Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Publicus]

Oh dear, yet another specialist advising others to 'read'. I guess throw-away one-liners are much the same.

People are ging-ho to bomb the place back to the Stone Age yet think that just getting rid of Assad will make for a fine country with beaches and palm trees.

The best solution? No idea. It will take people far more intelligent than you or me to figure that out - but bombing isn't a solution . . . even eentsy-teensy pinpricks

If you'd actually bothered to read, you'd understand why it would be simply ludicrous to put peacekeeping troops on the ground in Syria, and why anyone who suggests that needs their head examined. They'd be nothing but a target for both sides.

The bottom line is that this is only going to end in Assad's departure whether you like it or not. The only alternative is that he kills more Syrians than Hitler killed jews. I think it's better to find whatever way is best to hasten his end. Decent arms for the rebel majority would be a good start.

Ultimately, I think what's going to happen is that the Sunni will take over, and Russia will have to buy their way back in to favour - and it's going to cost them a packet after what they've done.

I don't think Assad will use chemical weapons again, it was quite a desperate act and it has done him no real favours. If he does it again - and it would probably a last desperate act and might even be aimed at Israel - a few tomahawks will head his way, and Russia will probably keep quiet about it.

But unless something drastic happens, none of this is going to happen overnight, so you might as well wait for the next installment.

Yes, more than a few Tomahawk missiles can still come Assad's way and the possibility remains a necessary alternative to the dubious diplomacy that has been occurring the past few weeks.

Assad has lost all legitimacy to govern and has also lost whatever moral authority he had had to govern. There cannot be a reasonable solution to the Syrian civil war that fails to see Assad and his regime gone from Syria.

The Jihadists are not guaranteed victory by any means. A Jihadist victory is not inevitable nor is it unavoidable. The people who believe the Jihadists are ten feet tall men of steel need to come to their senses about this reality. The Syrian civil war is not a propaganda video made by al Qaeda. It is a real situation in which the moderate rebels are doing exceedingly well and are receiving new materials, training, arms and support from the Arab-Western coalition.

The people who are wrongheadedly convinced the Jihadists' victory is assured conveniently support Assad as a viable leader, which is in fact a cruel joke on everyone and a complete fantasy..

And it gets even more strange.

They think Putin is the good guy and that the United States are the bad guys in all of this.

They also consider that the UN is largely irrelevant and that the UN reports and their experts in the field have little or no legitimacy or viability.

The Jihadist-Assad-Putin coalition offers us only a recipe for disaster and, ultimately, all but assure that sooner or later the Tomahawks will fly.

Kerry: Military option in Syria 'still on the table'

The U.S., Britain and France pledged Monday to push for a strong, enforceable United Nations resolution demanding that Syria give up its chemical weapons, and insisted that “all options must remain on the table” if Damascus fails to comply.

The three nations, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, want international military intervention to remain a possibility if Syrian President Bashar Assad drags his feet or refuses to abide by the resolution. But China and Russia, which also hold veto power on the council, are unlikely to agree.

“If Assad fails to comply with the terms of this framework, make no mistake, we are all agreed -- and that includes Russia -- that there will be consequences,” Kerry said. “Should diplomacy fail, the military option is still on the table.”

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-syria-talks-20130916,0,6667541.story

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

[Publicus]

Oh dear, yet another specialist advising others to 'read'. I guess throw-away one-liners are much the same.

People are ging-ho to bomb the place back to the Stone Age yet think that just getting rid of Assad will make for a fine country with beaches and palm trees.

The best solution? No idea. It will take people far more intelligent than you or me to figure that out - but bombing isn't a solution . . . even eentsy-teensy pinpricks

If you'd actually bothered to read, you'd understand why it would be simply ludicrous to put peacekeeping troops on the ground in Syria, and why anyone who suggests that needs their head examined. They'd be nothing but a target for both sides.

The bottom line is that this is only going to end in Assad's departure whether you like it or not. The only alternative is that he kills more Syrians than Hitler killed jews. I think it's better to find whatever way is best to hasten his end. Decent arms for the rebel majority would be a good start.

Ultimately, I think what's going to happen is that the Sunni will take over, and Russia will have to buy their way back in to favour - and it's going to cost them a packet after what they've done.

