syria www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

Mimishimi · 01/09/2013 11:23

Strikes by the US, and others, would only be effective if the true aim is to move troops in to take over south-western Syria. I'm guessing the true long term intention is a land grab - that part of Syria has been coveted for many years by a neighbour due to it's water supply. Chemical weapons of unknown provenance and no clarity with regards to who is using them? ... casus belli.

camaleon · 01/09/2013 11:34

Sorry... Just realised someone else had posted that link earlier

ivykaty44 · 01/09/2013 12:09

So if the US and France were to strike and go in with Al Qadir then what are people thinking the outcome will be? What you get rid of Assad and then what? Who is going to being power then>

MurderOfGoths · 01/09/2013 12:13

cam I missed it earlier, so thanks for posting it again. I didn't know all of that.

TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy · 01/09/2013 13:41

The UK government have been and are "doing nothing" - not involving our military - in a lot of things. North Korea has had labour camps for years, Burma's Buddist-majority-military machine are still killing off the Muslim minority, Israel used phosphorus, the list goes on...the military industry is quite thriving without our intervention. The idea that we ALWAYS get involved ignores a lot of what goes on in the world and ignores that we are one of 5 permanent members of the UN security council, which means we always have a voice - and have to give a voice - on the UN military actions.

The UK is a major cause of why that region is as it is. The UK carved it up with France after the fall of the Ottoman, which many say that UK and France were a major cause, and has involved itself in the politics of the region ever since - not just Iraq, but it's involvement in the Iran's coup to maintain cheaper oil supplies (Iran was going to nationalise their oil) is well known, the entire Palestine/Israel issue roots in Britain promising the same thing to a bunch of groups and then just leaving them to it. We're already 'involved' and it has a lot to do with the UK.

However, it's still wiser to avoid military intervention. We have no clear plan of action, and the public are not given real understanding - both American and UK media have been caught using inaccurate images to try to sway the public - images from the war in Iraq have been repeatedly used to prove the devastation in Syria. Some more involved have tried to give more open information and it's quite clear that there is no military invention would work well.

And really, bringing in the military shouldn't be our first thought. We need more thought on what governments - national and international - and the public can do, change can be brought without bombs falling from the sky. More dead won't make anything better.

TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy · 01/09/2013 13:46

crosspost camaleon, my second link has the same info as yours.

camaleon · 01/09/2013 14:10

Great post TheSpork.

MurderOfGoths · 01/09/2013 14:36

The media unfortunately are a bit shit about using correct images to illustrate stories. I mean using images from games has happened more than once.

Doobydoo · 01/09/2013 18:46

Why do you pick and choose like this Mumsnet?
Ages ago I linked to a petition to Assad's wife that people all around the world were signing...and I mean months and months ago.Mumsnet would not let it stand....

MurderOfGoths · 01/09/2013 18:47

Petitions aren't allowed AFAIK dooby

Doobydoo · 01/09/2013 18:48

....related to the Syrian appeal which has suddenly appeared on Mumsnet

Doobydoo · 01/09/2013 18:50

Yes Goths...you are right...but some seem to be,though cannot remember off top of my head so might be wrong.Just think that maybe there could be a petitions section that people could choose to read or avoid.

Original poster
ThatVikRinA22 · 01/09/2013 19:23

camaleon - i posted that link before.

i agree there is no easy answer, but i cant help feeling that if this were my children being burned and gassed i would hope someone would step in and help.

assad needs to go. one way or another.

there must be something that we can do other than watch it happen and give aid after the event?

OP posts:
TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy · 01/09/2013 19:37

Vicar - some of the images being used to get public uproar against Syria are actually from Israel on Palestians - tw graphic images.

There is a reason the media are promoting this, and it has very little to do with children being burned and gassed. If it was, we would be talking intervention in a lot of other places first (and questioning the intervention of the US and the UK is some countries where they've caused the bringing in of more oppressive regimes).

PickleFish · 01/09/2013 20:07

and of course everyone feels that if their children were being burned and gassed someone would step in and help.

But what kind of help do you mean?? What is actually going to help? That's the problem. Not that people want to sit and do nothing, but that there isn't anything helpful to do, other than help the other countries that are taking in refugees to provide the most humanitarian aid possible. That is also doing something, and it may be all that's possible at the moment.

Replacing one hideous power without another equally hideous, and further destabilising the region, and creating hatred of the west, and promoting the rise of terrorist groups, and all of those extra consequences - how will that help?

People say we should help, but when asked have no clear idea what, specifically, we should do that would help anyone.

niceguy2 · 01/09/2013 20:32

Do you really think that it was the Syrian government who used the chemical weapons on its own people?

I think this is the million dollar question. What I cannot explain or think of a plausible explanation for, is why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people when:

  1. UN inspectors are in the area
  2. By all accounts he's actually winning at the moment.

He's a tyrant, not stupid. He gains absolutely nothing from attacking his own people. Yet the rebels do. They absolutely gain from gassing some innocent civilians. If they are indeed losing, drawing US airpower into the fight would be a pivotal moment for them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Assad seems to lack credible motive. He seems to have much more to lose and practically nothing to gain.

AgentZigzag · 01/09/2013 20:39

Although I know it's a manipulated 'story' of what's happening, the way the media portrayed the Iranian leaders going to see Assad yesterday, and the US flexing it's muscles in a Turkish Airbase, is a bit scary.

That it's nothing to do with chemical weapons or Syria, it's about Us and Them, and both sides are setting themselves up for what could happen.

Lots of people dampening lots of sparks in that tinderbox, I wouldn't like the consequences if one took hold.

noblegiraffe · 01/09/2013 23:00

Vicar, would you still want Assad to go if you knew Saddam Hussein were waiting in the wings to take over?

There is nothing to say that Assad going would make things any better. Intervention could well make things worse.

Is your insistence that Assad should be overthrown by military intervention from us blind to that possibility? Or do you just not actually care about the long term consequences of action and just want to be seen to be doing something?

joanofarchitrave · 01/09/2013 23:57

What TheSpork said.

Swipe left for the next trending thread