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?

yes noble - of course thats my rational. i dont care about long term consequences at all.

(sarcasm)

but i do think that iraq is still so fresh in everyones mind that its making governments run scared. This is not the same.

i am not advocating military intervention as in troops on the ground. Assad is getting the message loud and clear im sure, that no one is going to do anything so he can carry on as he wishes.
if peoples consciences can be assuaged by throwing aid after the event then i despair.

so when the UN actually does come out and state that yes, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people - what then? more nothing? more "lets look the other way because its nothing to do with us?"

lets allow genocide to happen because its not happening here and doesnt affect us?

the most harrowing thing i ever read was in the guardian magazine - accounts from people in the UN who watched the massacre in Rwanda, and who were forbidden to help, because their role was as observers only.
so thats us then - casual observers of genocide but who will do nothing because its not us it affects.
seems to me that no lessons have been learnt from other wars. i never thought that after genocide during WW2 that it could ever happen again - and yet it did - in the 1990s.

And if it was not the government but the rebels who used the gas?

What then? What if the West walks in, overthrows the government, installs the rebels and it comes out that they did it?

It isn't 'doesn't effect me' that should make us stop and think, but 'what is going on here?'.

What exactly do you propose?

Bombing chemical weapons plants whether they are in populated areas or not is quite possibly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

Just how much collateral damage does there need to be so we can feel like we are 'doing something'? How many children is it OK for us to kill to avenge those who have already died? Do you have numbers? Do you have a plan?

What is this 'something' that everyone wants to happen?

One country which has used chemical weapons against civilians recently is the US - look up white phosphorus and the bombing of Fallujah. Israel was also accused, recently, of using it in certain Palestinian areas.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10019754/Israel-says-it-will-stop-using-white-phosphorous.html

If there is an attack on Syria it is not out of concern for the citizens. I am appalled by their brazen use of photographs from other conflicts as propaganda for this. The rot runs straight to the highest echelons of U.S foreign policy and particularly those who tout themselves as the U.S' biggest ally in the region. That they invoke the Holocaust as reasoning for their war crimes make me feel like vomiting, particularly since the families of not a few are known to have collaborated in that (reasoned correctly it would shock Europe into establishing Israel with battered, impoverished and traumatised survivors as the new population).

Sorry, that should read families of not a few of the policy gurus from some of the leading thinktanks.

Agree with TheSpork and Mimi.

The idea that US & UK are interested in saving poor little Syrians is as absurd as their attempt to free the Iraqis. In the past the UK & US got away with carrying out atrocities and this time it appears that if they attempt to dip their fat fingers in the pie yet again. The consequences will be dire for the rest of us.

Vicar - what exactly do you want the US and the UK to do?

Vicar, so if you want Assad to go, then you want the Islamist rebels with links to al-Qaeda in power instead? Is that what you are proposing as a solution?

You can't say that you care about the long term consequences then embark on a bombing campaign and enforce regime change without a roadmap of what you want to happen afterwards.

so when the UN actually does come out and state that yes, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people - what then? more nothing

The word is if, not when. The time and place was way too convenient IMO.

And if it is true, you reconsider, that's the rational course. Innocent until proven guilty is a very sound concept. Deciding someone is guilty, meting out punishment and then finding out they are innocent is a pretty medieval stance.

But the fundamental issue remains - this is a religious/civil war, those are always vicious and brutal, with atrocities on both sides. Apart from improving humanitarian aid, what can you do that doesn't make the situation worse?

They can't say for sure it was Assad, probably. They were there to ascertain that chemical weapons were used, and how they were delivered. From the "delivery system" it may be possible to draw conclusions about who used them.

lets allow genocide to happen because its not happening here and doesnt affect us

But what will happen to the minority religion/culture groups when a mixed bag of rebels with differing motivations fill a power vaccum post Assad ?

From what I have read there are a number of minorities at risk of being murdered in large numbers should the other side(s) no longer be otherwise occupied with fighting the government.

How do you police that by firing missiles from the Med ?

I don't see how you can avoid genocide by helping to create circumtances that is likely to offer the opportunity to commit more genocide.