I don't think Assad will use chemical weapons again, it was quite a desperate act and it has done him no real favours. If he does it again - and it would probably a last desperate act and might even be aimed at Israel - a few tomahawks will head his way, and Russia will probably keep quiet about it.

But unless something drastic happens, none of this is going to happen overnight, so you might as well wait for the next installment.

Yes, more than a few Tomahawk missiles can still come Assad's way and the possibility remains a necessary alternative to the dubious diplomacy that has been occurring the past few weeks.

Assad has lost all legitimacy to govern and has also lost whatever moral authority he had had to govern. There cannot be a reasonable solution to the Syrian civil war that fails to see Assad and his regime gone from Syria.

The Jihadists are not guaranteed victory by any means. A Jihadist victory is not inevitable nor is it unavoidable. The people who believe the Jihadists are ten feet tall men of steel need to come to their senses about this reality. The Syrian civil war is not a propaganda video made by al Qaeda. It is a real situation in which the moderate rebels are doing exceedingly well and are receiving new materials, training, arms and support from the Arab-Western coalition.

The people who are wrongheadedly convinced the Jihadists' victory is assured conveniently support Assad as a viable leader, which is in fact a cruel joke on everyone and a complete fantasy..

And it gets even more strange.

They think Polonium Putin is the good guy and that the United States are the bad guys in all of this.

They also consider that the UN is largely irrelevant and that the UN reports and their experts in the field have little or no legitimacy or viability.

The Jihadist-Assad-Putin coalition offers us only a recipe for disaster and, ultimately, all but assure that sooner or later the Tomahawks will fly.

Kerry: Military option in Syria 'still on the table'

The U.S., Britain and France pledged Monday to push for a strong, enforceable United Nations resolution demanding that Syria give up its chemical weapons, and insisted that “all options must remain on the table” if Damascus fails to comply.

The three nations, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, want international military intervention to remain a possibility if Syrian President Bashar Assad drags his feet or refuses to abide by the resolution. But China and Russia, which also hold veto power on the council, are unlikely to agree.

“If Assad fails to comply with the terms of this framework, make no mistake, we are all agreed -- and that includes Russia -- that there will be consequences,” Kerry said. “Should diplomacy fail, the military option is still on the table.”

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-syria-talks-20130916,0,6667541.story

Don't know why you bothered posting. It was Assad that offered to give them up. So what is the surprise?

Again, this thread is not about Putin and just because you throw his name into every post doesn't mean anyone believes you.

If you read the article I quote above it is clear Putin pressured Assad to agree to surrender his chemical weapons. Now Mr Putin says he's not sure Assad will in fact surrender his chemical weapons.

I'd already pointed out the absurdity of Assad denying he used chemical weapons yet agreeing to surrender them. If Assad didn't use his chemical weapons arsenal, then why does he agree to surrender them?

By this logic and alleged reasoning, the US and Russia should surrender their nuclear arsenals because they haven't used them. However, Assad's contradictory position is both illogical and nonsensical. That's because it's the original idea of Putin, not Assad's idea.

Assad and Putin in fact are working at cross purposes, which is why this so called diplomacy cannot succeed.

The global Jihadist-Assad-Putin coalition has already failed. It certainly isn't making any progress.

[ABCer]

Assad will have to go. We all know this. He knows this. A peaceful resolution of the violent confrontation is possible but not easy.

Just like 'oils ain't oils' the military intervention does not have to be devastating as in previous cases. And I do know history.

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

Fighting and killings stop.

An election is conducted. Assad is not contesting the Presidency. Assad leaves political power to whoever is elected by Syrians.

The army is sworn to new Gov't.

International forces leave all at one day.

From this point my suggestion is not as crazy as some people here think. My head is not in need of examination...

The trick is not to attack Syria, but to get in forces in agreement with the current Gov't and army. These forces will not be a target for both sides.

Will Assad agree to such a course? I do not know. But it surely is a better option than bombing the sh*t of him and his army.

Patience, diplomacy and necessary force are far better than direct aggression. Especially in view of many past mistakes (genuine or deliberate).

[Chicog]

Apologies for posting the full story.

