i. The rebels have links with some extremely dodgy groups inc Chechen rebels and Al-Qaeda ii. There's no launch base for intervention. iii. There's very little regional support for intervention. iv. The Syrian rebels are a minority group in comparison to Libya. v. The Syrian army would be a far more formidable foe than the Libyan - no desire by Western governments to risk their own soldiers and air strikes wouldn't be enough.
Oil has nothing to do with this IMO. If it did removing Gadaffi was a terrible idea in the first place, one of the few leaders in that area willing to cosy up with the West.
Oil has nothing to do with this IMO. If it did removing Gadaffi was a terrible idea in the first place, one of the few leaders in that area willing to cosy up with the West.
I think oil played a part in the West's support for Gaddafi's removal. I've not necessarily got a problem with that, the world economy is based on oil, but I should at least be acknowledged. World oil prices rose whilst the conflict was still ongoing. This was damaging, in particular to Western economies struggling their way out of recession. The longer the conflict went on the more damaging that would have been.
Quote by sauzee88ii. There's no launch base for intervention.
What about the United Nations' "responsibility to protect"? Surely this is as appropriate an opportunity as any to intervene.
Where would the invasion be launched from? Syria is in the middle of one of the world's most unstable regions. Chucking a load of foreign troops in would cause mayhem. The UN also has no remit to submit a force into what's ostensibly a civil war between involving a popularly supported government.
Wilson - That's a fair point, but the conflict could have been put down far more quickly if the West had backed Gadaffi up and kept the oil pumping. Either way the situation in Syria is totally different, the media over here has just reduced it down to dictator vs. legitimate rebels.
Quote by Alex DeLargeWhat about the United Nations' "responsibility to protect"? Surely this is as appropriate an opportunity as any to intervene.
That could be said for many countries, though. In fact comparatively in relation to national populous, Bahrain is the largest, most bloody oppression of the, ahem, "Arab Springs", yet David Cameron had the Sheikh over for tea a couple of weeks ago.
Whether the West can effectively intervene is a matter of some debate, but I've very little doubt who my sympathies lie with. The Assad regime are engaged in slaughtering their own civilians. It may be a civil war. The 'rebels' may or may not represent the wider Syrian people. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn what the Syrian govt are up to. I'm not convinced the intelligent UK media has got this wrong.
Quote by sauzee88ii. There's no launch base for intervention.
What about the United Nations' "responsibility to protect"? Surely this is as appropriate an opportunity as any to intervene.
Where would the invasion be launched from? Syria is in the middle of one of the world's most unstable regions. Chucking a load of foreign troops in would cause mayhem. The UN also has no remit to submit a force into what's ostensibly a civil war between involving a popularly supported government.
Whether it is a civil war or not, there are still mass atrocoties going on in the country, from both sides. Therefore the UN should intervene and proect the people of Syria under this "responsibility".
The situation clearly satisfies all of the criteria for military intervention. Sitting back and allowing mass atrocities should not be allowed to happpen in this day and age. Lessons should have been learnt by now.
Quote by Alex DeLargeWhat about the United Nations' "responsibility to protect"? Surely this is as appropriate an opportunity as any to intervene.
That could be said for many countries, though. In fact comparatively in relation to national populous, Bahrain is the largest, most bloody oppression of the, ahem, "Arab Springs", yet David Cameron had the Sheikh over for tea a couple of weeks ago.
Completely agree. This "responsibility" should be implemented in a list of countries as long as my arm. But the UN are clearly all bark and no bite.
OFF HAND
Print view
Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:55 pm
reply
