If the UN/NATO were to intervene, which I believe they should, I think it should be a forceful intervention. Simply giving passive support through supplies is perpetuating the conflict. If the UN wants to save more lives and objects to a military intervention due to the outbreak of a larger war, then I would question the passive intervention. By supplying the rebels, the UN is only fuelling resources so that the rebels can fight longer. More lives will be lost due to a longer conflict. However, if the UN were to enter and stamp out the conflict, then it is a faster resolution and will probably save more lives than the alternative. Obviously people can argue that through military intervention, the number of casualties will increase in that instance, but we should look at the long run, and unless the Syrian conflict ends relatively quick, more lives will be lost than if the UN entered.
Only as peace keepers. If syri asks for help, they should consider suppling help and aid, provided none of their people are put in harms way. This is an intitial "civil" war and thats not what the main purpose of the UN is.
I think it is for the best if the UN or other groups should just go and put an end to this uprising. Its starting to create more problems, for example the rebels taking UN peacekeepers as hostages. Although they eventually released them, the fact that they kidnapped UN soldiers is unacceptable. As Dante said if we let this drag on longer, more problems would erupt.
I agree with Dante on that UN should intervene in the whole affair. If UN lets the conflict keeps on going like this , there will be more and more innocents got killed. Likewise, there are many new problems have been created which need to be taken into account in addition to Humanitarianism concerns. For example, the rebels have kidnapped many peacekeepers, like Winston has mentioned, the further tolerate will only lead to complete chaos, so it is necessary for UN to intervene.
If the UN/NATO were to intervene, which I believe they should, I think it should be a forceful intervention. Simply giving passive support through supplies is perpetuating the conflict. If the UN wants to save more lives and objects to a military intervention due to the outbreak of a larger war, then I would question the passive intervention. By supplying the rebels, the UN is only fuelling resources so that the rebels can fight longer. More lives will be lost due to a longer conflict. However, if the UN were to enter and stamp out the conflict, then it is a faster resolution and will probably save more lives than the alternative. Obviously people can argue that through military intervention, the number of casualties will increase in that instance, but we should look at the long run, and unless the Syrian conflict ends relatively quick, more lives will be lost than if the UN entered.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnly as peace keepers. If syri asks for help, they should consider suppling help and aid, provided none of their people are put in harms way. This is an intitial "civil" war and thats not what the main purpose of the UN is.
ReplyDeleteI think it is for the best if the UN or other groups should just go and put an end to this uprising. Its starting to create more problems, for example the rebels taking UN peacekeepers as hostages. Although they eventually released them, the fact that they kidnapped UN soldiers is unacceptable. As Dante said if we let this drag on longer, more problems would erupt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dante on that UN should intervene in the whole affair. If UN lets the conflict keeps on going like this , there will be more and more innocents got killed. Likewise, there are many new problems have been created which need to be taken into account in addition to Humanitarianism concerns. For example, the rebels have kidnapped many peacekeepers, like Winston has mentioned, the further tolerate will only lead to complete chaos, so it is necessary for UN to intervene.
ReplyDelete