If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Syria
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18352281
UN monitors have been shot at trying to independantly verify claims of a massacre in a small village.
It took a lot less for us to get involved in Libya, so what's changed? People are being murdered by the hundreds, why haven't we pounded Syria's military into the dust? It's not as if we couldn't ffs.
UN monitors have been shot at trying to independantly verify claims of a massacre in a small village.
It took a lot less for us to get involved in Libya, so what's changed? People are being murdered by the hundreds, why haven't we pounded Syria's military into the dust? It's not as if we couldn't ffs.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Also because Arab League don't want us in, Russia doesn't want us and if Libya was bloody complex with lots of intercine tribal squabbles Syria is much worse
Also Libya, is still remembered by many as shooting dead a British WPC and supplying arms and equipment which helped kill hundreds of British soldiers, peelers and civilians (and Lockerbie as well, which whilst controversial imo was still Libya led). I think a lot of people jumped at the chance to get Gadaffi in a box - unfinished business.
Syria has been virtuous? Haven't they also armed terrorists, didn't they partly support the Iraqi insurgents?
The real reason is, lack of British interests in Syria.
I'm pretty sure I don;t claim Syria has been virtuous, but there is a big difference between supplying arms to fight the British in Iraq (where whatever the rights and wrongs of the invasion the UK had invaded) and to supply arms to a terrorist group within the UK
British interests in Libya were minimal as well, but Libya was a) supported by the international communty (including other Arab States and Russia) and b) was a revenge best served cold (and a belated warning to other regimes who think its alright to supply semtex to the IRA)
If Syria was remotely doable without too much cost in blood and treasure we'd probably do it, as we're not exactly chums of the Assad regime
It would be. They've got the same crap the Libyans and Iraqis had, much good it did them.
Except with active Russian support. And Iraq also taught us how much easier it is to get in that to get out.
I don't doubt that technically we (and by that I mean UK and allies) could overthrow Assad tomorrow, except in five years time we'd still be trying to manage a bloody civil war with the Russian bear happily selling arms to whoever wants to take a shot at the blokes patrolling the streets of Damascus.