Eye for an eye and we all go blind. 
Syria
- Thread starter TitanTim
- Start date
NATO has nothing to do with this 
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
They got involved in Bosnia only reluctantly, and after all other efforts had failed.
The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.[5] After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.
There are parallels with Bosnia, but immediate action on the part of NATO would not be appropriate or legal - and Syria are not attacking anyone. Yet.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
They got involved in Bosnia only reluctantly, and after all other efforts had failed.
The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.[5] After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.
There are parallels with Bosnia, but immediate action on the part of NATO would not be appropriate or legal - and Syria are not attacking anyone. Yet.
Bing said:NATO has nothing to do with this
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
They got involved in Bosnia only reluctantly, and after all other efforts had failed.
The 11 September attacks of 2001 signaled the only occasion in NATO's history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members.[5] After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF.
There are parallels with Bosnia, but immediate action on the part of NATO would not be appropriate or legal - and Syria are not attacking anyone. Yet.
Indeed - this is under the UN - which Syria is a member of.. so they'd have to bomb themseles :lol:
Emotive thread, polarised opinions coming through - benefit of living in a society that allows freedom of expression. My tuppence worth? Its not an easy decision, and not one I'd like to have to take. Long term consequences of both inaction and action, and neither of the rebels or Assad loyalists are allies the west would like, so limited political gain in either side winning. The arab league is notable by its reluctance to get involved, and wants the UN to sort it out - with any UN action perceived as action by the west as its usually western nations that deliver the ordinance.
Perhaps a policy of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" is best. (Not really serious with that last, before anyone starts....)
Perhaps a policy of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" is best. (Not really serious with that last, before anyone starts....)
I wonder why everyone always mentions oil as not being a valid reason for some level of involvement in the middle east. For good or bad. At this moment in history and for the last century. The world in general has been a world coated in oil. Just like our engines. Most economies would grind to a halt without oil. We the people the world over collectively bitch about "going to war over oil" Yet we collectively as a world population. Still largely drive cars that are not the most efficient. And insist on having large well lit and warm homes.
Per Syria, I will always believe that we should be very careful in helping those that refuse to help themselves. Or whom have hidden agendas. Like the people in Iraq, Afghanistan who while thanking the troops for removing Saddam or beating back the Taliban. Were at the same time the same folk who were picking up a gun or hiding an IUD by the road to kill the troops they had just thanked. Or who would remain silent about plots or the location of Taliban camps. In reality. There are so many more good people who don't like the radical terrorist types in most of the middle east. The citizens could shut down the terrorists very quickly if they choose to do so. But they are so rooted in the tribal mentality and xenophobic view of outsiders that nothing has changed nor will it for the foreseeable future. Which means that no matter what we in the west do to help. We will always be seen (even among those that want our help) as an invading force. It's a lose lose situation for the west.
Should we have gone into Iraq. I'm not sure of the answer. Remember this. The UN gave the west the go ahead to send troops to Iraq. After all, Saddam did gas his people. That is a fact. So compare that to Syria. Once we (in the west) go into Syria to "help out". The minute one civilian is injured from this outside help. It will immediately be forgotten (by everyone including the UN) that we were invited and or urged to go in to help. We will then be called invaders, Imperialists bent on trying to make the middle east into a western democracy. And will become yet another rallying point for the terrorists. So with that in mind. I say no.
I do however try to remain open minded. And respect the opposing opinions. It's one of the perks of being (for the time being) a citizen of a free society.
Per Syria, I will always believe that we should be very careful in helping those that refuse to help themselves. Or whom have hidden agendas. Like the people in Iraq, Afghanistan who while thanking the troops for removing Saddam or beating back the Taliban. Were at the same time the same folk who were picking up a gun or hiding an IUD by the road to kill the troops they had just thanked. Or who would remain silent about plots or the location of Taliban camps. In reality. There are so many more good people who don't like the radical terrorist types in most of the middle east. The citizens could shut down the terrorists very quickly if they choose to do so. But they are so rooted in the tribal mentality and xenophobic view of outsiders that nothing has changed nor will it for the foreseeable future. Which means that no matter what we in the west do to help. We will always be seen (even among those that want our help) as an invading force. It's a lose lose situation for the west.
Should we have gone into Iraq. I'm not sure of the answer. Remember this. The UN gave the west the go ahead to send troops to Iraq. After all, Saddam did gas his people. That is a fact. So compare that to Syria. Once we (in the west) go into Syria to "help out". The minute one civilian is injured from this outside help. It will immediately be forgotten (by everyone including the UN) that we were invited and or urged to go in to help. We will then be called invaders, Imperialists bent on trying to make the middle east into a western democracy. And will become yet another rallying point for the terrorists. So with that in mind. I say no.
I do however try to remain open minded. And respect the opposing opinions. It's one of the perks of being (for the time being) a citizen of a free society.
1066 Country
TitanTim said:
Maybe this is the hidden agenda - by blowing everything up, it creates more demand for the export of our old used junk that we don't want.
Situation's becoming emotionally driven & when that happens is a recipe for disaster. Surprised with all the available money in the Gulf states they don't create & pay for an equivalent NATO army of their own to police the region - or are they being astute to just let the West feel big & foot the bill along with all the blame when things go tits up????
I think the whole idea is to keep the middle east destabilised so that they don't get together and organise their own "Nato" type thing ...... 
Ste said:
Milan for me
teamemmenracing said:I think the whole idea is to keep the middle east destabilised so that they don't get together and organise their own "Nato" type thing ......
thats pretty much the us policy - never allow a single region dominated by single party. if eu gets strong around germany / turkey they will start stuff up here too. geopolitics.
This sums it up wonderfully...
