Arab League calls for an arab/UN peacekeeping force

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the Syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in Syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in Syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in Libya.

http://english.alarabiya.net/article...12/200282.html

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/12/s...eign-invasion/

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

http://english.alarabiya.net/article...12/200282.html

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/03/12/s...eign-invasion/

The Syrian National Council, based in Turkey/Paris does not represent the majority of Syrian people....not even close.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the Syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in Syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in Syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in Libya.

We're talking peace keeping not peace making. There is a very distinct different. That's why they're asking for UN intervention and not say NATO

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The Syrian National Council, based in Turkey/Paris does not represent the majority of Syrian people....not even close.

So where are your quotes and numbers that represent the majority of the Syrian people? You can't just say one thing and not back it up, though that is, admittedly on your part, how you like to "argue."

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I would argue that the veto of the UN Resolution on Syria by Russia and China is a policy of appeasement, in that Syrian sympathizers gave Syria more time to get their house in order. In other words, Syria was rewarded with more time to oppress its own people. That, in itself, is a reward.

The West is trying to avoid this scenario. Russia and China are for it. So while it might be nice to ignore the problem, the West certainly doesn't see it that way. Nor should they.

The thing is with that resolution it had been watered down to the point they weren't calling for any intervention, just condemnation of the Syrian government's actions, Assad to step down and the Russians and Chinese still vetoed it. It turned into one of those "we disapprove in the strongest terms" but we aren't going to do anything about it resolutions.

After the veto we saw nothing but intensifying violence and open shelling of civilian cities by troops. Assad got his blank check to do whatever he wanted. I'm against having any western troops on the ground. What else can be done to stop the violence at this point realistically? Sanctions? One thing is certain is there needs to be a cut in Russian/Chinese arms being shipped to Syria.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

You're right, lets just stop trying.

or let's look for a better way.....perhaps the current system is broken.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Why does it have to be a UN action? Why does it need to be a war?

Isn't this what marines and snipers are for?

An American sniper takes out Asaad, what's Russia and China really going to do about it?

Great plan except for the fact that these dudes



do not look like these dudes





therefore might stand out a bit tooling around downtown Damascus asking where the king lives.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

or let's look for a better way.....perhaps the current system is broken.

Which would be what?

[blankall]

UN peacekeeping has been shown to be totally ineffective in the middle east. In order for it to be effective, they'd actually have to take action against militant groups or despotic governments. The UN has put troops in Lebanon, Egypt (in the Sinai to keep peace between Israel and Egypt), Israel, the Palestinian territories, Yemen, and Iraq/Iran.

In each case the response has been the same:
1) Do nothing while militants and despotic governments arm themselves to the teeth ; and then
2) Run away when the inevitable violence breaks out.

At most the UN soldiers have served as human shields for the militant groups. I honestly don't see how putting them in Syria is going to be any different.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Which would be what?

i don't have the answer to that question. i do know that continuing to do the same thing and expect a different result is crazyness.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I see the western media has once again fooled the masses into believing the Syrian problem is a one sided affair.

What is going on in Syria, is a western destabilization program to bring about regime change in Syria. Syrians don't want foreign intervention, ...they saw what happened in Libya.

You got the first part right, unfortunatly you then drew a typical conspiricy theorists wack job conclusion from basic human nature, media always simplifies things, especially US media, because the average US citizan couldn't point to the middle east on a map, let alone understand the intricacies of its religeon and politics, so the media simplifies it into a basic Good guy v Bad guy because that is all your fellow citizans want or can understand.

Its the free market affect

The reality is the people of the middle east have been unhappy for years, their leaders have used the Palestinian Isreali issue to keep them mad at 'us' for years but that is wearing off, when a Tunisian fruit seller got pissed at being harrased by the cops and set himself on fire in protest it set off an uncontrollable set of dominos, Tunisia, Egypt Libya and now Syria.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

i don't have the answer to that question. i do know that continuing to do the same thing and expect a different result is crazyness.

I don't know if the UN goes in with the same strategy on every mission other than "peacekeeping".

Every situation has different actors, different threats, histories and environments. It is incredibly hard to judge the nature of the threat when peacekeepers are inserted. Think of it like in science, when a foreign species is introduced to a particular ecosystem. Results may vary.

Africa, in particular, is different than the Middle East, which is different from the Balkans, which is different from Southeast Asia.

I would argue that the one constant that must be implemented is with community consensus and relationship building, bringing the warring parties to the table to engage in negotiation.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't know if the UN goes in with the same strategy on every mission other than "peacekeeping".

Every situation has different actors, different threats, histories and environments. It is incredibly hard to judge the nature of the threat when peacekeepers are inserted. Think of it like in science, when a foreign species is introduced to a particular ecosystem. Results may vary.

Africa, in particular, is different than the Middle East, which is different from the Balkans, which is different from Southeast Asia.

