How can I help children in Syria?

S

Sumatra

Registered User
Messages
581
How can I help even one child in Syria? I could offer a room in our home but I don't know how to go about it. Any advice or suggestions please?
 
I'd say transporting a child to Ireland would be a last resort. I think the simplest way to help would be to donate time, effort or money to one of the charities already there. Concern, Red Cross/Red Crescent, Oxfam, UNICEF, MSF all have a presence there and/or in the neighbouring countries where people have fled to
 
There isn’t really much any of us can do other than hope the West starts listening to the Russians and stops backing the wrong side.
 
Purple said:
There isn’t really much any of us can do other than hope the West starts listening to the Russians and stops backing the wrong side.
Click to expand...

There isn't really a right side. They can hardly support Assad and noone can really say tge rebels are the good guys. I actually feel sorry for the US. They are damned if they do intervene and damned if they don't. Yet another example of the uselessness of the UN. Maybe if every country decided not to supply arms to either side, we might get some solution. Course that will never happen.
 
Sunny said:
There isn't really a right side. They can hardly support Assad and noone can really say tge rebels are the good guys. I actually feel sorry for the US. They are damned if they do intervene and damned if they don't. Yet another example of the uselessness of the UN. Maybe if every country decided not to supply arms to either side, we might get some solution. Course that will never happen.
Click to expand...

The options are;
1) Assad.
The bad guys but stability and a single source to negotiate with/ bully into reforms.
2) The Rebels.
Also the bad guys, mixed in with the good guys and the kind of alright guys. The only people they hate more than Assad are each other. If they win this civil war you can be 100% certain that they will go straight into another one with each other. Add to that the fact that each faction is backed by external powers so the next civil war will be a regional war fought by proxy in Syria.

I don’t believe for a minute that the government forces fired those chemical weapons. They are tactically inefficient, expensive and politically suicidal.
The only people who benefited from their use were the rebels. What we need to know is which faction the victims belonged to and we’ll know who fired them (if they were fired at all and not just released locally). At this stage we simply don’t know.

This is probably the biggest foreign policy screw-up of the Obama regime, first or second term, and that’s saying something considering how inept they have been generally. If they were going to back the rebels they should have done so over a year ago before the vacuum was filled by extremists of various hues.
After that gaff Obama gave a massive hostage to fortune when he talked about the use of chemical weapons as a red line that if crossed would elicit a military response from the USA. What a monumentally stupid thing to say. It’s a case study in how not to handle a situation like this.
 
With regards to the chemical weapons attack, if what you are saying is true, the question is how they got their hands on chemical weapons, how they had the equipment to launch an attack and does the rebels and therefore al Qaeda have access to sarin gas.

Even though I find the idea of the US getting their knickers in a twist over chemical weapons a bit rich considering some of the munitions they and their allies have used in various conflicts.
 
Sunny said:
With regards to the chemical weapons attack, if what you are saying is true, the question is how they got their hands on chemical weapons, how they had the equipment to launch an attack and does the rebels and therefore al Qaeda have access to sarin gas.
Click to expand...
A standard mortal round can be used to launch a chemical attack and anyone with a chemistry degree and access to the right chemicals could fabricate a lethal nerve gas. We don’t know what gas was used and we don’t know what delivery system was used either.
I would be very sceptical about any announcements from either side, or from the USA, on either question.

Sunny said:
Even though I find the idea of the US getting their knickers in a twist over chemical weapons a bit rich considering some of the munitions they and their allies have used in various conflicts.
Click to expand...
Agreed; napalm is a chemical weapon and is part of their tactical arsenal.

The real question is why would the Assad regime launch a localised chemical attack which, even if 100% successful, netted no strategic or tactical advantage but risked international outcry and intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top