Link here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10325193/Syria-Bashar-al-Assad-ordered-me-to-gas-people-but-I-could-not-do-it.html

Gen Sakat believes chemical weapons have now been used 34 times, rather than the 14 occasions cited by international intelligence agencies. But he agrees with a variety of assessments that differing substances and concentrations are used, which would account for the differing death rates, with some attacks killing very few or none.

[Chicog]

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

The "rebels" are the Syrian opposition. So essentially you're saying win the war for Assad.

Yeah, brilliant idea that.

[Publicus]

Assad will have to go. We all know this. He knows this. A peaceful resolution of the violent confrontation is possible but not easy.

Just like 'oils ain't oils' the military intervention does not have to be devastating as in previous cases. And I do know history.

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

Fighting and killings stop.

An election is conducted. Assad is not contesting the Presidency. Assad leaves political power to whoever is elected by Syrians.

The army is sworn to new Gov't.

International forces leave all at one day.

From this point my suggestion is not as crazy as some people here think. My head is not in need of examination...

The trick is not to attack Syria, but to get in forces in agreement with the current Gov't and army. These forces will not be a target for both sides.

Will Assad agree to such a course? I do not know. But it surely is a better option than bombing the sh*t of him and his army.

Patience, diplomacy and necessary force are far better than direct aggression. Especially in view of many past mistakes (genuine or deliberate).

Absurd and not in any way in contact with reality.

[Sing_Sling]

 

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

The "rebels" are the Syrian opposition. So essentially you're saying win the war for Assad.

Yeah, brilliant idea that.

Nope, that is not what he is essentially saying. He is saying that there needs to be an orderly transition. Quite obvious, really.

The rebels are not all local, rather they comprise of many factions, some inter-warring in the same conflict.

you're saying the rebel groups should be given carte blanche for a country without government or structure? How odd.

[JemJem]

I don't think the jihadi forces can be in full control of places for any long period. It will be just a matter of time before the US bombs the jihadis in Syria.

If it is proven that Turkey and some Gulf states provide any kind of aid to the jihadi forces, the US should cut all aid to those countries.

The way things look, the best option is for Assad and his government to stay in power, BUT free and fair elections should be called for within 2 years.

OK consider it proven. And some of the US aid is getting to them as well.

Get rid of Assad first, then the Jihadis can go and continue the fight in Iraq where all of the above really want them.

So, you think that if/when the Assad regime's gone in the near future, the jihadis will just leave Syria and move on to Iraq ?!

To be clear, are you saying Assad should stay in power so he can keep suppressed and kill the jihadis? For God's sake they are people too and certainly no worse than Assad and his regime.

So, you are sort of defending the jihadis ??!!! Words fail me !

[Chicog]

 

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

The "rebels" are the Syrian opposition. So essentially you're saying win the war for Assad.

Yeah, brilliant idea that.

Nope, that is not what he is essentially saying. He is saying that there needs to be an orderly transition. Quite obvious, really.

The rebels are not all local, rather they comprise of many factions, some inter-warring in the same conflict.

you're saying the rebel groups should be given carte blanche for a country without government or structure? How odd.

I'm not saying anything of the kind, so it's little wonder you're finding things to be "odd".

He explicitly said "Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts".

Perhaps you're having trouble comprehending that the "rebels" are in their millions.

[Chicog]

To be clear, are you saying Assad should stay in power so he can keep suppressed and kill the jihadis? For God's sake they are people too and certainly no worse than Assad and his regime.

So, you are sort of defending the jihadis ??!!! Words fail me !

This is getting into a circular argument.

Most of the "jihadists" you both refer to come from all over, to fight for the Sunni against the Alawites/Shi'a.

If and when the Sunni win, many of them will return to their own countries (Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, etc.) or head for the next Jihad - which just happens to be up the road in Iraq.

My guess is the ones who live in relatively nice places will go home. The ones who live in places like Yemen will probably decide to carry on.

I wouldn't worry about the south too much; even the Lebanese Shi'a are starting to get pissed off with Hezbollah.

But the notion of a roving Al Qaeda rapid Jihadi force is not what I attempted to get across, nor is it the way things are. They are mostly small groups organised by tribe or religious leader.

It's another feeble excuse from Assad to stay in power: "I'm fighting the jihadists! If I don't, they'll take over the Middle East!".

Yeah right.

