So dropping bombs on civilians is not an atrocity :hmm: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/10/syria-aerial-attacks-strike-civilians
It may not be a genocide at this point, thanks to international scrutiny, but given Syria's recent history it may very well become one if Assad is emboldened by Russia and China.
Not sure what you mean.
At this point it's looking like Iraq will not be a net positive for the United States. The sectarian violence is so explosive, it could bring down the government and necessitate a true puppet state or perhaps, another strong man. I'm not optimistic on the direction of Iraqs democracy.
In Afghanistan, the situation in Kabul is certainly a net benefit for the US, with the Al Qaeda friendly, fundamentalist Taliban being out of the picture. Before the war, Afghanistan was an open safe harbor for Al Qaeda training camps.
Ultimately, the circumstances of Iraq and Afghanistan are wholly different from the circumstances of the Arab Spring. The changes in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced entirely from the outside, due to the invasion by the United States. Iraq and Afghanistan shouldn't be an example to measure of the effects of an intervention, because they simply weren't.
Libya is a much better forecaster of the potential of Western intervention in Syria than anywhere else. In Libya there was a popular uprising against a dictator, and due to a multilateral international intervention, the dictator was toppled. Was that a net benefit? Most definitely. There is now a fledgling democracy under way there, thanks to an intervention.
I'm still confused about why 2timer is still posting. He should be en route to Damascus right now, singing rebel chants and firing his rifle into the air.
You need to do what's right 2timer! Go fight for that country!
No it's not an atrocity the US does it all the time we call it collateral damage.
It means if we intervene we WILL put people at risk, period.
Afghanistan is not at all anything like you mention, you haven't been. We are right now in negotiations with the Taliban to setup their government. I'd advise you to read the thread on this is what victory looks like here in P&N.
And yes they should be, the region was stable, our actions lead to "democracy" spreading. Unfortunately absolutely none of the new governments are pro West. If anything they are now unified against the West.
Given that Russia has beefed up the Syrian Ground to Sea defenses; you feel that we should put ships out in harms way to enforce a no-fly and embargo zone.
We can not fly out of Israel or Turkey for political reasons.
Can not use carriers to enforce a no-fly zone because of needed time on station.
What other solutions do you recommend to force the issue.
Realize that anything the US tries to do alone will be condemned; the UN will not be able to push the issue.
I posted this a couple days back.I made a thread a few months ago wondering when we'd put a stop to this thing, but as time goes on I see that many of the rebels are as subhuman scum as Assad. There are more than a few videos now of rebels doing horrendous things.
*GRAPHIC* Here is an execution video: http://www.timesofisrael.com/rebels-post-grisly-execution-video/
And on lifeleak there are daily other videos, there was one recently of a rebel seemingly cutting out a soldier's heart and eating it fresh.
At this point I say let these fucks all murder each other. I realize a lot of civilians are caught up in it, but there is no reason whatsoever to think whoever takes over power there will be any better than Assad.
Given that I've repeatedly said I don't advocate an intervention with troops or unilaterally, the first two points would be null - like in Libya, a successful intervention would not equate to war. Go back and read my very first post: my complaint was about China and Russia vetoing a Security Council resolution to condemn Assad. Were such a resolution passed, it would give international legitimacy to a Western intervention, carried out multilaterally, much the same as in Libya.
Let's say there's a 50/50 chance of Assad "winning" (honestly I think he loses either way, but that's a different subject). Why should we be the ones who cause the collateral damage? If innocent people are going to die, let the blood be on someone else's hands.In regards to points 3 and 4, yes, I would agree. Collateral damage and escalation are dangerous, but collateral damage could be considered a necessary evil because as of right now, the situation is so dire that inaction would mean prolonging the war. So either way, whether there is going to be collateral damage, the question is whether it's better dealt in ousting Assad or not.
Finally, your last point: outcome. The fact is, you don't know who or what will come into political power. But if Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt or Iraq are any indication, the powers in place, while no large success, are *certainly* better than what they replaced. Like I said before, had the United States *not* taken a role, we wouldn't have seen the fledgling democracies, immature though they may be.
And if Assad is taken down with help from the west and the FSA runs amok executing whomever they feel like in firing squads while screaming how good allah is, who do those negative consequences fall upon?I guess I've pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter, and the thread, in post #131: keep ratcheting up diplomatic pressure and scrutiny as the best stopgap measure to prevent any hard genocide by Assad, while temporarily letting the chips fall where they may. Until the UN can play a a role, the allies of democracy are hamstrung. Let the negative consequences of Assad's autocracy fall on Russia and China, for their support of his government.
By Dana El Baltaji - May 21, 2013 4:08 PM GMT+0300
Communities inhabited by Shiite Muslims and President Bashar al-Assads Alawite minority will be wiped off the map if the strategic city of Al-Qusair in central Syria falls to government troops, rebel forces said.
We dont want this to happen, but it will be a reality imposed on everyone, Colonel Abdel-Hamid Zakaria, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army in Turkey, told Al-Arabiya television yesterday. Its going to be an open, sectarian, bloody war to the end.
In the mean time the "Senate panel approves weapons for Syrian rebels"
WASHINGTON (AP) A Senate panel voted on Tuesday to provide weapons to rebels battling the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the first time lawmakers have endorsed the aggressive U.S. military step of arming the opposition in the 2-year-old civil war.
With a degree of trepidation, the Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 for a bill that would provide lethal assistance and military training to vetted rebel groups, and would slap sanctions on anyone who sells oil or transfers arms to the Assad regime such as Iran and Russia. The measure also establishes a $250 million fund to aid in the transition if and when Assad falls.
Awesome! So, we have a group of rebels who are all more or less on the same side, but we won't give weapons to the real fuckin' nutters, just the ones who are vetted. Great!In the mean time the "Senate panel approves weapons for Syrian rebels"
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-panel-approves-weapons-syrian-rebels-194637994.html
Awesome! So, we have a group of rebels who are all more or less on the same side, but we won't give weapons to the real fuckin' nutters, just the ones who are vetted. Great!
In the mean time the "Senate panel approves weapons for Syrian rebels"
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-panel-approves-weapons-syrian-rebels-194637994.html
And if Assad is taken down with help from the west and the FSA runs amok executing whomever they feel like in firing squads while screaming how good allah is, who do those negative consequences fall upon?
O
Lol. Completely out of touch with reality - normal for a conservative.
Let me get this straight: the Muslim government of Assad is engaged in a bloody civil war with Muslim brotherhood\Al-Qaeda backed rebels, resulting in an enormous number of casualties on both sides. And so far this has cost the United States.... nothing? Where I come from, we call that a win-win.
"I thought I would never get out," Bashir said. "... I just wanted to die to get rid of the pain."
This will be my third time asking a question you insist on not answering: Why do you believe these rebels are any better than Assad? Why do you think Syria will be better for the people?O
Lol. Completely out of touch with reality - normal for a conservative.