The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

why do people simply not care when it comes to clivilians getting killed in Syria?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for nutz99
nutz99
19
There have been droughts in Africa, there have been civil wars in Africa, there have been hurricanes in the Caribbean, there have been typhoons in Asia and so on. Lots of other countries have been ravaged by war or natural disasters. Have we offered to take them all in, no, so why are the Syrians a special case. What puts them above all the other refugees in the world.

It's not that people don't care. It's a case of it happening in so many countries to so many people what can you really do about it. The cause - simply too many corrupt politicians.
Original post by WoodyMKC
People do care, it''s just that we can't do much about it. It'd be completely impractical to take them all in. If you're warm hearted you see abandoned animals in rescue centres and homeless people genuinely living hard, you'd ideally love to take them all home and give them a place and treat them well, but you wouldn't because you know it's entirely not practical.

That's no excuse for only taking 20,000 refugees.
Original post by cbreef
That's no excuse for only taking 20,000 refugees.


When the country's finances are already under strain, yes it is.
Original post by WoodyMKC
When the country's finances are already under strain, yes it is.


We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.
Original post by cbreef
We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.


That's debatable. Totally different economic and housing situation between both nations. Not saying we absolutely won't manage it, but considering it's not really going to solve the situation it's not worth putting such a strain on the country's resources for and the UK isn't a socialist nation. If all commonwealth countries could hypothetically come to an agreement on which country gets so-and-so number of refugees with a view to take in all refugees and eradicate the problem, then it'd be worth it.
Original post by cbreef
We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.


I'd say to you why should we?

Were in 1.6 trillion of debt, we add over 100 billion to that a year and we have a health, social care and housing crisis already on top of other day to day problems.

We have the second largest foreign aid budget in the world and we are no where near these places in crisis geographically.

It all adds up to not our problem and we have enough on our plate already.

Nothing makes a Syrian more important than a refugee from elsewhere in the world and if they are genuinely seeking asylum they can do it in the way the Dublin agreement and the UN have set out.

The nearest safe country! That isn't Europe and it certainly isn't passing every country in Europe to get here.

I'd rather look after our own people first


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cbreef
that's how all this started.


No. It started long before that when the people chose the Assads, then chose to keep them.
Original post by paul514
I'd say to you why should we?

Were in 1.6 trillion of debt, we add over 100 billion to that a year and we have a health, social care and housing crisis already on top of other day to day problems.

We have the second largest foreign aid budget in the world and we are no where near these places in crisis geographically.

It all adds up to not our problem and we have enough on our plate already.

Nothing makes a Syrian more important than a refugee from elsewhere in the world and if they are genuinely seeking asylum they can do it in the way the Dublin agreement and the UN have set out.

The nearest safe country! That isn't Europe and it certainly isn't passing every country in Europe to get here.

I'd rather look after our own people first


Posted from TSR Mobile


The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
They're already at full capacity.
Original post by WoodyMKC
That's debatable. Totally different economic and housing situation between both nations. Not saying we absolutely won't manage it, but considering it's not really going to solve the situation it's not worth putting such a strain on the country's resources for and the UK isn't a socialist nation. If all commonwealth countries could hypothetically come to an agreement on which country gets so-and-so number of refugees with a view to take in all refugees and eradicate the problem, then it'd be worth it.


Isn't that what we're trying to do?
Original post by cbreef
The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
They're already at full capacity.


Turkey isn't and their other neighbours in the gulf have taken zero


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by cbreef
The nearest safe countries have taken the vast majority of them ie Jordan, Lebanon etc.
They're already at full capacity.


No neighbouring country is so small they could not take the whole population if given the necessary support, most middle eastern countries are large enough to be able to take the whole population of the region, although the desalination equipment would require a lot of power.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Turkey isn't and their other neighbours in the gulf have taken zero
Posted from TSR Mobile

True, but isn't much we can do about that. Lebanon, Jordan and the like have taken something like 4 million refugees over the past 2 years. Puts us to shame
Original post by cbreef
. Puts us to shame


Ill-informed nonsense! Britain has contributed more than any other country except the US, and almost as much as the EU commission (which gets money from Britain anyway).

Taking people in is only one way of helping, and the close countries would not be able to help without British aid.

https://fullfact.org/news/uk-aid-syria/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/increasing-humanitarian-aid-to-syria-will-stop-refugees-travelling-to-europe-david-cameron-says-a6852941.html
Original post by Good bloke
Ill-informed nonsense! Britain has contributed more than any other country except the US, and almost as much as the EU commission (which gets money from Britain anyway).

Taking people in is only one way of helping, and the close countries would not be able to help without British aid.

https://fullfact.org/news/uk-aid-syria/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/increasing-humanitarian-aid-to-syria-will-stop-refugees-travelling-to-europe-david-cameron-says-a6852941.html


I am perfectly aware of our abnormally high foreign aid budget, but 20,000 refugees is pathetic.
Original post by cbreef
Isn't that what we're trying to do?


That's the idea that's been floating about. Whether or not it actually happens is a totally different story of course, most likely won't.
Original post by Eulers_
Clearly that is what the rebels were trying to do (implementing a sensible government), and look what happened. Its not Islamist or tribal regimes, its dictators who want to retain power. And now its a 5- way proxy war with no hope of dissolution.


What do you define as sensible? The rebels are not exactly warriors for peace now are they.Pretty sure one of them was filmed commiting cannabalism.The truth is there are no good choices in syria.Either you support assad and he commits attrocities against civilians.Or you support these rebel groups.You arm them with weapons.Eventually one of these weapons is 'accidentally' used to blow up a plane full of tourists.No good choices there.
Reply 76
Avatar for Eulers_
Eulers_
2
Original post by Robby2312
What do you define as sensible? The rebels are not exactly warriors for peace now are they.Pretty sure one of them was filmed commiting cannabalism.The truth is there are no good choices in syria.Either you support assad and he commits attrocities against civilians.Or you support these rebel groups.You arm them with weapons.Eventually one of these weapons is 'accidentally' used to blow up a plane full of tourists.No good choices there.


I was using the word 'sensible' from the person I was quoting in the first place
Original post by cbreef
We are EASILY capable of taking at least 50,000. If Germany can take a million, we can easily manage 1\20th of that.


Germany took a million and they have had 3 terror attacks and nearly 1000 sexual assaults in colgne since then.It would be stupid to do the same thing they did.
Original post by Robby2312
Germany took a million and they have had 3 terror attacks and nearly 1000 sexual assaults in colgne since then.It would be stupid to do the same thing they did.


That's a secondary issue making the case for not taking them in stronger.

All the primary issues I mentioned earlier are enough not to take any


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Robby2312
Germany took a million and they have had 3 terror attacks and nearly 1000 sexual assaults in colgne since then.It would be stupid to do the same thing they did.

When did I say that we should do a Germany and take 1 million people in a year?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you