I would argue that the one constant that must be implemented is with community consensus and relationship building, bringing the warring parties to the table to engage in negotiation.

I actually agree with you. I need a shower.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't know if the UN goes in with the same strategy on every mission other than "peacekeeping".

Every situation has different actors, different threats, histories and environments. It is incredibly hard to judge the nature of the threat when peacekeepers are inserted. Think of it like in science, when a foreign species is introduced to a particular ecosystem. Results may vary.

Africa, in particular, is different than the Middle East, which is different from the Balkans, which is different from Southeast Asia.

I would argue that the one constant that must be implemented is with community consensus and relationship building, bringing the warring parties to the table to engage in negotiation.

i would suggest that when you go into a situation that is more akin to civil war....the job is much much harder.

the UN is piss poor at responding and adapting to changing situations on the ground, the balkans is a perfect example, what a ####ing mess.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Barnes

nm

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Well there is a few smaller ones. The Renamo rebels in Mozambique were successful disarmed and brought in again as a political party, with UN peacekeeping being in the middle of that. The handover of power in Liberia from Charles Taylor to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in 2005 could be considered another one.

I guess the definition of "success" is debatable though.

This situation is far different. At this point Syria's leaders don't care about the international outcries so throwing in some lightly armed UN peacekeepers in white painted jeeps and lightly armored personal carriers is going to get a lot of them killed.

UN Peacekeeping is only going to effectively work if both sides care about international opinion.

In this case the Syrian's are using aircraft, hardeened infantry, heavy artillary and armored units including tanks.

All that's going to happen if the UN intervenes is that some poor sob making a few extra bucks for peacekeeping duties is going to end up dead.

Peacekeeping today fails more often or not because the UN doesn't know how to apply needed muscle.

You have the Syrians on one side with a very well armed fairly modern Military with heavy formations, on the other side you have lightly armed civillians and some former military members. If you throw in the UN then you'd better have a way to peal back the enemies artillary and armor units or you're just gonna end up dead.

UN Peacekeeping is a flawed concept especially in a modern world where your dealing with enemies that just don't care.

The only reason why Peacekeeping would ever work is if you had rational enemies on both sides that are willing to back down due to international pressure (Suez canal).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Policy of appeasement. Pretty much ignore the problem and it will go away. History proved that that was a failed policy.

And I don't think the people #### on the West; I think the government and hardcore supporters do, which the American media especially loves to spin as the only sentiment coming from places like Syria.

Ignore what problem? That there are a bunch of morons over there killing their own people? How is that a problem for us?

An actual problem is Iran possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, not the government of Syria killing their own people. Yes, we all hate that human life is being lost on a daily basis, but I fail to see why we should do anything about it.

Say we go over there and remove the government, and restore peace, what then? If we leave the same crap will probably happen again.

Iraq should have taught us that we don't need to put troops on the ground everytime a dictator does something we disapprove of.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I would argue that the veto of the UN Resolution on Syria by Russia and China is a policy of appeasement, in that Syrian sympathizers gave Syria more time to get their house in order. In other words, Syria was rewarded with more time to oppress its own people. That, in itself, is a reward.

The West is trying to avoid this scenario. Russia and China are for it. So while it might be nice to ignore the problem, the West certainly doesn't see it that way. Nor should they.

And why exactly should we give a crap what Syria does? I mean we already appease and bend over for governments that support terrorism because we like their oil. Why should we suddenly start caring when Syria starts killing their own people?

Fact of the matter is if we put boots on the ground, with the tension in the region those troops would get torn apart. And even if we succeed and restore some semblance of peace, what then? There is no end game that works.

The only way that the region can 'fix' itself is if the people overthrow the government, and implement freedom and democracy alone. If they do that we can help, but we sure as hell shouldn't get involved before outside of maybe arming the rebels, and perhaps sending Special Forces troops in to help secretly train them.

Russia and China getting involved makes this seem like the Cold War all over again. Want to do Korea and Vietnam over again too?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

We're talking peace keeping not peace making. There is a very distinct different. That's why they're asking for UN intervention and not say NATO

It is still a bunch of crap.

You have to make the peace in order to be able to keep it. And in order to do that you basically need to kill everyone and start fresh. Obviously that won't happen, so you're basically screwed no matter which way you approach it.

Afghanistan is a GREAT example that a lot of people are ignoring. NATO has spent 10 years over there and has spent billions upon billions of OUR money to help those people. And how do they respond? Well for one, Afghan soldiers fire on NATO troops at an ever increasing rate. Troops NATO thinks are friendly. Just imagine that for one second. And the government refuses to properly acknowledge it. That alone is reason enough to get the hell out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Great plan except for the fact that these dudes



do not look like these dudes





therefore might stand out a bit tooling around downtown Damascus asking where the king lives.

Not sure what that is even supposed to mean. American Special Forces troops have blended in throughout the Middle East for the better part of a decade.