It would be easier if it were a stright up and down good guys v the bad guy, let's help the good guys and everything will get better, but that's not the case. It could be a case of frying pan to other frying pan, or it could end up with frying pan to fire for an awful lot the ordinary Syrians of various religions/cultures who have to live with the co sequences of our choices. All we can do is say "opps!" They get to die, be maimed and truamatised by any unforseen outcome of what our nations do.

It might make some people living in other nations feel better, like "something was done!" if we intervene. But if the outcome risks making things just as bad if not worse, isn't that prioritising our feelings as bystanders over the far greater need of the people at the sharp end not to be at risk of sacrifice in order to make westerners feel better ?

I fear if we intervene in Syria without the backing of the UN we will be viewed by other muslim states and some muslims in this country as an arrogant-post imperial power going in to sort out the natives. The backlash from previous UK interventions was seen in the 7/7 bombings and the beheading of Lee Rigby. If we had intervened in Eygpt, as the Eyptipian opposition had wanted at that time, we would now have been blamed for the Morsi government's failings and prehaps have been subject to reprisals. As others have pointed out it rather telling the Arab states deathly silence on the subject of Syria. They know its a dirty war which will not end well.

7/7 is highly unlikely to have been backlash..

^
so when the UN actually does come out and state that yes, Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people - what then? more nothing? more "lets look the other way because its nothing to do with us?"

lets allow genocide to happen because its not happening here and doesnt affect us? ^

are you even reading what people are saying?
People are not refusing to help because "it's nothing to do with us". They are not "looking the other way and letting genocide happen". They don't know how to stop it!

What do you think we should do? You say not troops on the ground. So what, air strikes? Against whom? How? you want to remove Assad, but replace him with what? You want to do all this and increase the chances of other terrorist factions increasing in power, without knowing if it will make things better or worse in the long run?

I wish to God there were things we could do that would help. But jumping in just to be seen to be doing 'something' so that we're not 'turning a blind eye' is not the way. You don't seem to be going any further in thinking that bad things are happening so we must do something, even though there is nothing clear that would help. Everyone wants to help if there were a way. Nobody is insensible to the suffering. But nobody wants to make things much, much worse, either.

Humanitarian aid after the fact is not just way of 'appeasing our consciences that we did nothing' - that implies that there was something we could/should have done, but didn't. there isn't, not at this point. Providing resources to countries who have to cope with refugees, providing whatever aid we can to the people there, that is doing something.

And keep reviewing the options, continually, and seeing if there ever is a time when intervention might seem like a better solution than it does at the moment.

If you have a situation with various complicated options, you can't just keep looking at it and saying 'I don't want any of those, I want it to be like this, a situation where we can help'. We all want there to be something we can do to help, but you have to face the reality of this situation, not just imagining something else and arguing on the basis of that.

For the love of God, have people been on here saying 'it's nothing to do with us?"
There are many reaons why intervention is incredibly difficult and likely to make matters worse.

It is probably great to wring your hands and run around saying 'oh but the children! ' and think that helps. Go ahead, it is probably cathartic.

But will you stop suggesting that anyone who is trying to be open about the hideousness of this mess and the impotence of anyone to help those caught in the midst of this slaughter doesn't care.

I care as much as you do. I am just not busily pretending that I have some moral superiority because I m pointlessly wailing on the Internet.

Yes we should be 'doing something' but the reality is that nothing we do short of sending in a massive coalition of troops is likely to stop the bloodshed.

And I don't think i've read any posts supporting another large scale invasion the size of Iraq/Afghanistan.

It's not that I don't support intervention. It's just that I'd like to understand the 'evidence' supporting this, the plan and most importantly THE GOAL.

So far the only thing talked about is air strikes. So what? I'd be absolutely amazed if Assad hasn't moved all his stockpiles of chemical weapons by now into residential areas, schools, hospitals. He's a tyrant, not stupid.

And as mentioned on the thread in the news section. Isn't it really coincidental that he'd use chemical weapons to attack his own people whilst UN inspectors were in Syria? That possibly seems like the most stupid thing to do doesn't it? Logic dictates that he is the last person to benefit from such action.

Like Carpevinum says, there's no straight good guys vs bad guys here. If we help the rebels win, we'll soon find out that actually they're no better than the guys we just got rid of. In fact the rebels only have one thing in common and that's their united hatred of Assad. Take that away and they'll probably continue to squabble amongst themselves and anarchy is likely to continue.

