Syria?

[Paul22118]

We all know the perils of intervention in another Country that is failing it's citizens. Look no further than Iraq to see my point. However, should we, can we stand by and allow Assad to slaughter Syrians in the way government forces are doing, verified thanks to modern visual technology, or should we charge in and sort him out.
The problems of Russia and China not suppoting the West are an issue and Syria is no Libya so it will be an uphill struggle without solidarity. It grieved me to see children's bodie torn up by flak and bullets on the tv last n ight.

So. Whats to do??

[piggynose]

has syria got oil?
no, then who is going to care?
thats the state of things these days.
isnt it very sad

[Brenden]

We will be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Gromit]

The Syrian rebels are being financed by Saudia Arabia and Qatar which is how they can afford anti-Tank weaponry and why the Syrian Army brutally retaliates. Saudi does not have a great reputation on democracy and freedom so what we will end up with if they rebels win will probably be as bad as Assad's regime. We could have had an influence on this if we had wanted to a year ago. Instead Obama has chosen to sit this one out. They will be assisting by running arms through their airbase in Turkey, but the political will is not really there.
So, in answer to the question, we can do nothing.

[MoonRocker]

The problem here is that Assad has the support of Russia and China, not a clue why but he has. Very little can be done here without general cooperation from the US, China and Russia. We should stay well out of it.

[jake-the-peg]

We got agreement to protect civillians in Libya

We interpreted that as a green light to launch airborne attacks on the existing regieme.

And you wonder why the Russians and the Chinese aren't supporting the West?

[ludwig]

// We interpreted that as a green light to launch airborne attacks on the existing regieme. //

Well yes. That was the best way of protecting the civilians.

[modeller]

This a case where no one can directly intervene , which includes the Russians, without turning it into a major war.

[MoonRocker]

No jake I'm wondering why they are supporting Assad.

[emmie]

Nothing, we should stay out at all costs. We will be damned if we do, just like other interventions in foreign ports.

[youngmafbog]

Oil has nothing to do with it, this is a very differnt conflict.

We should stay well out of it.

[Gromit]

Russia has a Naval base in Syria for its Black Sea Fleet, its only one on the Mediterranean and therefore of great strategic importance to Russia. The last thing they want is a Saudi Arabian controlled puppet running the country. Or an Islamic state like Iran. Or a Western backed puppet like we have installed in Afghanistan.
The Status Quo suits Russia and so they support Assad.

[jake-the-peg]

The Russians are supporting Assad because they have a Naval base in Sria and because the don't trust the West.

And Ludwig, that's a pretty disingenuous response

There is no way that attacking the command and control of one side in a conflict can be called protecting civillians.

The premise was one of neutrality which was not what happened.

[ludwig]

// There is no way that attacking the command and control of one side in a conflict can be called protecting civillians. //

I disagree jake. It was one way traffic - the civilians were all being attacked by the regime. The only way of protecting the civilians was to neutralise the regime's ability to attack them. What else could they have done that didn't involve attacking Gaddafis forces? Put troops in on the ground to form a human shield?

[pdq1]

Dictators know that if they give in their heads are for the chop. Egypt and Libya are prime examples. Syria is threatening to release chemical weapons on its enemies.

What hope have we got now for Iran to stop producing nuclear weapons? Without them the West will trample all over him but will provide him with more security so why should they be given up.

[ichkeria]

The reason Russia doesn't support the UN on Syria has nothing whatever to do with moral principle. But the fact that they have pursued this course of action has emboldened the child murderers of Assad's cohorts and made a peaceful resolution impossible.
Intervention is not an option but the only reason it is being considered is because compassionate and well-meaning people feel something should be done.

[jake-the-peg]

You don't get it do you Ludwig?

We went in there with a specific mandate and then ignored that and did what we wanted.

Nobody in the Arab league voted for us to attack the regieme there - we just ignored their wishes - it was incredibly arrogant


Now we have no credibility with the Arab states

Tell you what - shall we ask them if they want us to "Protect civillians" again?

[argorstran]

Ludwig you are very wrong if you think that the massacres are only being carried out by the Syrian army . The terrorists of the "Free Syrian Army" are carrying out just as many massacres .
Moonrocker it's interesting that you chose to phrase your reply as "Assad has the support of Russia and China " instead of "the terrorist Free Syrian Army does not have the support of Russia and China ".
Ichkeria you conveniently neglect to mention that not only Russia but also China prevented the UN from adopting an anti-Syrian position (and by the way how many children were killed by the massive NATO bombardment of Iraq?)
As for who the "Free Syrian Army" are , here's an interesting link - not objective - it's from Iranian Press tv - but it's interesting and its also interesting to scroll down to the comments to get a different perspective ;
http://www.presstv.ir...n-syrian-terror-gang/

[ludwig]

// Ludwig you are very wrong if you think that the massacres are only being carried out by the Syrian army . //

argorstran - jake and I are having a little side discussion about Libya. I realise Syria is a completely different situation.

// Nobody in the Arab league voted for us to attack the regieme there - we just ignored their wishes - it was incredibly arrogant //

Yes they did. Everyone knew perfectly well what they were voting for. Gaddafi had to go so the killing could stop.
Anyway, you didn't answer the question - What else could they have done to protect civilians that didn't involve attacking Gaddafis forces?