tinfoilhat Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Yes it has the potential to destabilise the whole region. Get your head out the sand. Iraq in its current form (dodgy "democratic" government, bombs going off left and right every day) could destabilise the area. But let's be honest the whole region isn't very stable. Something could kick off in pretty much any country at any time. I'm not sure Syria is the straw that break the Middle East camels back. I don't want to get into a big row btw, you're one of the better posters on here and to a certain extent I'm merely offering a different viewpoint but on the whole the Middle East is something that needs to be left to the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Iraq in its current form (dodgy "democratic" government, bombs going off left and right every day) could destabilise the area. But let's be honest the whole region isn't very stable. Something could kick off in pretty much any country at any time. I'm not sure Syria is the straw that break the Middle East camels back. I don't want to get into a big row btw, you're one of the better posters on here and to a certain extent I'm merely offering a different viewpoint but on the whole the Middle East is something that needs to be left to the Middle East. Iran is one of Syria's closest allies. If Assad is attacked will they just step back and watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Iran is one of Syria's closest allies. If Assad is attacked will they just step back and watch? With the new guy in charge in iran maybe they will. What if Assad loses without the help of the west? Will Iran attack Saudi Arabia who, as I understand, have bank rolled the rebels? It's a mess. More to the point what will Putin do? I'm not sure he's even keen about the peacekeepers to the point he will veto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 It has to be tried. Provide a cogent argument as to why not.[COLOR="Silver"] ---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 20:55 ---------- [/color] Because it threatens to destabilise a whole region, perhaps even worse. The UN has a very mixed record when it comes to using peacekeepers. In a place like Syria at this time i think any UN peacekeeping force would be in over it's head. Where would the peacekeeping force be recruited from also. No European country would be willing to send it's troops into harms way for a start. When the inevitable casualties started to occur then it wouldn't be long before the pressure was on to get them out. Governments like to spout on about the need to do something when atrocities like chemical weapons attacks occur but politicians are more worried about their approval ratings in the polls and that's the way it is in the present world. I dont see peacekeepers being recruited from some African nations either. Usually they carry out peace keeping duties in their own backyard Then of course you have to face the fact that Assad would never allow any UN troops into Syria. Why should he? He's winning the war and he has Russia and China, members of the UN security council behind him all the way. Obama could only carry out an attack if it were approved by the UN Security otherwise it would be illegal. He could try to assemble another coalition of the willing but good luck on that after Iraq. An attack on humanitraian grounds might sound good but it's still illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The UN has a very mixed record when it comes to using peacekeepers. In a place like Syria at this time i think any UN peacekeeping force would be in over it's head. Where would the peacekeeping force be recruited from also. No European country would be willing to send it's troops into harms way for a start. When the inevitable casualties started to occur then it wouldn't be long before the pressure was on to get them out. Governments like to spout on about the need to do something when atrocities like chemical weapons attacks occur but politicians are more worried about their approval ratings in the polls and that's the way it is in the present world. I dont see peacekeepers being recruited from some African nations either. Usually they carry out peace keeping duties in their own backyard Then of course you have to face the fact that Assad would never allow any UN troops into Syria. Why should he? He's winning the war and he has Russia and China, members of the UN security council behind him all the way. Obama could only carry out an attack if it were approved by the UN Security otherwise it would be illegal. He could try to assemble another coalition of the willing but good luck on that after Iraq. An attack on humanitraian grounds might sound good but it's still illegal The UN does have a mixed record. We all know that and I won't pretend it isn't the case. But it is the obvious route. It would be wrong not to at least attempt some kind of consensus -driven resolution. As for Obama waiting for security council approval that is not the game he is playing. He wants to go ahead without it and don't underestimate the importance of the UK parliament vote. They were ready to go based on on a positive result. They were ready to initiate a war of aggression. Cameron screwed it up. Obama needs to back down. The US public don't want these attacks to happen. There won't be a majority of people anywhere in the world who do. It's not a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted September 7, 2013 Author Share Posted September 7, 2013 It appears many people on this post have no idea what the subject matter is, they just want to jump on a bandwagon, that others are discussing in order to overturn it, or so it seems. The SYRIAN war is about smashing a Independent Sovereign state that is affiliated with Iran. This will allow the Military World Empire builder with Israel to do what they have both been dreaming of for decades. SMASHING up IRAN and putting another puppet government in place, to secure and regulate the natural resources for corporate exploitation, just as it was before the religious sect took over. So back to the future!!! Cannot anyone join up the dots??? As for dictators, did you know Saudi Arabia and Bahrain make Assad and Gadaffi seem less oppressive than these Medieval states? But these are not independent, they comply with US corporate world, keeping the industrial military machine well stuffed with dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 The UN does have a mixed record. We all know that and I won't pretend it isn't the case. But it is the obvious route. It would be wrong not to at least attempt some kind of consensus -driven resolution. As for Obama waiting for security council approval that is not the game he is playing. He wants to go ahead without it and don't underestimate the importance of the UK parliament vote. They were ready to go based on on a positive result. They were ready to initiate a war of aggression. Cameron screwed it up. Obama needs to back down. The US public don't want these attacks to happen. There won't be a majority of people anywhere in the world who do. It's not a solution. I have to agree. The only thing is that chemical weapons have been outlawed and if Assad is not held to account then what's to stop other leaders or governments using them in the future? If some of these chemical weapons are also in the hands of the rebels they could be used against any target in the future. Anyway you look at it it's a lousy scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The upcoming attacks on Syria are really aimed at destablising Iran and helping the illegal state of Israel,make no mistake the US is being run by the zionists and congress will without doubt order the strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I have to agree. The only thing is that chemical weapons have been outlawed and if Assad is not held to account then what's to stop other leaders or governments using them in the future? If some of these chemical weapons are also in the hands of the rebels they could be used against any target in the future. Anyway you look at it it's a lousy scenario But there is evidence the rebels have used chemical weapons too. They too need to be held to account, not supported. It is a lousy scenario. The US and the Russians are making it worse. They need to back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 It has to be tried. Provide a cogent argument as to why not. ---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 20:55 ---------- Because it threatens to destabilise a whole region, perhaps even worse. Surely the swiftest end to the civil war will be for one side to gain military victory over the other. The US would be better airdropping millions of weapons into Syria, let them all fight until one side annihilates the other. If the US don't like the victor, they could then bomb them as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.