Is it a global responsibility to offer help to a nation under abuse and whose responsibility is to help them if they ask? Should the West say yes if help is requested? Is there a more appropriate body of people to help the Syrians?
There is so much unjust treatment, it appears, going on in Syria, it's hard to ignore or say, "they're enduring for a cause," when you see photos of people being treated brutally and savagely under tyrannical rule.
The Syrian government says its gangs that we see being brutalized. Surely all the coverage can't be biased?
He has said that if the West intervenes it would be "like an earthquake" in the region.
The West has not intervened. Of course some of you will say, they are already there, causing all the turmoil.!!!!!! But really...let's take a good look at this...
It appears there is no opposition to the Government except the people themselves, so if somehow, leadership opposition surfaces and requests help from the West, which most likely will be NATO, again, would you want to see NATO agreeing to fight for the people or not.? If not, what is the alternative to bring relief to the people of Syria.
Syria Protected content
Related to the current situation in Syria as of August Protected content . To date, 1,400 people were killed as a result of the use of chemical gasses in 8/2013. These are the questions as I see it when assessing the act and what, if anything should be done by the rest of nations.
) Do you believe that Syrians were gassed?
2) If you believe this is a reality, what should be done, if anything?
3) If ignored, would that be a signal that it can become the new norm especially in civil wars across the world and now, especially given the volatility of the middle east region?
4) If we allow it, is it possible it can becomes the new norm of any kind of warfare today, across nations?
6) And if, Syria for eg.... is left as is to fight it out among themselves, is this type of warfare likely to be adapted as a means of killing off the population of sects in the Arab world to gain dominance both politically and religiously across the region?
7) Can we safely say, it stays in the Arab world? And it is "their" problem? Is that how the "hands off" policy should work internationally? And how can we, the outside world in good conscience say "it is their problem?"
8) Further, if the general opinions are that the outside world should not intervene, and knowing that gassing of Syrian citizens did actually happen, isn't that condoning the act in itself as the new "norm" and in time, cannot it not pave the way for governments to control the overpopulation of their countries by the same methods?
9) And if the consensus is that the outside world should "do something", what should that be? and who is elected to "do" the intervention?
10) Why the choices of countries to intervene?