Should the US and UK intervene in Syria? 25th November 2013 10:43 AM
“I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that shows Syria regime using chemical weapons. The whole story is just propaganda without nothing to back it up, all false claims like in Iraq. Also intervention will cause way more harm than good.”
Did you see the report over the weekend about the number of kids that have been killed, executed and tortured! Is it 2013 or 1941?
“More than 11,000 children have died in Syria's civil war in nearly three years, including hundreds targeted by snipers, a new report says.
Summary executions and torture have also been used against children as young as one...
BBC News - Syria conflict: Children 'targeted by snipers'”
Summary executions and torture have also been used against children as young as one...
BBC News - Syria conflict: Children 'targeted by snipers'”
Not sure how intervention could do much more harm as the country slides into the abyss of anarchy. Personally I think this is exactly what the UN should be used for, an international united force to disarm all sides by force if required, then administer the aftermath. ie Provide military protection, policing, humanitarian support, with all members sharing the cost, while politics can sort out the long term future.
Letting a Country slowly destroy itself over the course of many years while all watch from our sofas doesn't seem a very 21st Century approach, regardless of the politics involved. The same way as non UN military intervention in Iraq from ropey evidence wasn't the way forward, with no plan with how to deal with the after affects. But you think we might have learnt some lessons after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, rather than revert to turning a blind eye and a few stern words approach.
Why can't we give the UN some teeth, merge it with NATO which seems a redundant organisation these days. There enough atrocities now on all sides to warrant intervention, or is there a statistic we have to get to before we are spurred in to action?

