Syria : western intervention.

Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2005
Posts
13,916
With the news being shown how long before the west takes an active role in stopping the killing going on? Will cameron be so keen to step up? Or was he so keen to get into Libya as Muammar Gaddafi knew too many secrets?
 
This is really bugging me. With one country we eagerly sent over our latest Eurotoys (Rafales, Gripens, Typhoons) and all the associated whizz-bang.

But with this country we have to stand by and watch civilians being hit by *ARTILLERY* in their homes..even hospitals...because of a veto by 2 other countries.

Horrible situation, UN as impotent as ever :mad:
 
A lack of natural resources in Syria makes it a less tempting target for 'the west' but when the middle eastern belt around China is complete I'm sure they'll go for it.
 
A lack of natural resources in Syria makes it a less tempting target for 'the west' but when the middle eastern belt around China is complete I'm sure they'll go for it.

**** me....Syria has vast vast vast amounts of oil...so no...that's not the reason. Not every motive behind western conflict in the middle east is to do with oil for cryn out ****ing loud...:rolleyes:

With the Iraq war coming to an end, a big western presence in Afghanistan, the toppling of Gaddafi and remaining instability in Libya......if this wasn't already enough, the biggest threat is Iran which the west are ready to pounce on when the time is right....There's much more strategical thinking behind taking military action other than the liberal university activist mind set of 'its all about government greed and wanting oil'
 
Last edited:
**** me....Syria has vast vast vast amounts of oil...so no...that's not the reason. Not every motive behind western conflict in the middle east is to do with oil for cryn out ****ing loud...:rolleyes:

With the Iraq war coming to an end, a big western presence in Afghanistan, the toppling of Gaddafi and remaining instability in Libya......if this wasn't already enough, the biggest threat is Iran which the west are ready to pounce on when the time is right....There's much more strategical thinking behind taking military action other than the liberal university activist mind set of 'its all about government greed and wanting oil'

Not really. 31st highest in the world on this list with 2.5 billion US barrels. Not a lot compared to Libyas 43 billion barrels.
 
I have been watching some alternative media which is non-western including Russia Today and I have to say there is large support for the Assad government, there was large media coverage and many people marching for Assad at least in 1000's which kinda makes me think that the west is over hyping things.
 
It is a joke, we are suppose to protect people around the world that cant help themselves, yet we stand back and let it happen in areas we have no interest in, Iraq was bad place and we "needed" to sort it out (twice) Afghan "needed" help, Libyans "needed" help, They need serious help but we cant do anything because Russia and China say so, I didnt stop the USA invading Iraq and Afghan in the last decade.

Yet places like Somalia and central Africa its ok, we just send over a bit of aid.

Also Russia has a naval base in Syria and last month they showed around a lot of Syrian generals on some Russian war ship.
 
Has to be the most blatantly self serving international decision ever made. Syria is worth far too much money to Russia. They are still delivering weapons to then in the full knowledge of what they will be used for! And as for china, well with their human rights record, they were never going to be hypocritical enough to vote for intervention. (lest they be next?)
The Syrian government must be feeling untouchable at the moment, hence the escalation of artillery attacks. The UN will just wring their hands and tut tut a bit.
 
With Iraq neutered Iran has been allowed to grow. If we did the same to Syria then the Iran situation would probably get even worse.
 
Back
Top Bottom