ForumGarden

The US and UK seems against Intervention.

What do you think ?

oscar;1395820 wrote: The US and UK seems against Intervention.

What do you think ?


Should we have intervened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? I do not believe so.

Should we intervene in Syria? I do not believe so.

Having said that, we are being fed those facts that tell the story we're meant to hear. We certainly do not know the whys and wherefores of the problem.

Who are the rebels that the government is fighting against? Who is organising the insurgency?

Sounds very different to the Government are shelling their own civilians but it is the same story in different words, the same as the stories that came out of Libya where the "civilians" turned out to be Al-Qaeda and the organisers turned out to be Nato - the same stories that came out of Iraq where the WMD turned out to be mirages and the suppliers of the chemical weapons turned out to be us.



What will happen if we go in with all guns blazing? Another country radicalised for generations and hating the West - to what benefit?



Should we intervene in Syria? I do not believe so.

Yeah. What he said.

I think that we have meddled quite enough, for now.

Remind me again what the purpose of the United Nations is?

Meddling has never turned out well.

Does "intervene" necessarily mean the use of military force?

along-for-the-ride;1395834 wrote: Does "intervene" necessarily mean the use of military force?


That's an interesting point. The "revolution" in Egypt was primarily powered by cell phones. It would be possible to send in thousands of phones and some suitcase-sized WiFi hotspots to connect them. That would be an interesting approach to letting the people decide.

oscar;1395820 wrote: The US and UK seems against Intervention.

What do you think ?I don't own a gun so I'm not "intervening" anywhere.

NO. Syria isn't in our back yard. Maybe obama will handle it with drones. He seems quite fond of droning on and on.

hoppy;1395861 wrote: NO. Syria isn't in our back yard. Maybe obama will handle it with drones. He seems quite fond of droning on and on.


Great to see you :-6:-6:-6

Hi Oscar. Good to see you still here too.

I hope it is the Syrian people, not anyone else, who will eventually draw & quarter Assad as well as his wife. These despicable people, who have lived their entire lives in the west, deserve no less punishment.

Bryn Mawr;1395824 wrote: Who are the rebels that the government is fighting against? Who is organising the insurgency?Yesterday's Guardian has a fine well-sourced background piece on why people are dying in Syria and who's responsible for the deaths. Why anyone should want to "draw & quarter Assad as well as his wife" baffles me, it's like watching the two-minute hate in 1984.

spot;1398770 wrote: Yesterday's Guardian has a fine well-sourced background piece on why people are dying in Syria and who's responsible for the deaths. Why anyone should want to "draw & quarter Assad as well as his wife" baffles me, it's like watching the two-minute hate in 1984.
What is the 2 minute hate in '84? If Syrians (not me but Syrians) feel the Assads are guilty of murdering them, showing no mercy, then I have no problem with them seeking any revenge they feel fits the crime. I will read the article you referred to above, haven't gotten a chance yet, thanks.

url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... he-talking

Why does the link not show up in your post?

AnneBoleyn;1398773 wrote: Why does the link not show up in your post?Maybe your browser settings are non-standard. On mine, both "Guardian" and "2 minute hate" show and work as hyperlinks and both go to the appropriate sites.

AnneBoleyn;1398773 wrote: If Syrians (not me but Syrians) feel the Assads are guilty of murdering them, showing no mercy, then I have no problem with them seeking any revenge they feel fits the crime.Presumably you accept that not all Syrians have that attitude? That there's a tribal and religious division in the country? That the Syrian administration is secular, and the opposition is a coalition of religious and tribal interests funded by pro-Israeli Western governments? And that without the Western backing, the opposition wouldn't have even started this uprising?

spot;1398776 wrote: Presumably you accept that not all Syrians have that attitude? That there's a tribal and religious division in the country? That the Syrian administration is secular, and the opposition is a coalition of religious and tribal interests funded by pro-Israeli Western governments? And that without the Western backing, the opposition wouldn't have even started this uprising?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Pro-Israel is fine by me. I'm generally pro-Israel.

I see you meant 2-minute hate from the Book, 1984. Ok, I get the reference now.

AnneBoleyn;1398777 wrote: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.So if *some* "Syrians (not me but Syrians) feel the Assads are guilty of murdering them, showing no mercy, then I have no problem with them seeking any revenge they feel fits the crime". So, what tips your balance toward this barbaric "draw & quarter Assad as well as his wife"? 10% of Syrians supporting the opposition? 20%? 50%? 90%? If the proportion's too low, would you drop the barbarism?

Pro-Israel is fine by me. I'm generally pro-Israel.People used to be pro-Apartheid-South-Africa too. I find it difficult to see how condemning the latter doesn't involve condemning the former on exactly the same grounds.

Politically America and the UK are both deep in it and further involvement is inevitable if not already going on, this is very likely. The Wests objective in Syria is to install a dictator that is obedient to western interests and it will be done one way or another. If anyone in London or DC gave a damn about the Syrian people neither Qatar or Saudi Arabia would be allowed to arm the terrorists.