He's massacring his countrymen like his dad did before him, and let's not lose sight of that critical fact.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts with personal references have been removed. Stay on the topic.

[JemJem]

To be clear, are you saying Assad should stay in power so he can keep suppressed and kill the jihadis? For God's sake they are people too and certainly no worse than Assad and his regime.

So, you are sort of defending the jihadis ??!!! Words fail me !

This is getting into a circular argument.

Most of the "jihadists" you both refer to come from all over, to fight for the Sunni against the Alawites/Shi'a.

If and when the Sunni win, many of them will return to their own countries (Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, etc.) or head for the next Jihad - which just happens to be up the road in Iraq.

My guess is the ones who live in relatively nice places will go home. The ones who live in places like Yemen will probably decide to carry on.

I wouldn't worry about the south too much; even the Lebanese Shi'a are starting to get pissed off with Hezbollah.

But the notion of a roving Al Qaeda rapid Jihadi force is not what I attempted to get across, nor is it the way things are. They are mostly small groups organised by tribe or religious leader.

It's another feeble excuse from Assad to stay in power: "I'm fighting the jihadists! If I don't, they'll take over the Middle East!".

Yeah right.

He's massacring his countrymen like his dad did before him, and let's not lose sight of that critical fact.

But, the thing is these jihadis are willing to commit all sorts of atrocities against innocent people in various parts of the world. It is much better if Assad (or whoever, be it Obama or Putin) destroys them, before they can do any more damage to humanity. It is the jihadis who have committed the terrible terror act in Kenya, which is actually still going on as of this moment.

[Chicog]

But, the thing is these jihadis are willing to commit all sorts of atrocities against innocent people in various parts of the world. It is much better if Assad (or whoever, be it Obama or Putin) destroys them, before they can do any more damage to humanity. It is the jihadis who have committed the terrible terror act in Kenya, which is actually still going on as of this moment.

I realise it's an emotive subject, but let's keep it factual.

Do you think it's OK for Assad to murder 250,000 civilians to kill a few thousand extremists? How about 500,000? One million? Bear in mind he's already killed approaching 100,000.

More to the point, do you think it's OK for civilians to arm themselves and fight with Syrian army defectors to protect their fellow Sunni from Assad's assaults?

Think hard about both of these questions before you answer, I think they are quite critical to any debate on the subject.

My answer to the first is No. Assad started this by murdered civilians, with his shabiha committing the same atrocities of which you accuse seemingly every fighter opposed to Assad (which is not the case).

Two wrongs don't make a right, but essentially the majority of the population of Syria want Assad to go, and the majority are not extremists - they are fighting for their lives and their freedom.

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

The jihadists as you call them are a minority in this fight. Assad's expensive foreign PR companies are making sure their handful of attacks get the maximum coverage, particularly gruesome where media permits it.

The opposition don't have the same PR machine to show what Assad has done for the last two years. They rely on sneaking out the odd Youtube video, some of which are made up, and all of which global media report "cannot be verified" - because they don't come from the Syrian government.

How ****ed up is that?

And of course any reporter that tries to go in there and report what Assad is doing is quickly executed wherever they are found.

It's quite a big list and as you'll notice, most of them do not work for the Syrian government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_during_the_Syrian_civil_war

[simple1]

But, the thing is these jihadis are willing to commit all sorts of atrocities against innocent people in various parts of the world. It is much better if Assad (or whoever, be it Obama or Putin) destroys them, before they can do any more damage to humanity. It is the jihadis who have committed the terrible terror act in Kenya, which is actually still going on as of this moment.

I realise it's an emotive subject, but let's keep it factual.

Do you think it's OK for Assad to murder 250,000 civilians to kill a few thousand extremists? How about 500,000? One million? Bear in mind he's already killed approaching 100,000.

More to the point, do you think it's OK for civilians to arm themselves and fight with Syrian army defectors to protect their fellow Sunni from Assad's assaults?

Think hard about both of these questions before you answer, I think they are quite critical to any debate on the subject.

My answer to the first is No. Assad started this by murdered civilians, with his shabiha committing the same atrocities of which you accuse seemingly every fighter opposed to Assad (which is not the case).

Two wrongs don't make a right, but essentially the majority of the population of Syria want Assad to go, and the majority are not extremists - they are fighting for their lives and their freedom.

