So, this is it (Syria)

Great Debates
201

Except Israel control the Golan Heights, Hezbollah are fighting the rrebels in Syria and the Syrian Army is fighting its own people.

Besides as has already been pointed out - Israel is on Assad’s side nowadays. Him being the secular Devil They Know and the outcome of him losing likely to be a jihadist Syria.

The idea that Assad, in the middle of fighting for his own survival, will decide now is the time to start a (short, hopeless and bloody) war on an Israel that has carefully not sided with the Rebel Alliance replete with jihadists is simply bizarre.

There is no chance - none whatsoever - of Syria going to war with Israel at this moment. If ever given Israel is a nuclear state.

202

The problem with trying to draw a comparison between human catastrophes in one part of the world versus another is that, sooner or later, we have to confront our own culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s and others who we set out to save from horrible leaders…

The Syrian conflict, like most of the middle east, is sectarian Muslim violence, aided and abetted by those who think they can gain something by destabilizing the region.

Better to suggest a truce during which we evacuate all the civilians who want to go, then tell Assad and the rebels to hurry up and kill each other.

203

Isn’t Iran building an oil pipeline through Iraq & Syria in a desperate bid to get oil to the med and all markets beyond? US sanctions on Iran are killing it, and it might be worth it to Israel to let Syria go down in flames if it fucks Iran hard enough.

204

(a) who is “we”?
(b) do you remember the phrase ‘WMD’?
(c) there is and will never be any form of culpability or accountability for the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children killed by the democratcially elected leadership of the USA. Why would there be when the USA is the judge and jury.

So, on that’s basis, lets blow the shit out of another country and, once more, validate the obscene expense of the military.

205

Greetings, I had to finally register here (after lurking for a while) to post my $0.02 here.

Inaction. That’s the only solution that can be applied without making things much worse. What I mean exactly is: Have the UN forces completely seal off Syria, not just border crossings but along the whole border. Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. Do not interfere in the conflict in any way or fashion, don’t offer support to any faction… just seal them off, and let them settle their differences until somebody wins.

It’s the only way this conflict could actually be brought to an end. The warring factions are unable and unwilling to occupy the same area at the same time, therefore any attempted “solution” is guaranteed to piss off at least one of the factions and the killings will go on. These people have been engaged in open warfare for generations, the only difference now is that they’re able to do so much more efficiently with modern technology (ain’t it great?). Of course this course of action essentially amounts to genocide since one side must be wiped out so that the other can shut up (greatly simplified of course, there are more then two sides in this conflict).

The only other possible solution I can think of is putting boots on the ground in staggering amounts, forcefully separating the factions and (once again) forcefully relocating them to a different region. Basically creating multiple new states, one for each faction, where they can set their laws and live within that boundary how they want to live. This one, while possible in theory, isn’t very likely because the amount of work that would have to be done - creating all the infrastructure, government, facilities, utilities, etc etc - is astronomical, it may be easier to settle Mars.

I’m not trying to argue against/for anybody here, just stating how I see the current situation and possible courses of action…

206

Cutting off humanitarian aid too?

207

Even to seal it off would take staggering amounts of ‘boots on the ground’, who would themselves become targets.

208

Picking on the new kid?

209

Apparently, Al-Queda-affiliated portions of the anti-Assad forces are the most organized and the most battle-worthy ones. See:

“Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting,” says CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen who adds, “Al-Nusra’s military prowess and close ties to al Qaeda make it a potentially serious threat to U.S. interests in the region.”

Syria watchers roundly agree that no other rebel group is currently positioned to take control of the country. In other words, if the United States pushes too hard or too fast to overthrow al-Assad (even though in the long run, American officials do want him gone) the U.S. risks helping terror groups take power.

210

Obama really screwed the pooch on this one. He’s going to look weak and stupid no matter what he does at this point.

211

Yup, Syrian rebels have to fight al Qaeda at the same time:

Isn’t AQ now flying its national flag over ar-Raqqa?

212

Definitely cut off EVERYthing in-country. Civilians can make their own way to the border and get a cup’o’noodles or something. But nobody inside further then the border, that’s the whole point. Leave them alone to fight among themselves and at the same time seal them off from bringing their conflict out into the neighboring countries… while also cutting off all assistance from the outside. They won’t be able to keep up for a very long time completely sealed off.

I guess that would be difficult on the innocent civilians (if such even exist*), so perhaps UN could set up several refugee camps at the borders, but don’t bring people in there, they can come on their own if they feel the need.

Obviously it would require a great number of boots on the ground, but they won’t be in the middle of the conflict at least. They’d be on the outskirts, and their mission would not be to interfere, but to seal the country in both directions.

