Turn on thread page Beta

Syria conflict megathread watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the UK intervene militarily in Syria
    Yes- it is our duty
    78
    21.91%
    No- leave them to it none of our business
    278
    78.09%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Please post all news, updates, developments and discussion relating to the conflict in Syria and the wider international implications in this thread. Thank you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ion-over-Syria

    Should the UK intervene militarily in Syria?

    I would answer no
    - we have no evidence there was a chemical attack (david kelly) and even if we assume there was one we have no proof which side was responsible
    -it is not our business to get involved when it does not threaten the UK
    -we have massive debt and cannot afford another war particularly with Russia and Iran opposing it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ion-over-Syria

    Should the UK intervene militarily in Syria?

    I would answer no
    - we have no evidence there was a chemical attack (david kelly) and even if we assume there was one we have no proof which side was responsible
    -it is not our business to get involved when it does not threaten the UK
    -we have massive debt and cannot afford another war particularly with Russia and Iran opposing it
    Has David Kelly said there hasn't been a chemical attack?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I argue continue with diplomacy. It's the only thing we can do that would not make things worse. I think we need a proper chat with Russia, China and Iran, see where our differences lie and come to some sort of negociation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ion-over-Syria

    Should the UK intervene militarily in Syria?

    I would answer no
    - we have no evidence there was a chemical attack (david kelly) and even if we assume there was one we have no proof which side was responsible
    -it is not our business to get involved when it does not threaten the UK
    -we have massive debt and cannot afford another war particularly with Russia and Iran opposing it
    What would your answer be if the chemical attack was confirmed and it was proven that Assad's regime were responsible?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rakusmaximus)
    What would your answer be if the chemical attack was confirmed and it was proven that Assad's regime were responsible?
    My response would be that I could care less. Sorry, but the chemical weapons aren't being used against us and I'd rather keep it that way - by staying out of the region.

    I find it somewhat farcical as well that there is this big hype about chemical weapons - 100,000 die; this is acceptable but as soon as some nerve gas (or whatever) hits the scene - 'Murica is like ':teeth: **** is going down now, prepare the eagle of liberty'

    Name:  3u6wim.jpg
Views: 666
Size:  17.3 KB
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gagaslilmonsteruk)
    I argue continue with diplomacy. It's the only thing we can do that would not make things worse. I think we need a proper chat with Russia, China and Iran, see where our differences lie and come to some sort of negociation.
    Russia, and china won't budge because they have very lucrative weapons deals with Syria and they have other political ties in the area, among other reasons
    Iran won't budge because Syria is one of its few and key allies in the area.

    Whilst people are trying to start an Iraq/Libya/Vietnam style confrontation ( none of which have been successful and have only succeeded in further destabilizing the countries, at least some have the sense to deny them that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rakusmaximus)
    What would your answer be if the chemical attack was confirmed and it was proven that Assad's regime were responsible?
    I still think it would be risky. Russia and China are supporting them, not forgetting Iran and in the end the problem could be exacerbated if there was a military intervention. Needless to say, Russia have also made the valid point that the opposition are divided. Remember the Soviet/Afghanistan proxy war of the 80s? Al Qaeda were, if I remember rightly, backed by the west ... then look what happened 10 years after the end of that war - 9/11, US invasion of Afghanistan, Removal of Saddam Hussein, (even the Iran-Iraq war was to an extent a potential cold war flashpoint). It's why it confuses me that there is some support for their Syria branch at the moment. Not forgetting other religious groups. If Assad is removed, and there is no international retaliation or worsening of relations, don't think we're out of the woods with Syria, because that will just be one group of many removed and the civil war will continue.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They're not a threat to us like we thought Libya or Iraq were. We shouldn't be throwing money around sorting out other people's problems. We aren't the global policeman anymore.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Intervening in the Middle East would just bring a whole host of other problems, as it has done every single time the West has been involved.
    I'd rather see the situation in Afghanistan getting wrapped up rather than starting another war we can't actually afford to fight and doesn't really involve us. Western nations really need to stop giving the Middle East reasons to be hostile... and I can't help but feel wary about Syria when it borders with Israel
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure about this. Russia and China will not allow a resolution through that supports intervention, so the only other way is for NATO to intervene. This route could have other problems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    I'm not sure about this. Russia and China will not allow a resolution through that supports intervention, so the only other way is for NATO to intervene. This route could have other problems.
    Well the Syrians have shelled Turkish military positions over the border as well as shooting down a Turkish Aircraft.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    We're between a rock and a hard place.

    I say no. But there will be plenty of (usually, but not universally) left wingers* who'll be outraged that we're not intervening. But then, they'd be the same people who'd be outraged if we did intervene.

    This is one of those scenarios that we simply cannot win.





    *I guess I'm implying more the leftie liberal humanitarian types who, while noble in their aims, tend to get a bit overenthusiastic. A specific type of left, not the generic left, hence the "usually but not universally" comment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    We're between a rock and a hard place.

    I say no. But there will be plenty of (usually, but not universally) left wingers who'll be outraged that we're not intervening. But then, they'd be the same people who'd be outraged if we did intervene.

    This is one of those scenarios that we simply cannot win.
    I think you've just nailed it with that post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, not our problem, not our land, not our people.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it even a question? Of course we bally shouldn't. It's their problem, we shouldn't make it ours too.

    To those who think 'we' should get involved, would you step forward if there was a kind of voluntary conscription called?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    At the moment, I'm saying no. Not because it's none of our business or that it doesn't affect us - I think these are terrible attitudes to take - I just don't see how intervening would improve the situation. But it also depends what you mean by 'intervening'. I'd say a definite no to British soldiers becoming involved on Syrian soil, and firing missiles at Syrian targets just to prove a point won't get us anywhere. I'd potentially support a No Fly Zone, as this could make a difference by reducing the government's capabilities to conduct air raids, but is still a highly risky option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    We're between a rock and a hard place.

    I say no. But there will be plenty of (usually, but not universally) left wingers who'll be outraged that we're not intervening. But then, they'd be the same people who'd be outraged if we did intervene.

    This is one of those scenarios that we simply cannot win.
    I doubt it will be lefties that want intervention, they are already out in force saying don't intervene just like they say don't intervene in Iran if they are developing nukes etc.

    It's usually the right wing neo-cons that demand intervention but actually this time even they do not appear massively keen on it.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.