[rexdanraj]

Why not simply let those Arabs kill each other? Why is it our affair exactly?

[bytail]

The leaders in Syria support terrorism against the US/Europe, from what I understand.

ETA: This website makes some interesting points.

[arnoob]

(Original post by bytail)
The leaders in Syria support terrorism against the US/Europe, from what I understand.

Not at all. That was in Libya. Assad was a doctor in England and his wife was brought up here. The Assad family still has ties with this country, I don't see how they support terrorism against the UK.

[zaliack]

Because it is currently in a humanitarian crisis, and we want to help them, just like we would if there was a major natural disaster somewhere else. Of course, then you'd ask why are we focusing on Syria, and not the hundreds of other states in similar situations... and the only plausible answer I can give is that Syria is getting a lot more media attention due to it being part of the "arab spring" and because the Assad family has links with Britain.

[bytail]

(Original post by arnoob)
Not at all. That was in Libya. Assad was a doctor in England and his wife was brought up here. The Assad family still has ties with this country, I don't see how they support terrorism against the UK.

Apologies, I was referring to Ahmad Hassoun:

Hassoun is considered to be a firm ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad. In response to a perceived threat of NATO intervention, Hassoun is reported to have threatened retaliation through suicide bombings in the US and EU.

[arnoob]

(Original post by bytail)
Apologies, I was referring to Ahmad Hassoun:

Oh I see, I have never heard of him. But I just read up on him, he threatened these suicide attacks if Syria is attacked by the west. Surely if the west wanted to prevent this they wouldn't want to intervene though ...

[bytail]

(Original post by arnoob)
Oh I see, I have never heard of him. But I just read up on him, he threatened these suicide attacks if Syria is attacked by the west. Surely if the west wanted to prevent this they wouldn't want to intervene though ...

Syria would be a very good country for the US to have strong political ties to, due to it being close to Iran, Russia and China. If they/we invade, it puts the west in a much stronger position on the world stage. Problem is that Syria has a fairly strong military and government (compared with Libya, for example) as well as the support of Russia and Iran.

[arnoob]

(Original post by bytail)
Syria would be a very good country for the US to have strong political ties to, due to it being close to Iran, Russia and China. If they/we invade, it puts the west in a much stronger position on the world stage.

That's the thing with the US, a lot of the things they want is for their own interests in the name of justice -.- Do you really think Iran, Russia or China would want to invade us, for a while at least?

[bytail]

(Original post by arnoob)
That's the thing with the US, a lot of the things they want is for their own interests in the name of justice -.- Do you really think Iran, Russia or China would want to invade us, for a while at least?

Same with any country Why do you think we support America? It's not because we think they're lovely people doing the right thing by the world.

If any of the superpowers attempted to go to war, it would end with a lot of nuclear missiles being deployed. Depends whether anyone is stupid enough to begin WW3 I guess.

[Some random guy]

The Cold War never ended. Syria is just a new theatre.

[Annoying-Mouse]

There's X being physically bullied by Y. X is 5'6 160 pounds and not athletic. Y is 6'0 200 pounds and athletic. You're 6'4 220 and a amateur boxer. Your moral view is that you have a obligation to help others. There's something in need of help thus you help them.

The war in Syria isn't the UK's business just like the genocide in Rwanda wasn't the UK's business or like any of the suffering of non-British people isn't the UK's business. However, you're trying to state that not my business = no need for involvement. But, this doesn't logically follow. If we do accept this premise, then what's the need for the government to help the disabled? Or underclass? Why not allow everybody to fend for themselves because after all their welfare isn't any of our business's, right?

I'm not saying I agree with an intervention, I don't. However, the argument against an intervention based on the fact that it isn't directly concerning us is weak. You should instead be thinking about the effects of an intervention for the United Kingdom and Syria and whether a positive or negative outcome is likely. This is what Hague and military generals are currently doing. Then, they act based on that. As I said earlier, the reasons for even bothering to consider an intervention is based on the moral opinion of helping others when in need when you're capable. It's now only a question of capability.

