Could, but apparently won't. You can try and shame them into it, as Grays suggests, but they've not been shamed thus far, so if that doesn't work then what do you do?
I agree with you that we should take more refugees and help. But I think that unless we get the likes of Saudi Arabia working in ways that help stabilise things and help deal with the humanitarian situation, we won't be able to do enough, there will still be too many people left in the sh1t.
syria has already gone to ****
it doesn't matter what other people do, we should do all we can
I know its not a popular view, and maybe i'm responding to the graphic sensationalism of recent news but I do think we should intervene, we're either against tyranny or we're not, if we have to deliver democracy and religious freedom with weapons then so be it
Intervene how and against who? Not long ago, Cameron would have been happy to blunder in and help ISIS fight Assad. There are bad people in all sides of the fight over there and when you look at Libya and Iraq, removing one bad dictator can end up leading to worse things. Air Strikes won't do it, so how many troops should we send? And how many have to die before it becomes an unacceptable cost to our nation?
I think that you want the right things for the people out there, but I don't think it's as easy as sending in our forces or even sending over weapons. As an example, much of the weaponry that was meant for the Iraqi army to fight ISIS with has ended up belonging to ISIS. IMO, we need to do all we can to stop the flow of arms to the region and try to incentivise Saudi Arabia to do their part, incentivise Turkey to at least leave the Kurds alone for the time being (so they can fight ISIS) and maybe help out countries like Jordan and Turkey financially, so they can more easily cope with refugees. Even Iran can be talked to nowadays.
Most of this depends on the yanks, of course.
Last edited: