Again, I am horrified by what we see and know there needs to be intervention.
But with the options we have right now, it just seems like knocking the hornets nest from the overhang to the balcony.
This is what the UN should be good for. But as long as Putin (and China to a lesser extent) want to support cold war type strategies, the UN is also boned.
Have I mentioned how I really hate Putin? He can suck all the dick in San Fran, bringing the cold war back.
The Arab League called for United Nations and International measures against Syria over alleged gas attack.
Voice of Russia (I'm not familiar with the source, but it claims to quote the resolution):
Quote:
The final resolution of an Arab League meeting in Cairo urged the United Nations and international community to "take the deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for".
Arab League needs to stop talking and actually start doing.
Haven't agreed with Stockwell Day in a moon, but he had a great idea.
Back a force WITH Saudi, UAE, etc. For one, finally get them to take some responsibilty. Maybe even save a little dough.
Two, more importantly, the west doesn't get backlash for interfering.
If you can't get the help, don't move forward. This is where diplomacy shines. Time to stop risking what we have AND the threat of terrorist backlash when it doesn't seem like the others care.
And there really won't be any lasting peace or stability anyway without Arab and or Muslim support.
^ Sounds a lot like passing the buck. And if nobody else picks it up, then you're standing by watching civilians die. It's Rwanda all over again.
the west is screwed if the do, screwed if they don't.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PIMking For This Useful Post:
^ Sounds a lot like passing the buck. And if nobody else picks it up, then you're standing by watching civilians die. It's Rwanda all over again.
Rwanda was sad and I argued for more intervention there. But it was different. Far smaller population and far less organized.
Most importantly, no blockage by security council members, like 'flexy muscles Putin' on this one.
I really want to see a possiblity on this one, but I just don't. And it'll probably just cause more problems anyway.
Edit: Which is why bringing in Saudi on this might help. Though it's a hole in one try. Maybe The Captain can yea or nay this idea. They do have a large force they never use, right?
I know it's not likely, but if they could be talked into support that'd be good, right?
If true moderates do leave their homes and get their country back, they generally get subverted by a radical in moderate clothing. Ala Morsi.
Dude I want it to work as much as you do. But the majority of rebels are still radical. And even if they weren't, it only takes one crazy guy to take over a bus.
Admitted, the odds of things working out are statistically not in Syrias favour, but you're making it sound like no country has ever returned to stability after a civil war or a revolution.
Should the FSA get hold of the country, they have far from the worst possible situations to start from. They have a fairly literate, decently educated mostly urban population, a lot of foreign backing available and oil (which is why they can get foreign backing).
From France to Spain to Mexico to wherever, it's quite normal that a post-revolution / civil war era is filled with really messy politics, some politically motivated bloodshed and a string of short-lived, weak governments with possibly a dictator thrown somewhere in the mix. Doesn't mean that there haven't been sides worth backing in the original fights, or that it won't go anywhere over time.
The Ennahda movement that took power in Tunis btw don't seem to be that bad. Which is propably why nobody generally hears about them in the news. I still have a lot of hope for Egypt, even with all the bloodshed.
The islamic world has a lot of housecleaning to do, it's no secret. But I believe we might have already passed the peak of radical islamist power in politics, or in any case it doesn't seem to be making any more ground.
Most importantly, no blockage by security council members, like 'flexy muscles Putin' on this one.
I really want to see a possiblity on this one, but I just don't. And it'll probably just cause more problems anyway.
Seriously this whole clusterfata Syrian mess wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if the UN had been allowed to condemn Assad two years ago and perhaps intervened then when the rebels weren't full of Jihadists, the death count was only ~2k instead of 110k and there weren't millions of refugees fleeing to Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon. Instead we've gotten two years of Russian intransigence over what amounts to a naval port and $20 billion in weapons contracts and trade.
More information is emerging about the Sarin attack with Iranian ex-president Rafsanjani (guy who ran in the vote against Amadinejad, but lost due to vote rigging) claims he knows the Syrian government was responsible. Strange but not surprising he would speak out and contradict his own government like this. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ex-...-attack-324940
The only benefit you get from bombing the chemical sites is the hopeful possibility that those chemical weapons won't get used anymore.
Other than that we might as well accept it that thousands upon thousands of people are going to keep dying over the years and there really isn't anything we can do about it.
Admitted, the odds of things working out are statistically not in Syrias favour, but you're making it sound like no country has ever returned to stability after a civil war or a revolution.
Should the FSA get hold of the country, they have far from the worst possible situations to start from. They have a fairly literate, decently educated mostly urban population, a lot of foreign backing available and oil (which is why they can get foreign backing).
From France to Spain to Mexico to wherever, it's quite normal that a post-revolution / civil war era is filled with really messy politics, some politically motivated bloodshed and a string of short-lived, weak governments with possibly a dictator thrown somewhere in the mix. Doesn't mean that there haven't been sides worth backing in the original fights, or that it won't go anywhere over time.
The Ennahda movement that took power in Tunis btw don't seem to be that bad. Which is propably why nobody generally hears about them in the news. I still have a lot of hope for Egypt, even with all the bloodshed.
The islamic world has a lot of housecleaning to do, it's no secret. But I believe we might have already passed the peak of radical islamist power in politics, or in any case it doesn't seem to be making any more ground.
The traditional examples that you put as France, Spain, and Mexico had how much outside intervention?
That's the point, let them have their own revolution. It will be more organic, and thus lasting.
I watched the video's, I'd sign up right away if I thought it would help.
But better or worse, I don't think the west helps. Again, this would be different if Russia or key middle east players were on board. But they are not.
If it's a revolution as you say then they will get it done like the historical examples. And yes, there will be significant change.
But not if we force it. Has that worked AT ALL in the middle east in 60+ years? Even Israel, wherever you come out on the debate, is a mess.
The only benefit you get from bombing the chemical sites is the hopeful possibility that those chemical weapons won't get used anymore.
Other than that we might as well accept it that thousands upon thousands of people are going to keep dying over the years and there really isn't anything we can do about it.
The fact that we're willing to accept thousands and thousands of dead civilians and kids because of political expediency strikes me as wrong.
I get the reasons not to do anything, but to justify it for political reasons to me just feels really wrong and makes me feel like humanity has a big problem.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The fact that we're willing to accept thousands and thousands of dead civilians and kids because of political expediency strikes me as wrong.
I get the reasons not to do anything, but to justify it for political reasons to me just feels really wrong and makes me feel like humanity has a big problem.
We do have a big problem as humanity. Et al global warming, overpopulation, and war atrocities in general. If this or the politics is a tipping point in your eyes, you haven't been paying attention for a while.
I do agree though. It is sad. It is tiring. And it makes you question.
I want to see some intervention. As I asked to you above, and it's not a challenge, but because you know better than most here and have some experience: What is the best play?
I still don't think the West gets anything meaningful done without some new allies. Not for lack of trying. But it hasn't worked in the past, and this is so much bigger.
Again Russia blocking a lot, might even get massively easier after that.
The fact that we're willing to accept thousands and thousands of dead civilians and kids because of political expediency strikes me as wrong.
I get the reasons not to do anything, but to justify it for political reasons to me just feels really wrong and makes me feel like humanity has a big problem.
Not said we're willing to accept it. I just said there is no easy solution.
I'm okay with bombing the chemical sites to try and prevent further use against civilians, but that is literally the only benefit you'd get.
We do have a big problem as humanity. Et al global warming, overpopulation, and war atrocities in general. If this or the politics is a tipping point in your eyes, you haven't been paying attention for a while.
I do agree though. It is sad. It is tiring. And it makes you question.
I want to see some intervention. As I asked to you above, and it's not a challenge, but because you know better than most here and have some experience: What is the best play?
I still don't think the West gets anything meaningful done without some new allies. Not for lack of trying. But it hasn't worked in the past, and this is so much bigger.
Again Russia blocking a lot, might even get massively easier after that.
But we're not there yet. So what's the play?
Personally I think the cruise missile option is pretty weak. I thought it was weak when Clinton used it I thought it's weak now.
I also think that the UN is worthless in this situation, and its not the organization with the strength to create or uphold any kind of international law.
What would I do.
I declare a exclusion zone around every city in Syria. If any jets head towards one of them, its shot down. If any armored columns advance on them, the armored column is destroyed without mercy.
