Syria conflict megathread

It occurs to me that racism lies behind the Russian attitude to this. I think they think 'it's just a bunch of Arabs - who cares?'.

Wouldn't surprise me, they've already proved with their policies on homosexuality how culturally primitive the country still is.

I think they should, unfortunately it's the nature of the US to only intervene when there is a potential profit involved, as history has time and time again proved.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 61

SpiggyTopes

14

Original post by Zenomorph

Anyone thinks this is a good idea has either got it wrong or only takes things at face value.

This could well need to WWIII, is that what supporters of the strike want ?

My thoughts exactly. A war with the Syrian government is effectively a war with Russia. Not something I'd like to see!

Reply 62

Wilder Airs

11

I think if the UN finds what it's looking for, and a vote allows people to launch strikes on Syria again, I don't see any reason why they couldn't do the above. Whether that's a good idea, I think we'll have to wait until we have the benefit of hindsight before figuring that one out.

Reply 63

SnoochToTheBooch

17

why is it the job of the US or the UK? It's on the other side of the world. Russia and China are much closer, why isn't it their mess to clean up?

Reply 64

geetar

16

No (I wrote a longer answer about it in another thread).

Reply 65

Arianto

13

If the UN inspectors find that Assad did use chemicals weapons in a big way, then yes.

OP - set up a poll?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 66

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Arianto

If the UN inspectors find that Assad did use chemicals weapons in a big way, then yes.

OP - set up a poll?

I wasn't quite sure yet what to poll on - a simple attack/don't attack seems simplistic, because there are a range of options short of war and a range of military options. I really wanted to see if people think this will escalate if the West DOES decide on military action. There seems to be a threat that Iran will then get stuck in.

Reply 67

Zenomorph

3

Original post by SpiggyTopes

My thoughts exactly. A war with the Syrian government is effectively a war with Russia. Not something I'd like to see!

I really hope it does not happen but if it does Russia will prolly kick US arse and then they will call in more allies, then Russia will get China in and then we Stumphed.

Reply 68

Drewski

19

This thread is basically the same thing.

Personally, I say no. But it's a no win situation. We'll be damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The same people who'd cry out that we must go in to save lives would be the very same people who cry that we should never had intervene if the situation doesn't go how we'd like it.

An attack to take out the chemical weapons and then leave it alone? We could, but what's the point, people are still going to die. Either we stand to stop people from dying - but more people will die in the process, or we say "this isn't our fight".

Reply 69

Kiss

2

No, and if they do then I'll lose all faith in the West.

Reply 70

SpiggyTopes

14

Original post by Zenomorph

I really hope it does not happen but if it does Russia will prolly kick US arse and then they will call in more allies, then Russia will get China in and then we Stumphed.

Surely the USA would win!? Anyway, let's hope it stays hypothetical!

Reply 71

roh

17

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

why is it the job of the US or the UK? It's on the other side of the world. Russia and China are much closer, why isn't it their mess to clean up?

Because from a neocon perspective the US and West, particularly the Anglosphere, generally are protectors of human rights whilst the Russians and Chinese are violators of them.

Or, more realistically in my opinion, yes geographically it should be within the Chinese and Russian sphere of influence, so in order to keep it within theirs the US has to go and bomb somewhere in the area every so often as a reason to maintain a hefty military presence. In terms of American realpolitik regularly bombing the **** out of random parts of the Middle East is the best way of reminding the rest of the world they still rule the roost around there.

Reply 72

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Kiss

No, and if they do then I'll lose all faith in the West.

Why would you 'lose all faith' in the West? You want the West to be the kind of wealthy and powerful people who sit back and do nothing about sadistic tyranny?

Reply 73

Kiss

2

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Why would you 'lose all faith' in the West? You want the West to be the kind of wealthy and powerful people who sit back and do nothing about sadistic tyranny?

I want the West to be the kind of people who won't involve themselves in wars which don't concern them and not try to rule to world.

Reply 74

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by roh

Because from a neocon perspective the US and West, particularly the Anglosphere, generally are protectors of human rights whilst the Russians and Chinese are violators of them.

Or, more realistically in my opinion, yes geographically it should be within the Chinese and Russian sphere of influence, so in order to keep it within theirs the US has to go and bomb somewhere in the area every so often as a reason to maintain a hefty military presence. In terms of American realpolitik regularly bombing the **** out of random parts of the Middle East is the best way of reminding the rest of the world they still rule the roost around there.

I think declaring Syria to be within a supposed Russian 'sphere of influence' is old fashioned, cold war thinking. There is no 'American sphere of influence' - why should there be a Russian one? This kowtows to the bizarre, retrogressive, reactionary Putin approach, which seeks to maintain the illusion of cold war, within which Russia can flout human rights and sell weapons without the threat of UN intervention.

Behind all this, we desperately need reform of the UN, with the ending of the Security Council system, which is looking increasingly morally bankrupt.

Probably not, no.

No, this should not become another iraq or afghanistan. If other countries did intervene and take out assad and his supporters the country would probably be taken over by islamists within a year.

Reply 77

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Kiss

I want the West to be the kind of people who won't involve themselves in wars which don't concern them and not try to rule to world.

Is it about 'ruling the world'? Or is it about caring about what happens to people outside the pampered bubble of the US and Western Europe/Japan?

Reply 78

InnerTemple

20

Original post by MatureStudent36

Has David Kelly said there hasn't been a chemical attack?

David Kelly hasn't said much for quite some time now...

Reply 79

jedot

The uk shouldn't get involved in my opinion. America who is always acting like "the big boss" can deal with it if they really want to. Assad is mental...if we send troops over there, they could send some here if that makes any sense....

Posted from TSR Mobile

Syria conflict megathread

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you