This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why doesn't NATO intervene in Syria?

Whereas it was all jets and missiles when it came to Libya, where Gaddaffi had PLENTY of support, not to mention the heroic rebels portrayed all over western media only turning out to be nothing of the sort?

Do NATO countries only intervene when it would suit their agendas, or more specifically the USAs? God forbid the dollar going further down the pan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/phil-bloomer/syria-is-at-breaking-point_b_1334815.html
http://news.sky.com/story/969333/syrian-prime-minister-flees-to-jordan

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/10/27_Multi-Billionaire_Salinas_-_Gaddafi_Killed_Over_Gold_Currency.html

http://www.rt.com/news/rebels-terrorists-civilian-casualties/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXaywUqVesg

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Dux_Helvetica

It's mostly because Assad is backed by Russia whereas Gaddafi wasn't. It makes less geopolitical sense to intervene in Syria because it would risk upsetting Russia. NATO is unwilling to take that risk.

Reply 2

smokew33d

Original post by chrislpp

china and russia are allies of syria

Reply 3

ESPORTIVA

Because its none of natos business, we dont need another war!

Reply 4

Cephalus

NATO is designed for the defence of the countries of the West against Russia.

NATO does not intervene because Syria does not pose a threat to any country that belongs to NATO

Reply 5

Scot_land

how much oil does syria have :wink:

Reply 6

deejayy

Original post by chrislpp

Do NATO countries only intervene when it would suit their agendas

Why else would they intervene?

Reply 7

gagaslilmonsteruk

mainly because it would seriously annoy China, Russia AND Pakistan. it's just not worth it. Surely, other countries including NATO ones and Russia, China etc should send aid to innocent civilians who are caught in the cross-fire though.

Reply 8

FinalMH

As many have said it isn't NATO job to intervene? NATO isn't the world police. However their are loads of factors people need to take into account. Do people honestly think china and Russia would sit on the side lines if NATO did? Doubt it. Why is their this assumption that if something is wrong in the world that the west have to sort it out? surely that is the job of the UN?

Reply 9

FinalMH

Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk

hmm Pakistan in the recent UN vote abstained, so they don't have the same view as China or Russia.

Reply 10

iLikeCupcakes

Because Nato doesn't give a sh**

Reply 11

username818763

Syria also has one of the best air defence in the world.

Reply 12

Nice.Guy

Original post by chrislpp

Whereas it was all jets and missiles when it came to Libya, where Gaddaffi had PLENTY of support

The only support Gaddafi had was inside Libya itself - Syria's got the backing of Russia and China (two countries we don't want to meddle with), plus the regime does have stronger support within Syria compared to that in Libya - Syria's just too influential and pretty powerful to interfere with. . . in Libya, we only started to interfere when the rebels had the upper hand :rolleyes:

Original post by chrislpp

not to mention the heroic rebels portrayed all over western media only turning out to be nothing of the sort?

What exactly do you mean by this? How did they turn out to be 'nothing of the sort'??

Reply 13

callum9999

Original post by Cephalus

NATO is designed for the defence of the countries of the West against Russia.

NATO does not intervene because Syria does not pose a threat to any country that belongs to NATO

Turkey may disagree with that...

Though for the OP to question why we aren't attacking Syria just because we attacked Libya is utterly ridiculous. All politics aside, Syria has a fully functional air-force and top-of-the-line air defences. That alone is a good enough reason to intervene in Libya but not Syria!

Reply 14

Clessus

Original post by chrislpp

I hope you see the double standard in your post, complaining about NATO intervening in Libya, and then complaining about them not intervening in Syria.
This double standard may in part be attributed to anti-Americanism or ‘anti-imperialism’, whereby members of the far left subordinate their morality to the ‘higher cause’ of opposing the United States. There is a holier-than-thou condemnation of every Western failing (“What about the Kurds/Palestinians/East Timorese/Syrians?”), allowing the Chomskyites always to damn Western policy for its moral imperfections no matter what it is. The west is thus simeltaniously condemned for intervening and for not intervening.

To answer your question, the reason the West dosen't intervene in Syria is because Assad enjoys the support of Russia and China (though this is starting to shake).

Do NATO countries only intervene when it would suit their agendas, or more specifically the USAs?

Every single country only intervenes when its suits their agendas, including Russia and China.

http://www.rt.com/news/rebels-terror...an-casualties/

Russia Today is a propoganda channel which employes ~~clowns~~ journalists like Nebojsa Malic and notorious propogandists like Srdja Trifkovic. Citing it will get you laughed out of any serious discussion outside of CIF. It also promotes conspiricy theories and genocide denial, and has been described by several reliable media watchdogs and human rights organisations as total propoganda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXaywUqVesg

Is that really the best you can do?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 15

Conciousness

They don't need to intervene, they've already armed, trained and funded foreign fighters and sent them in causing the problem in the first place. Same as in Libya. The FSA is primarily funded by NATO.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

cl_steele

Well why would they? every time theyve gone into a foreign arab/muslim country to 'help' the locals its back fired big time... just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and the **** storm they have caused...

Reply 17

cl_steele

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Only in 10 years can you make this statement. In early stages of regime change, it doesn't all go smoothly, that's pretty obvious.

With regards to the latter one sure but with Iraq and Afghanistan we've been there near enough a decade have we not?
But regardless on a broader note it cant be said that western intervention hasnt caused great problems for us not only in physically being there but in that it has radicalized some muslims against the west, take the 7/7 bombings as a start and we can work our way up all due to our trampling over these countries. dont get me wrong im remaining impartial on how these countries will turn out as, as you said, regime change and its affects arent quick but the affect its had on some people in galvinising their hatred for the west etc. must be noted, right?

Reply 18

matty b

What did clinton say about russia and china when they backed Assad? Oh yeah:

they will "pay the price".

Sounds like they don't want a war with Russia then.

Hopefully the US won't step over the line with iran and syria as I do not want to be looking down the barrels of 3.2 million guns. Even if it means the Syrian people are saved. We do not want this to explode into yet another global conflict, and risk killing thousands, maybe millions more.

Did someone mention pakistan had backed assad too? Great. That's 3.8 million guns, then.

Reply 19

matty b

Original post by cl_steele

So they learned their lesson from Iraq, then?

They have continued rampaging through Arab countries like there was no tomorrow, now they threaten Iran and Syria simultaneously? They have most definitely not learned.