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

The jihadists as you call them are a minority in this fight. Assad's expensive foreign PR companies are making sure their handful of attacks get the maximum coverage, particularly gruesome where media permits it.

The opposition don't have the same PR machine to show what Assad has done for the last two years. They rely on sneaking out the odd Youtube video, some of which are made up, and all of which global media report "cannot be verified" - because they don't come from the Syrian government.

How ****ed up is that?

And of course any reporter that tries to go in there and report what Assad is doing is quickly executed wherever they are found.

It's quite a big list and as you'll notice, most of them do not work for the Syrian government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_during_the_Syrian_civil_war

Just to add for JemJem's consideration that under Assad, Syria has been known for years as a state supporter of terrorism by carrying out overseas political assassinations of his opponents, as well as the former PM of Lebanon in 2005 in a massive bomb attack. In conjunction with Iran, Assad supports Hezbollah & until recently Hamas. In 2012 Hamas withdrew from an alliance with Assad as he was killing thousands of Sunnis in Syria, but until that time Hamas leaders were provided shelter in Damascus by Assad.

According to reports backed by US intelligence, in the period 2003 - 2007 the Assad regime permitted Sunni Jihadists to train in Syria & then cross into Iraq to attack US/NATO forces. You may recall media reporting at the time on the amount of grief this was causing the coalition in the so called Sunni Triangle. Take a look at the URLs below & review the alleged extent of the Assad regime duplicity. Assad is equally as guilty as any Sunni extremist organisation.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-assad-recruiting-al-qaeda-again/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-syria-palestinians-idUSTRE81N1CC20120224

[FDog]

But, the thing is these jihadis are willing to commit all sorts of atrocities against innocent people in various parts of the world. It is much better if Assad (or whoever, be it Obama or Putin) destroys them, before they can do any more damage to humanity. It is the jihadis who have committed the terrible terror act in Kenya, which is actually still going on as of this moment.

I realise it's an emotive subject, but let's keep it factual.

Do you think it's OK for Assad to murder 250,000 civilians to kill a few thousand extremists? How about 500,000? One million? Bear in mind he's already killed approaching 100,000.

More to the point, do you think it's OK for civilians to arm themselves and fight with Syrian army defectors to protect their fellow Sunni from Assad's assaults?

Think hard about both of these questions before you answer, I think they are quite critical to any debate on the subject.

My answer to the first is No. Assad started this by murdered civilians, with his shabiha committing the same atrocities of which you accuse seemingly every fighter opposed to Assad (which is not the case).

Two wrongs don't make a right, but essentially the majority of the population of Syria want Assad to go, and the majority are not extremists - they are fighting for their lives and their freedom.

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

The jihadists as you call them are a minority in this fight. Assad's expensive foreign PR companies are making sure their handful of attacks get the maximum coverage, particularly gruesome where media permits it.

The opposition don't have the same PR machine to show what Assad has done for the last two years. They rely on sneaking out the odd Youtube video, some of which are made up, and all of which global media report "cannot be verified" - because they don't come from the Syrian government.

How ****ed up is that?

And of course any reporter that tries to go in there and report what Assad is doing is quickly executed wherever they are found.

It's quite a big list and as you'll notice, most of them do not work for the Syrian government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_during_the_Syrian_civil_war

The jihadists are terrorists and should not be assisted.

The west is best just to stay out of it. Which is why Obama agreed to go with Putin's plan to save him some face because he didn't really want to get involved. But unfortunately shot his mouth off a bit too early. Well done to Putin for saving him.

[Chicog]

The jihadists are terrorists and should not be assisted.

The west is best just to stay out of it. Which is why Obama agreed to go with Putin's plan to save him some face because he didn't really want to get involved. But unfortunately shot his mouth off a bit too early. Well done to Putin for saving him.

I know you love the opportunity to have a pop at POTUS, but do us a favour and do it in another thread.

The Shabiha are terrorists and should not be assisted.

[FDog]

The jihadists are terrorists and should not be assisted.

The west is best just to stay out of it. Which is why Obama agreed to go with Putin's plan to save him some face because he didn't really want to get involved. But unfortunately shot his mouth off a bit too early. Well done to Putin for saving him.

I know you love the opportunity to have a pop at POTUS, but do us a favour and do it in another thread.

