Syria: What should the US do/not do?

Be like Nutella

Issues:

• The possible use of chemical weapons.
• The extremist groups within the anti-Assad side.
• Whether to arm or not arm?
• Can a No Fly Zone (NFZ) be instigated easily and maintained easily?
• Should there be boots on the ground under any circumstances?
• What would be the ultimate goal in getting further involved?
• If the US gets militarily involved is Syria just destined to become another drawn out Iraq? (where between 150,000-300,000 are deemed to have died since Saddam left power)

For my part I think the primary concern should be a global concern with the atrocities which have happened in the last 2 years and some kind of combined effort should be made by the international community to stop the bloodshed, get Assad and his guys out of power (by force) and get the Syrians to a table to build a new Syria. It may be 'pie in the sky' thinking to a large degree but that's what I think nonetheless.

The US should lead this effort and the primary goal should be a humanitarian one above everything else. Humanitarian first, then nation building contributions, democracy building over many years after that.

Build a coalition. Call him a war criminal. Give him an ultimatum to step aside, offer him and his people a safe haven if they leave without further bloodshed. Get the main anti-Assad parties together and do your best to convince them that none of them will have a majority and killing each other for decades isn't going to be any better than Syria under Assad. That's all you can do really.

But just watching these people massacre each other and risking a wider regional destabilization (which is already an issue) is no longer the smartest move. Doing nothing is now more dangerous.

This needs pro-action. Whatever action is chosen needs to be viewed as regionally popular (ignoring Iran which doesn't count as an opinion in this particular case). We need a US/European/Gulf partnership - they need to come together and put the cards on the table and choose a path forward - The primary goal needs to be a Humanitarian one - to stop Assad becoming more and more desperate killing more and more people with chemical and heavy weapons. There obviously needs to be a plan in place about how to deal with Al Qaeda who are present there already and will take years to root out.

There is no peace process potential in this between the lions (Assad) and the lambs. We're beyond that point. Assad and his Alawites are petrified they'll be killed, jailed, rounded up, dominated etc etc and they are right to be scared so whatever international coalition comes together needs to take care of these Alawites. There are 2.5 million of them in Syria - they have been the minority elite leadership for 40 years since Assad's father ruled and their time is over. They're out. Finding a way to assure their protection once Assad is gone is the key to this process.

I'm more than aware that atrocities have been carried out by both Assad's forces AND groups within the rising. But Assad has killed the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those people killed have been innocent civilians on which he has used the states military. He mowed down people protesting which started this whole thing.

70-80,000 have been killed so far in the 2 years since this kicked off. Obama is currently trying to make some space to make a decision about this thing by debating the accusations of Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people i.e. moving his 'Red Line'. He'll be forced to make a decision soon enough because his credibility is coming under pressure what with the Iran thing and North Korea thing putting the global media spotlight on Obama's 'Balls'.

What's the thoughts? No point in abusing each other here or making sweeping statements about how evil the US is or is not, I just want to know what people think the US (with/without partners) could, should, should not do to help this thing?

Could be one of those Damned if ya do-Damned if ya don't kinda things but I just think the US has a leading role whether they like it or not and they'll be judged very harshly if they bottle it here. But I'm not necessarily saying that the US should send in its guys either. Clinton chose not to intervene in Rwanda in 94 and in 3 months more than half a million people were hacked to death by Machetes.

The US can do something here - it's just a matter of what to do?

Any opinions with Military insight would be appreciated also. i.e. the reality of instigating a NFZ, how many pieces involved in Assad's air force, air defenses and Radar, what weapons would be required, how long would such a campaign take to complete etc etc

DarkDusk

Nothing would come of the US getting involved with Syria. Look around the world, where has the US actually succeeded in bringing peace to a country? Exactly, no where. Look at the resultant of the US' interference with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (EU also). Soon it will probably be Syria.

The US are not interested in bringing peace and democracy to Syria, they are only interested in making more money like they've been doing for the last 20-30 years.

To answer your question, no they shouldn't, but they probably will because of greed.

Be like Nutella

DarkDusk wrote: »

To answer your question, no they shouldn't, but they probably will because of greed.

That sounds fairly conspiratorial without backing it up man. What would they have to gain from getting involved economically?
I agree Iraq and Afghanistan was/is a disaster but do they not have the power to stop Assad killing his own people here?