[NietzschanGuy]

While I suspect the phrasing of the OP implies other reasons for non-involvement besides apathy, nonetheless I am inclined to agree. It is not our place or indeed in our interests or capabilities to end every civil war that occurs, and our track record for intervention on one side of a civil war is not especially convincing material that intervention does anything more than accelerate the death toll. Syria is unlikely to survive this conflict whole and in any way 'democratic' whether Assad is gone or not, and I find myself therefore unmoved by the arguments of any of the groups that they are the 'legitimate' freedom fighters, especially given the fact they already have started to split into factions and show signs of turning on each other.

What has happened in Syria is horrible, but it is a crisis entirely of the making of both the regime and the factions of rebels that cannot and will not work together if they achieve their aims. I see no means for negotiated solutions, and frankly see little possibility of any kind of democracy emerging from this, so to be quite honest, I'd just let this particular train wreck play out, rather than stand in front of it with my arms splayed.

[rawkus]

(Original post by bytail)
The leaders in Syria support terrorism against the US/Europe, from what I understand.

ETA: This website makes some interesting points.

It makes some terrible, distorted and sometimes plain untrue points. Syria supports North Korea with nuclear arms? Highly toxic to freedom and democracy?! Hmm lets compare Syria's external interventions and America's dabbling in other sovereign nations since the 1960s and see who has really been more prominent in repressing popular will. Mubarek was encouraged to resign only after his position became beyond untenable. If America really cared about democracy and freedom why did they prop him up for several decades?! As for 6, is this real? South American terrorists have been given asylum in the US and for decades it has supported terrorism in states where they do not have the leaders under their thumb.

I really cba to go through all of the points but nearly every single one has something wrong with them. There are perhaps some valid reasons to do something in Syria that withstand even the most sceptical persons scrutiny, but that list is treating those that read it as retards.

[Studentus-anonymous]

(Original post by bytail)
The leaders in Syria support terrorism against the US/Europe, from what I understand.

ETA: This website makes some interesting points.

What a coincidence, so do the Islamists in the Syrian rebel movement.


I agree with the OP's sentiment, minus the racist statement.

[VeniViciVidi]

I'd say the time is now when it becomes part of our security interests. The reason is thus, it is well documented the stockpiles of WMD chemical and biological weaponry that Syria possesses. The Assad regime has shown no gains, only fall backs and it's appropriate to assume that in the coming month or two, the regime will be ousted. So, during this time when there's no clear mandate of who controls the armed forces and the security apparatus, Syria will turn into a power vacuum with little protection (or inadequate) of its VX/Sarin nerve gas storages. Now, the prospect of a Takfiri ideological group (al-Qaeda, for example) in acquiring and possessing these weapons is a major concern of not just national security, but human security of the NATO affiliated states.

This doesn't mean I'm advocating a full occupation force (that maybe worse, it's hard to calculate the response of the Syrian people to a NATO spearheaded security force) but it would be sensible, reasonable and appropriate to have a strategy in acquiring and neutralizing the Syrian WMD capability through means of special forces married with SIS operatives in Syria. So, to say it isn't any of the UK business at this point is void. The Syrian self-determination is not our business, but the accessibility to weapons of mass destruction that could fall to a Takfiri group is. Or any other group for that matter.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Some random guy)
The Cold War never ended. Syria is just a new theatre.

I meant to give you +rep there. Sorry.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I meant to give you +rep there. Sorry.

It isn't worth anything anyway, a bit like your kooky theories.

The situation in Syria is no less of a concern to us than the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.

[Ps3SuperSRG]

Britain only gets involved if there is a potential profit of doing so...or when the US tells them to.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

[Hewitt]

(Original post by rexdanraj)
Why not simply let those Arabs kill each other? Why is it our affair exactly?

It is our business because we have a conscience and do not revel in the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered in their thousands every day, and that we have the ability to help if not to put a stop to it.

[Humbert Humbert]

The British government would happily escalate the violence if it thought this would result in a favorable outcome to it, the U.S and business interests, whatever the cost to Syrians and the rest of the world. You and I have no agent through which to stop the violence. It's not really a case of minding 'our' own business or not. We shouldn't ask questions from the perspective of our mafia government.