Is the UK disgraced for abandoning Syria?

Watch
petershrew
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
I am of the opinion that the UK should be ashamed for abandoning Syria when over 100,000 people have been killed and internationally illegal chemical weapons are clearly being used.


I can't actually believe that we have ruled out military help and are going to sit back and allow Assad to continue doing what he is doing. This article just about sums up my thoughts on it and I'd be grateful if you could help drum up some support if you agree: http://www.moonproject.co.uk/militar...d-shameful-uk/
34
reply
Ben Kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
No, they have done a right choice. Civil wars has happened before and were solved by themselves. Although, you might argue that the stability of the current regime might be better overall for the society.
14
reply
Shabalala
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 8 years ago
#3
so when we do join in with wars these left wing liberals ****s moan and use it as a stick to bash Britain with but now that we don't go to war we get critisised by them aswell. The Rebels are as bad as Assad the only difference is they would be a threat to the UK seeing as they back Islamic terrorism where as Assad keeps himself to himself. So the Syrians can carry on murdering their own people I couldn't give a **** it's not our problem.
13
reply
Amelia-Babe
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 8 years ago
#4
yeah they should be. the syrian government is clearly using illegal chemical weapons. he's worse than saddam and any other terrorist they went after.

but oh yeah Syria isn't loaded with oil? So why would they invade and help civilians if it doesn't benefit them..

heartless *******s.
16
reply
CJKay
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 8 years ago
#5
No. By leaving Syria we risk the lives of many Syrians, but by joining in we risk the lives of many, many more, and completely abandon our safety at home and across Europe.
Both the rebels and the regime see us only as western puppets. By siding with one of them we would be doing nothing more than deciding our fate.
1
reply
smd4std
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 8 years ago
#6
both sides are ****. just wait till they get bored of killing each other.
3
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 8 years ago
#7
Of course we shouldn't, this is by far the best choice.

Sadly, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we interfere then we're the same old meddling West, only in it for our own aims. If we do nothing we're the same old heartless West, not doing anything because it doesn't suit our agenda. Well nipples to that!

Let's stay out, civil wars happen all the time, this isn't our fight. How often do we hear that the rest of the world doesn't want us playing world police? Well fine then, we wont. I'm more than happy to only intervene when it suits our interests. If we are to intervene then it should be on the same level as Libya, and on our own terms. Under no circumstances should we end up with another Iraq or Afghanistan on our hands. Personally, I believe the rebels to be as bad as Assad and I am highly skeptical of the narrative we're seeing about the Assad regime and it's supposed chemical weapons use.

This isn't our fight. And yet the US and UK will be blamed for the deaths if we don't get involved and we'll be blamed if we do. The difference is we don't incur any cost to ourselves if we don't get involved, so let's allow the Syrians to have their civil war and simply deal with the victors.
12
reply
Rhys93
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 8 years ago
#8
(Original post by petershrew)
I am of the opinion that the UK should be ashamed for abandoning Syria when over 100,000 people have been killed and internationally illegal chemical weapons are clearly being used.


I can't actually believe that we have ruled out military help and are going to sit back and allow Assad to continue doing what he is doing. This article just about sums up my thoughts on it and I'd be grateful if you could help drum up some support if you agree: http://www.moonproject.co.uk/militar...d-shameful-uk/

Did you feel the UK should be ashamed at any point over the past two years when the civilians were getting killed by bullets and bombs?

What about when we stood idly by while MILLIONS of people were being slaughtered with machetes and gardening tools in Rwanda and Uganda?

Do you feel the UK should be ashamed that it is not helping the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in modern day work/death camps in North Korea?
1
reply
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 8 years ago
#9
We shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, we shouldn't have gone to Libya. The UK disgraced itself 10 years ago, now a decade on it seems to have learned its lesson.

I really think that the world must have gone to the dogs, when someone can say in all honesty that by not bombarding a sovereign state with missiles for no reason other than to make a political point, we are 'abandoning' them.
6
reply
Niassuh
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 8 years ago
#10
No definitely not, I was so grateful when I read that the UK would be staying out of it. Now it's just good old uncle Sam to contend with. Sure there are some people who advocate invasion because of genuine humanitarian concerns, but many show that they are not genuine by ignoring atrocities elsewhere. I think many are parroting military invasion because they want to be able to pat themselves on the back and say "Look! We did something!" rather than care for the plight of the Syrian people.
Glad to see the UK has learnt a lesson, or maybe it's just the recession.
0
reply
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 8 years ago
#11
not at all, parliament has voted with the will of the people of the UK behind them to avoid military action, the government has support for diplomatic action and it continues to support humanitarian efforts in the region (aid to refugee camps and such), this is what should be done, our military intervention would only make things worse not better.
1
reply
Pegasus2
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 8 years ago
#12
No, I think we made the right choice.

There is insufficient evidence if a chemical attack occured and even if it did we don't know who did it.