The Shabiha are terrorists and should not be assisted.

Thanks for the offer but no, I'm quite happy here on this thread running rings around people that think Putin is bad and Obama is good, even though Obama agrees with Putin.

No one is stopping you hitting the ignore button.

Edit: I think Obama has done very well to agree with Putin, good on him. Just a pity it was his own incompetence that got him into the pickle in the first place and had to be bailed out.

[Chicog]

If the defector (above) that reported chemical weapons going across the border to Hizbollah is correct, then I'm afraid Putin will have a rather large load of egg on his face.

Either way I think Putin has promised something Assad probably won't deliver.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

-snip-

Yes and yes. But I would be afraid and offended if Russia stuck its nose in and started bombing Washington DC and the like. I don't want to end up answering to another world power. It would be a civil war and none of Russia's business.

This is what I don't get. Where the hell does the US get the idea that it can pick and choose, and unilaterally decide to bomb a sovereign nation such as Syria?

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, because we Americans and our Congress shot Obama down due to public opinion about what's right. World wide, Obama can't get a coalition. Even the Brits, perhaps our staunchest ally, said "no."

Some of you can go on and on about this Syrian shoulda coulda stuff, but worldwide and in the US, you are the minority. Big time.

[Baloo22]

-snip-

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

-snip-

Yes and yes. But I would be afraid and offended if Russia stuck its nose in and started bombing Washington DC and the like. I don't want to end up answering to another world power. It would be a civil war and none of Russia's business.

This is what I don't get. Where the hell does the US get the idea that it can pick and choose, and unilaterally decide to bomb a sovereign nation such as Syria?

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, because we Americans and our Congress shot Obama down due to public opinion about what's right. World wide, Obama can't get a coalition. Even the Brits, perhaps our staunchest ally, said "no."

Some of you can go on and on about this Syrian shoulda coulda stuff, but worldwide and in the US, you are the minority. Big time.

You are 100% correct! We had our own civil war with plenty of brutality and suffering by the civilian populations. But it was our civil war to fight to it's own bitter end. Foreign powers had no business getting involved and wisely stayed out of it. And there is no doubt that we should stay out of Syria's civil war.

[ABCer]

Baloo22 and NeverSure. Couldn't agree more.

The trouble with some people is they will understand and support a notion that no bloody Russians or stupid Chinese should be calling the shots, have a say or tell the world what to do. We, noble clever and mighty US is an entirely different case.

We have done everything right so far everywhere. And have a God given right to do as we please anytime anywhere again... with Syria being our next lab test.

[Chicog]

-snip-

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

-snip-

Yes and yes. But I would be afraid and offended if Russia stuck its nose in and started bombing Washington DC and the like. I don't want to end up answering to another world power. It would be a civil war and none of Russia's business.

This is what I don't get. Where the hell does the US get the idea that it can pick and choose, and unilaterally decide to bomb a sovereign nation such as Syria?

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, because we Americans and our Congress shot Obama down due to public opinion about what's right. World wide, Obama can't get a coalition. Even the Brits, perhaps our staunchest ally, said "no."

Some of you can go on and on about this Syrian shoulda coulda stuff, but worldwide and in the US, you are the minority. Big time.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that Iran and Russia are *already* involved.

This is not a case of poking a nose in where no-one else has already done so.

The UN would already have acted if Russia and China had not blocked every attempt.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

-snip-

Yes and yes. But I would be afraid and offended if Russia stuck its nose in and started bombing Washington DC and the like. I don't want to end up answering to another world power. It would be a civil war and none of Russia's business.

This is what I don't get. Where the hell does the US get the idea that it can pick and choose, and unilaterally decide to bomb a sovereign nation such as Syria?

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, because we Americans and our Congress shot Obama down due to public opinion about what's right. World wide, Obama can't get a coalition. Even the Brits, perhaps our staunchest ally, said "no."

Some of you can go on and on about this Syrian shoulda coulda stuff, but worldwide and in the US, you are the minority. Big time.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that Iran and Russia are *already* involved.

This is not a case of poking a nose in where no-one else has already done so.

The UN would already have acted if Russia and China had not blocked every attempt.

I'm not forgetting anything. The other countries which are involved are there by permission of a sovereign nation.

