Amazon.com Widgets

Should Britain and America act as the world police in Syria?

Asked by: HenryGBR
  • Syria are out of control

    The US and the UK are unable to detect exact where abouts of chemical weapons thus it is obvious that chemical warefare is a possibility, this is unstable for the world as a whole. Not only this but world events as dramatic as this need to be contained by sufficient force, the crisis that could potentially develop may well affect the economic situation or global peace of our time.

  • It would be nice if somebody else intervened for a change, but...

    It’s always the US and the UK that take responsibility, although the French also played an important role in the Libyan conflict, and it would be good to see some other countries pick up the baton for a change.

    The trouble is, Russia and Iran back the Syrian regime while Saudi Arabia back the rebels and have sent them 400 tonnes of weapons over recent weeks. Any further esculation of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict is likely to dangerously inflame their already fraught relationship with Iran.

    Meanwhile, most of the rest of the Middle East is in political turmoil and have their own internal problems to deal with. This only leaves China as a major military force capable of intervening but the Chinese do not project their military power outside their own region.

    This really only leaves the UK, the US and France in a position to intervene.

  • Very Tough Choice

    As nasty as things have become in Syria, the West has no business playing world police in Syria. If we topple the current regime, how do we know that the next one will be any different? What happens when our military intervention turns into a black hole like the Iraq/Afghanistan incursions have been? I think it is fundamentally counterproductive for western nations to force their policies and ideas onto another culture.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.