I also don't really see the US as an ally. America only cares about itself, so i'm glad we're not going along with them.

It's their country, infact it is their bloc, we have no right to be there or intervene in any way. We are not the world's police, it's not our job and we shouden't stick our nose where it doesn't belong. If UK interests or territory were being affected, yes, but it's not. We don't have the rescources to spend there anyway. Also, the FSA is no longer the shining becon of the Syrian people it once was.

I also get the feeling a lot of the UK pop doesn't want to go into Syria, especially since the 2003 Afgan/Iraq wars of Mr Bush and Mr Blair. So I'm glad that parliment has reflected this.


You'll be happy to know the UK is one of the top 5 countries for aid donation in the world.
0
reply
JSM1995
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 8 years ago
#13
Nope. We shouldn't get involved in other countries' civil wars. We certainly shouldn't go in all guns blazing without waiting for UN inspectors to give their verdict, as William Hague is suggesting we do. We don't want another Iraq war.
0
reply
hajinator
Badges: 10
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 8 years ago
#14
(Original post by Amelia-Babe)
yeah they should be. the syrian government is clearly using illegal chemical weapons. he's worse than saddam and any other terrorist they went after.

but oh yeah Syria isn't loaded with oil? So why would they invade and help civilians if it doesn't benefit them..

heartless *******s.
Saddam wasn't even a terrorist, he was a dictator. There's a huge difference, even if he murdered his own people.
0
reply
User990473
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 8 years ago
#15
I am in the somewhat unfavorable position of invading and taking out the regime. I don't like Assad one bit.
0
reply
username1204031
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 8 years ago
#16
Let's stay out, civil wars happen all the time, this isn't our fight. How often do we hear that the rest of the world doesn't want us playing world police?
When it's civilians being attacked with chemical weapons, I think they want the world police right now.

I despise this country. People complain about our soldiers dying in wars, but the sad reality is very few actually die, and it's what the signed up for. There'd be a much greater loss of life if we intervened. But British people aren't dying, so it's okay.

not at all, parliament has voted with the will of the people of the UK behind them to avoid military action
You say that as if the will of the people of the UK, who for the most part know nothing about politics and don't give a **** about anyone but themselves, is meaningful.
0
reply
RocaBear
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 8 years ago
#17
No, there's an old saying "fool me once, shame on you;fool me twice, shame on me"- and it seems that the british people aren't falling for another shady civil war where we go in all guns blazing playing the goodies and taking out the baddies.

The problems in the middle-east aren't AT ALL clear-cut and there is no right way to approach it. Both sides ,the rebels and assad's army, have their shady generals.

Any sort of war is totally unjustified, if it's a case of chemical weapons then how was israel allowed to use white phosphorus on civilians? Or America engage napalm strikes during the vietnam wars? Or how about the atomic bomb on nagasaki and hiroshima?
0
reply
username1204031
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 8 years ago
#18
Falling for another shady civil war? The UN is conducting it's own tests, and no action was to be taken until after they're done. There's proof of what's being done. Chemical weapons being used on defenseless civilians. Do you really, really fail to see the severity of that?

if it's a case of chemical weapons then how was israel allowed to use white phosphorus on civilians? Or America engage napalm strikes during the vietnam wars? Or how about the atomic bomb on nagasaki and hiroshima?
Because it happened in the past, we should let it keep happening. Right.
0
reply
Prince Vultan
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 8 years ago
#19
No. If we go in with the military, then we're going to kill people. If we kill people, that person's friends/relatives will be mightily pissed off at Britain killing one of their own, and they'll want revenge somewhere down the line. Who would offer a chance to avenge the death of their friend? Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Nothing good has ever come out of going into Afghanistan or Iraq, has it?

People hate America because of it's desire to meddle where it isn't wanted, they hate Britain because we're America's ***** and people in Syria will probably be worse off under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. It's best to leave it.

That said, I don't like it, and I don't like the idea of letting him get away with using chemical weapons. It's just not in Britain's best interests to get involved when it hasn't gone the way we hoped in Iraq or Afghanistan and going 'oh well, third time's the charm' is probably the worst strategy we could go for to offer stability in that region.
0
reply
Valentas
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 8 years ago
#20
Considering that 11 % support intervention, you should sit tight and solve your country's problems. Oposition is simply trying to take out Cameron's head from Obama's arse. It's a honorable thing to do.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever considered or are you currently considering an apprenticeship?

Yes, I am actively considering an apprenticeship (66)
12.29%
I am actively considering an alternative to uni that isn't an apprenticeship (9)
1.68%
I have considered an apprenticeship but it's not for me (140)
26.07%
I am considering a degree apprenticeship (44)
8.19%
I haven't considered an apprenticeship (260)
48.42%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (18)
3.35%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

Oops, nobody has posted
in the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

Start new discussion

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise