9
   

Will the UN get involved in Syria?

 
 
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:46 pm
From the NYT.
Quote:
Syrian Security Forces Fire on Mourners in Several Towns
By ANTHONY SHADID
Published: April 23, 2011
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 13,535 • Replies: 194
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by cicerone imposter
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you think the Syrian Government is worried about the UN ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:52 pm
@georgeob1,
I'm not sure, and that's the reason I posed the question.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think the Syrian government has nothing to fear from the UN. They certainly aren't acting as though they are concerned.

Even in the very unlikely event the Security Council could be persuaded to "authorize" action, what nation or nations do you believe might be willing to do it? I can't think of any.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 05:59 pm
@georgeob1,
I can't either, but I was surprised to see France and the Brits come to the fore on Libya - with the Arab League asking for assistance.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think that anyone cares about Ghadaffi, but Syria ia another matter.

The forces so far "unleashed" against Libya aren't exactly overwhelming the dictator.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:06 pm
I don't see how the UN or anybody could consider it. They unleash all these planes and missiles, which may or may not achieve their ends. Always there is the thought to send ground troops. The result of intervening encourages more wars and revolts in more countries. And in the end, the people who prevail, on whatever side, seem to not like Europeans and Americans, and will go their own way.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:15 pm
@edgarblythe,
What I was thinking, though, was that I didn't think anybody would get involved in Libya. When Gaddafi escalated the killing of innocents, I think people had second thoughts, and got involved. I know many Americans didn't want the US to get involved, but Obama did. He also said US involvement will be days, not weeks. We're still there.

These issues do not go away just because we do not wish to get involved.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Obama has also declared that the violence by the Syrian government "must cease now!". Earlier he said that Ghadaffi "must leave", but he hasn't gone yet. I doubt that anyone is paying attention to him.

There is a certain kind of freedom that comes from that. When no one pays any attention to what you say, you can say anything you want.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:24 pm
No, the issues are there to be dealt with. They will likely not be resolved any time soon. But, intervention has not worked that much to our advantage in many places in that part of the world, and people are still under the gun everywhere. I think the people of these nations know the world is concerned and they feel encouraged to defy their governments. But the amount of help they will receive cannot be enough to dislodge the governments without even broader killing. They should not be so encouraged that they call on outside help.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 06:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
Understood; but we got involved anywhos. We never learn from history, do we?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 08:09 pm
There is no comfortable answer.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Apr, 2011 09:41 am
I dont think anyone even reads or studies history any more!
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:56 am
As far as the question, the reason for intervention in Libya does seem to keep spreading. I don't see how NATO can be at all these places in the ME who are having unrest.

So far though, I don't see the outright (outspoken) contempt for the lives of those protesting in other countries in which Qaddafi displayed from the beginning of the protest in Libya with threats of worse to come. Also, at least the other leaders paid lip service to reforms and in the case of Egypt and Tunisia, stepped down.

Qaddafi said the protesters were rats deserving of death at the very beginning and started to come down aggressively on the protesters which prompted them to fight back into what is now termed a civil war. These are not seasoned fighters, but just ordinary people in Libya protesting who had to take up arms to try and defend themselves from being slaughtered into what could have very well turned into a massacre.

However, now it seems that Syria is using tanks and armored vehicles against protesters in a preventive measure which does escalate what is happening there. So, it does beg the question, what about the rest of the countries in the ME who are under fire from their governments?

Syrian tanks and troops move into Deraa

As for Libya, since NATO did start this (I believe rightly) they should finish it, successfully and get rid of Qaddafi and his regime and then get out and let the people of Libya decide what to do next. I think they have stepped up the efforts.

Gaddafi compound hit in Nato attack
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:07 am
@RABEL222,
Especially POM!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 10:43 am
@revelette,
That's the reason why I posed the question; the leaders of both countries are using their military to kill their own people with abandon.

Why one, and not the other?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 02:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
That's the reason why I posed the question; the leaders of both countries are using their military to kill their own people with abandon.

Why one, and not the other?


I agree with your thinking, to be fair though, Syria was not threatening its citizens with massacre at the time when the decision was made to intervene in Libya. The intervention is already taking place in Libya, I don't think they will pull out to intervene in Syria, however, something might be done, I don't know really. I just don't see how NATO can be everywhere at the same time is all.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 03:07 pm
@revelette,
It seems that the number killed in Syria has dropped from hundreds to 10. Not that the use of deadly force against peaceful protesters is right!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 03:10 pm
@RABEL222,
I just read that the Syrian government is using tanks against their own people. Are you sure about 10?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 09:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
No. I read an article that stated that ten people were killed. It seemed to be current but I wouldent swear to the truth of the article because I earlier read that hundreds had been killed. Stay tuned for more information. Damn I wish I knew how to post articles on this foram!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Will the UN get involved in Syria?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2021 at 06:34:09