Shopping & Style3 mins ago
How should the British Government react to Syrian Atrocities?
Following the unbelievable atrocities in Syria, where government forces have brutally murdered around 90 people, among them over 30 children under 10 yrs of age, cutting their throats etc, how do you think the British government should react to this? What would you like to see put in place in response to what Assad has had done there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Carakeel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is just how I feel about it. We have enough problems that need addressing in our own country and I feel the government should be taking the very serious problems we have here and spending the tax payers money on fixing them! They do not seem to be bothered that iit seems we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate, the highest teenage drug abuse rate, the highest teenage alcolhol abuse rate in Europe, nor that we are failing our elderly, our schools, our hospitals, our nurses, have huge problems re imigrants ....the list is just so long!!! We could put this country right if we stopped sending millions and millions of tax payers' £ out of the country to foreign countries who's politicians cannot be bothered to help their own people! I'll stop now, as otherwise this will turn into a rant ... I can only hope that the powers that be do not even consider meddling in the Syrians' affairs!
one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
except that the collateral damage is in an entirely different league, is the situation in syria any different to the campaign waged by republicans against the UK in Ulster?
how would the UK government have reacted to outside military intervention in Ulster, from wherever it originated?
except that the collateral damage is in an entirely different league, is the situation in syria any different to the campaign waged by republicans against the UK in Ulster?
how would the UK government have reacted to outside military intervention in Ulster, from wherever it originated?
thought Blair was sorting out the Middle East, terrible things happening but it's the UN's role to sort these things out, let the UN get on with it, we've got enough on out plate. It's about time some other countries contributed more to these situations...some of our European neighbours come to mind.
The African spring has a lot to answer for. The peoples are led to believe if enough of you take arms you can get rid of the present government and execute those in control. With Assad and his back to the wall he kinows if he is overthrown he not only loses his power his head is also likeley for the chop.
So what man faced with this dilemma would try to put down any uprising inspired by Western governments who give the rebels the arms and ammunition they need.
This is a problem of our own making and the sooner we butt out from getting involved in foreign conflicts the more peace we would have in the world.
So what man faced with this dilemma would try to put down any uprising inspired by Western governments who give the rebels the arms and ammunition they need.
This is a problem of our own making and the sooner we butt out from getting involved in foreign conflicts the more peace we would have in the world.
if we interfere on humanitarian grounds, essentially a good thing, how will that go down with President Assad, and then Iran, Russia etc. If we stay out of it which is my first reaction that looks like we don't care. However every time we intervene, or get involved in matters that have absolutely nothing to do with us, then we are called western imperialists, infidels. Shouldn't this be a matter for the United Nations to sort out.
We are, like it or not, already "intervening" in the form of diplomatic pressure and as part of a UN-inspired, though probably doomed, "peace initiative".
The current strategy seems to be to put pressure on the Russian government to stop supporting Assad: were it not for them he'd probably have gone by now, and while that in itself wouldn't solve everything it would help.
No one is talking about military intervention - that would be ridiculous. Sending an army in to do what exactly? But while I was never a great fan of Tony Blair, he brought it home to us all that the modern world is now interconnected on a scale never seen before, through ease of travel and communication. You can't, whatever else you do, ignore events such as those in Syria AND naively suppose that it will not affect us to an extent. It will.
The current strategy seems to be to put pressure on the Russian government to stop supporting Assad: were it not for them he'd probably have gone by now, and while that in itself wouldn't solve everything it would help.
No one is talking about military intervention - that would be ridiculous. Sending an army in to do what exactly? But while I was never a great fan of Tony Blair, he brought it home to us all that the modern world is now interconnected on a scale never seen before, through ease of travel and communication. You can't, whatever else you do, ignore events such as those in Syria AND naively suppose that it will not affect us to an extent. It will.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.