"I'd be absolutely amazed if Assad hasn't moved all his stockpiles of chemical weapons by now into residential areas, schools, hospitals. He's a tyrant, not stupid."

You aren't going to be amazed niceguy. Yes, he's a very brainy maniac, and the people around him are maniacs too.

Mimishimi speech from 7/7 bombers:
Two of the bombers made videotapes describing their reasons for becoming what they called "soldiers". In a videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera on 1 September 2005, Mohammad Sidique Khan, described his motivation. The tape had been edited and also featured al-Qaeda member ? and future leader ? Ayman al-Zawahiri:[10]
? I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation. ?
A second part of the tape continues
? ...I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the... of this cause. ?
On 6 July 2006, a videotaped statement by Shehzad Tanweer was broadcast by Al-Jazeera. In the video, which may have been edited[11] to include remarks by al-Zawahiri who appeared in Khan's video, Tanweer said:
? What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.

I'm looking for the link I found early this morning on the BBC website that gave brief clips from ME papers and news sites with opinions on what should happen.
It's proving elusive.

Why do we need to intervene in "genocide" in the middle east, but not in Africa?

Who will we try to make the leader of Syria in Assad's place?

If we blow up civilians (children included) to get rid of the chemical weapons, does our good intention make children dying matter less?

Why should individual countries be deciding on any action independently? - the UN was formed in order to police this sort of thing with due reference to the legality and the consequences of any action.

To answer your question VicarInaTutu "why are we doing nothing?"

I believe 'we' are doing nothing, because mostly we don't know what to do.

Obama is right when he says people are war weary.

I am, I am tired of the west telling everyone else how to live or else, I am tired of wearing the blame for the children we kill in their beds in our efforts to 'help'.

It is just too bloody complicated for me to be calling on my government for action.

What do you propose? You must have better intel than me because I have no bloody idea what would make this better rather than worse.

I agree that a full investigation should be the priority, not air strikes that could kill more innocent people. Going in all guns blazing may make casual observers feel great that the 'baddies' are getting their comeuppance, but we don't actually know who the baddies are.

I am also interested in what VicarInaTutu thinks we should be doing instead of nothing.

If we help the rebels win, we'll soon find out that actually they're no better than the guys we just got rid of. In fact the rebels only have one thing in common and that's their united hatred of Assad. Take that away and they'll probably continue to squabble amongst themselves and anarchy is likely to continue.

This. To depose one leader, you need to ensure there's a credible alternative, otherwise you just get years and years of civil war. People in the west think democracy is always the best thing for a country and perhaps it is as an ultimate aim, but that doesnt mean that every country is capable of transitioning to democracy in an orderly way right now.

We should bloody well stay out of it. Any politician crying "THE CHILDREN!" needs a bloody good hiding themselves. Only the very very very naive think that the average Western politician gives a ding dang dong about any children anywhere. They use "THE CHILDREN!" as an excuse to get support from the aid industry and those that support the aid industry. It is obvious that none of the politicians care about the children in the countries that they represent ( only using them as political pawns). I have to harden my heart and try and analyse what they are trying to hide. Politicians rely (especially in Britain) on the general public's naivety, passion, vanity (wanting to be seen to be on the right side of history) and sense of escapism (from our belt tightened reality?).
How many children are dying in wars and contention all over the world? What is so special about Syria? What have we got to gain from entering that civil war? Why would we want to side with Al Quaeda in a civil war, but war against them in the War on Terror?
Sometimes (as some of us have wisely done with our own kids or partner), when you see a bunch of people in a room who are apparently "friends", but something doesn't sit right with you, hasn't anybody asked themselves "what could they possibly have in common?". You know something is amiss when a left leaning French leader is acting like Rambo the Second and Call me Dave calls a vote on military action with all the organisation skills of a toddler.
Cheap sentimentality has always pissed me off. Even cheaper is to use "THE CHILDREN!" as an excuse for killing even more children in order to maintain some semblance of Empire. Time to leave The U.S to their own devices. For that Britain can give herself a pat on the back. She taught her son all the dirtiest tricks in the book and he learned them well. As with all good teachers they must run the risk of the pupil passing the mentor. As a good mother, Britain must let the son leave the frock tails and cling to another "woman". Let France be the abused wife.