If any artillery unlimbers within 100 miles of a city its destroyed.
i would sterilized any chemical weapons factor and storage site in the country.
I would also make it clear to Asaad that if one more civilian is killed in a reprisal raid that we'll drop a bomb down his chimney.
the same warning would go to the Rebels groups by the way. The cities would become a no arms zone.
If they want to fight each other for the country they can do it 100 miles away from each city.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
If we could drop a bomb on every dictators palace, I think we would have more success at that by now.
Like the zones idea, I really think that the direction we should go. But will Russia let us?
Dunno how you destroy the chems when we still aren't sure who has used them and where they are.
For the record, I agree it's Assad, but pinning it and the location might be a chore.
Your overall idea is similar to mine though. Just seperate the parties. Give civilians room again. Don't necessarily pick a winner, but just shut it down.
Like I said before, UN used to be able to do that. Not so much anymore. And Russia. Russia, Russia Russia.
Did mention before Putin can suck a dick? I'm thinking it's more a policy/face for him right now than a strategic partnership choice anymore. He's going all hammer and sickle on this.
(The last part was really quite amazing; under two decades after the French had helped the US become an independent democracy, the US sided with the European royalists to try and destroy the French democratic revolutionary forces, so they could avoid paying the money they owed for that help.)
And on the other side
Irish revolutionaries
Denmark-Norway
Sweden
Polish
Kingdom of Mysore
And that's just a list of countries with fighting forces involved.
In Mexico president Diaz was strongly backed by Germany and Great Britain (funny how often those guys are on the wrong side of history), while the revolutionaries were backed by at least the U.S. and France.
Spanish civil war was possibly the most complicated clusterfrak of the three considering how mixed groups both the nationalists and the republicans were, but at least Soviet Union and Mexico officially backed the republicans and Nazi Germany, Italy and Portugal supported the nationalists. And of course unofficially the UK was on Franco's side, helping them with shipping and air support, because that's just how they roll.
And that's skipping the estimated 30,000+ volunteers from 50+ countries that took part.
Technically unfeasible in a country that's 56% urbanized. Plus you can't end wars without taking over cities.
Then just smash any piece of artillery or aircraft or military unit on either side that looks at cities funny.
And the second part, that's the idea.
To me the security of the civillians should be the top priority. Who cares about the government or the rebels.
Personally another solution would be to use Nato or UN troops with actual fighting units to carve out a civilian safe spot.
I always stated that the concept of Peace Keeping is dead, its the era of peace enforcement. Give the UN actual heavy units instead of the B.S. of soldiers riding around in under armored tanks with light infantry with no mandate to do anything but right a report.
Set up a UN unit with a heavy tank unit from the States, one from Russia, maybe one of the infantry divisions from China. A airforce comprised of strike planes and helicopters and strike aircraft. give them transports and logistics from another country. Maybe cut lose some naval assets from the States and Rusia. (of course we'd have to paint the helicopters black to satisfy the conspiracy nuts)
boom you suddenly have a peace enforcement military with teeth
They have the mandate to go into a country and separate fighting sides. With the mandate to destroy the side that breaks the peace.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
More information is emerging about the Sarin attack with Iranian ex-president Rafsanjani (guy who ran in the vote against Amadinejad, but lost due to vote rigging) claims he knows the Syrian government was responsible. Strange but not surprising he would speak out and contradict his own government like this. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ex-...-attack-324940
Former President Rafsanjani was very vocal during the Iran-Iraq War when it came to Iraq's usage of chemical munitions against Iranian troops. In fact he coined a phrase that has taken on a life of it's own in the following years.
Rafsanjani claimed that in response to Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against his country "Chemical and biological weapons are a poor man’s atomic bombs and can be easily produced. We should at least consider them for our defence... Although the use of such weapons is inhumane, the (Iran-Iraq) war taught us that international laws are only drops of ink on paper."
This was the birth of the phrase poor man's atomic bombs, which, like I have said, has become oft-quoted in the field. But the more significant part of what he said has to do with how international treaties and conventions banning the use of such weapons in war are viewed in certain circles. This is why it is paramount that the perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice. Legitimizing the use of unconventional weapons in a politically unstable region is something that no one wants to see.