*I mean they’ve been living, literally, in the middle of a war zone. While I understand that they have homes and all that, but I wouldn’t hesitate even for a minute to get myself and my family anywhere as long as it’s away from the fighting. These “innocent civilians”, inexplicably, stay put, why? It’s not even being nearby to conflict, they’re right in the middle of it.

213

OK.

That’s… That’s not inaction. That’s action.

214

What is the opinion in the States of the British ruling out military action, but France willing to join a coalition? Feel like I’ve woken up in Bizarro-world where Putin approves of the British and Americans are joined in military affairs by the French.

215

If you’re going to take that approach, you should leverage it more strongly. You should, in addition to cutting off their external economy, also destroy their internal economy. Use precision bombing to destroy their electrical generation, gasoline pumping, and distribution of water. These installations are usually centralized and vulnerable.

Without water, the nation will succumb in less than a week.

Of course, I hasten to add, I don’t hold with this…nor with your idea of cutting off humanitarian assistance. It just seems odd to make do with half measures.

216

This comes from Dale Gavlak - who publishes under MintPress News and AP. For what it’s worth:

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
…
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

I wonder - if some kind of proof comes out that it actually was the rebels setting off the chemical weapons, will Obama and France et al. be compelled to bomb the rebels in retaliation?

217

Are you really so dense that you can’t differentiate between action OUTSIDE the country and INSIDE? Do I need to draw a little diagram? :rolleyes: If you’re going to say anything, then at least make it constructive, thanks in advance.

Trinopus, I’m not going to take any approach, luckily (or perhaps sadly) decisions like that are not under my control. But my idea isn’t about destroying their economy, it’s not about cutting off their water/electricity/whatever. It’s about locking all the factions into a single area and keeping them confined without outside interference so they can settle their beef. The whole point is to NOT bomb anything, to NOT destroy any of their facilities, they can handle that without out help.

Basically the only way this can end is through genocide (without forcefully splitting the country into separate territories for each). Just being realistic here. They are absolutely unwilling to live with each other, no matter who’s in power somebody is pissed off and waving guns about.

But either way, my purpose here was to simply voice what I consider to be obvious. If anybody disagrees, that’s their right, we’re not in Syria after all (hur-hur-hur). But I’m not going to argue through this, I’ve spent a long time thinking through it and came to these conclusions. Obviously your information may be different from mine, and it follows that in that case you would draw different conclusions.

218

Why?

France has long been willing to rattle sabers in Africa and has an excellent military and a long tradition of military excellence.

Real life is not an episode of The Simpsons.

219

I think, instead, that my dissent from your conclusion indicates differences in underlying beliefs and values.

I can respect a principle of neutrality, and even of non-intervention in any military way. I cannot respect the idea of cutting off all avenues of negotiation, nor of the idea of cutting off all aid. That would increase the misery of refugees, without hastening the end of hostilities. I believe your proposal would increase the overall level of pain and suffering in the region.

I’ve never liked the “lock them in a room and see who comes out alive” moral approach. The fact that there are millions of perfectly innocent people – children and other non-combatants – makes the approach morally untenable. I admit immediately that this is an opinion based on my own moral values.

220

I hate that POTUS is so set on bombing Syria, that’s going to have next to no effect. Since he specifically said that the objective is not to remove Assad.

But I can kind of understand, logically, why he is so “eager”. When he drew the proverbial “line in the sand” he basically cornered himself. Now somebody has (almost definitely) used chemical weaponry, and POTUS specifically said that that’s the line that can’t be crossed. At this point either action by POTUS (bombing or not bombing) will put him in a bad light. Bombing is obviously premature since there isn’t any proof that it was Assad’s regime that perpetrated these attacks. Not bombing will make him seem weak, like he’s going back on his (very loud) words, and that may hurt US relations with other nations. POTUS has clearly stated that there would be action taken, not taking any would undermine the credibility of the office.

What a crappy situation to be in, lose/lose no matter how you dice it. Sucks to be POTUS with a decision like that hanging over.

My question is, for anybody who is familiar with the legalities, can any legal recourse be taken against POTUS if he does go ahead and order strikes? I mean he’s an elected official, his prime purpose is to serve the citizens of this country, everything else is secondary, and it’s pretty clear that the majority of the citizens absolutely do not want the US to get involved in Syria. So by deciding to attack anyway he’s going against everything the office stands for (not to mention the vast majority of the world as well). So, anybody have any knowledge of the legal aspects here? Plus I understand there is some debate about whether POTUS can legally order military action without approval from the congress, even though they are supposedly serving the same masters, us.