If the US got involved, it would be violating that sovereign nation.

Forget the UN. It is and will be a paper tiger. None of its resolutions are binding and no one except perhaps France wanted anything to do with it. That includes the American people and Congress.

You are in the minority on this. It's over. Give it up. Your side lost.

[StasD]

Sometimes I do pity about some members here who discuss about war as the baseball. I was fighting in Afganistan in 1982, that time maybe we were wrong, maybe right but I do not wish to anybody to take a part in even small limited war. please believe there is a huge difference of watching war on TV and shooting in streets. So I support anyone who can help to stop it

[Chicog]

I'm not forgetting anything. The other countries which are involved are there by permission of a sovereign nation.

If the US got involved, it would be violating that sovereign nation.

Forget the UN. It is and will be a paper tiger. None of its resolutions are binding and no one except perhaps France wanted anything to do with it. That includes the American people and Congress.

You are in the minority on this. It's over. Give it up. Your side lost.

The other countries involved are helping massacre the population. The "sovereign nation" as you call it is currently under illegitimate rule. That's a pretty legal argument Russia might want to play, but morally bankrupt.

The Syrian people are not the minority. It's not over and it's not going to be until Assad is gone.

It doesn't need a ground invasion to help them achieve justice.

Just the inaction of the cowardly, the corrupt and the foolish.

[Sing_Sling]

-snip-

To the second, I think it's perfectly acceptable; if my government started attacking its own population, I'd feel obliged to fight - wouldn't you? I'd also expect most of my army to turn on the government as well.

-snip-

Yes and yes. But I would be afraid and offended if Russia stuck its nose in and started bombing Washington DC and the like. I don't want to end up answering to another world power. It would be a civil war and none of Russia's business.

This is what I don't get. Where the hell does the US get the idea that it can pick and choose, and unilaterally decide to bomb a sovereign nation such as Syria?

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that, because we Americans and our Congress shot Obama down due to public opinion about what's right. World wide, Obama can't get a coalition. Even the Brits, perhaps our staunchest ally, said "no."

Some of you can go on and on about this Syrian shoulda coulda stuff, but worldwide and in the US, you are the minority. Big time.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that Iran and Russia are *already* involved.

This is not a case of poking a nose in where no-one else has already done so.

The UN would already have acted if Russia and China had not blocked every attempt.

You are completely missing the point while telling others that they 'forget', 'don't know', 'take shots at the US/Obama'.

The majority of politicians in your country as well as the majority of people are against bombing Syria . . . it's about time that the self-appointed policeman stops indiscriminately killing others far, far away from their on country.

Some civil wars are ok to intervene in and others not? Where was the US in Ruanda? The Horn of Africa? Why isn't it there? Irian Jaya? Where were they for Timor l'Este? Heck, Thailand . . .

Nope, it's the Middle East

The war will escalate and become region-wide if you create a power-vacuum without back-up, or has history taught you nothing?

[Scott]

There have been numerous warnings to stick to the topic. The topic is about Syria. It is not about Obama or US politics. It is certainly not about the Vietnam War, or more recently mentioned, the US Civil War.

My patience has worn thin and continued posts will be deleted and posters will be warned and suspended from posting.

[Chicog]

You are completely missing the point while telling others that they 'forget', 'don't know', 'take shots at the US/Obama'.

The majority of politicians in your country as well as the majority of people are against bombing Syria . . . it's about time that the self-appointed policeman stops indiscriminately killing others far, far away from their on country.

Some civil wars are ok to intervene in and others not? Where was the US in Ruanda? The Horn of Africa? Why isn't it there? Irian Jaya? Where were they for Timor l'Este? Heck, Thailand . . .

Nope, it's the Middle East

The war will escalate and become region-wide if you create a power-vacuum without back-up, or has history taught you nothing?

I could not agree more regarding Rwanda et al. I don't think you should be selective. Not quite sure what you need to do in Thailand?!

I don't agree that the war will escalate if you "create a power vacuum". It's already spilling over into Jordan and Lebanon, and things aren't exactly stable in Iraq, are they?

I think long term a Sunni-run Syria would create a healthy buffer that would stop the Shi'a led violence in Syria and Lebanon once and for all.

Appeasing murderous dictators doesn't work, or has history taught you nothing?