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

That sounds fairly conspiratorial without backing it up man. What would they have to gain from getting involved economically?
I agree Iraq and Afghanistan was/is a disaster but do they not have the power to stop Assad killing his own people here?

Of course they have the power, but given the US' history they will not use it in a responsible manner.

It's a pity people didn't listen to this man when he warned of the inevitability of the MIC taking over America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Be like Nutella

The MIC was meant to be a descriptive word, an analysis of what you see happen as opposed to a conscious entity that CT people like to refer to it as as if it has an evil overlord running it. It's just a free market industrial/political/lobbying network of companies and interests trying to get their way and succeeding a lot of the time.
The upside is that the MIC manages to direct so much funding into various weapons that there may actually be military options the US can use without putting many troops in harms way such as using Cruise missiles and Global Hawks etc to take out air defenses and air force infrastructure so depending on the situation and how you view it the MIC is a force for bad.... or potentially good.

There was always going to be and always will be an MIC of some scale since the time of Napoleon and the original war-bankers... what different people from Eisenhower to Kennedy were warning and complaining about was that the MIC has gotten too powerful, too pervasive, too influential - which is clearly bad for democracy and the world as a whole. I would hope that this time the US and its Partners can use the fruits of the MIC for good and take down Assad, from a purely humanitarian perspective to prevent a bad situation escalating into all-out human massacre involving chemical weapons.
As I've said before numerous times here, Assad believes he has nothing to lose - his fate ends with Death in Damascus, trial then hanging or jail in the Hague. He's been playing the international community by keeping his massacring to a level 'just' below a threshold which the international community would be forced into immediate action - such as killing 1000 people with poison gas in one single attack - to which the world would demand action form their elected leaders. As it stands 100 people a day have been dying and that apparently isn't enough to require the international community to jump in and do something proactive to stop the killing.

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The MIC was meant to be a descriptive word, an analysis of what you see happen as opposed to a conscious entity that CT people like to refer to it as as if it has an evil overlord running it. It's just a free market industrial/political/lobbying network of companies and interests trying to get their way and succeeding a lot of the time.
The upside is that the MIC manages to direct so much funding into various weapons that there may actually be military options the US can use without putting many troops in harms way such as using Cruise missiles and Global Hawks etc to take out air defenses and air force infrastructure so depending on the situation and how you view it the MIC is a force for bad.... or potentially good.

There was always going to be and always will be an MIC of some scale since the time of Napoleon and the original war-bankers... what different people from Eisenhower to Kennedy were warning and complaining about was that the MIC has gotten too powerful, too pervasive, too influential - which is clearly bad for democracy and the world as a whole. I would hope that this time the US and its Partners can use the fruits of the MIC for good and take down Assad, from a purely humanitarian perspective to prevent a bad situation escalating into all-out human massacre involving chemical weapons.
As I've said before numerous times here, Assad believes he has nothing to lose - his fate ends with Death in Damascus, trial then hanging or jail in the Hague. He's been playing the international community by keeping his massacring to a level 'just' below a threshold which the international community would be forced into immediate action - such as killing 1000 people with poison gas in one single attack - to which the world would demand action form their elected leaders. As it stands 100 people a day have been dying and that apparently isn't enough to require the international community to jump in and do something proactive to stop the killing.

You have very, very high hopes.

Be like Nutella

true that.

But there is some reason to believe that the US partnership WILL actually jump in (to a degree) at some point.

I say that because I've been watching the other options dry up one by one. Israel are going it alone, hitting Assad's arms depots to stop weapons getting to Hamas. The region is slowly being destabilized and Iraq's political situation is becoming dyer. There is much talk of the US becoming increasingly isolationist right throughout Washington which is starting to make them/Obama look weak. And with the Al Nusra guys and AQ guys increasing in power up in the North of Syria and crossing into Jordan and other territory there is a real risk of a new AQ franchise arm springing up which will require beating back.

Some opinions are saying the US is spread over too much toast right now and can't strategically afford to get involved any more than it currently is what with the Iranian situation unresolved and the complications of Iraq and Afghanistan AND with the 'Pivot towards Asia' there is simply too many potential fronts to deal with at once.

The CFR Pres Richard Haas is saying back off don't get involved. Fareed Zakaria is saying it's just another Iraq happening in slow motion, other think tanks are calling for just a NFZ (even though there's approx 5000 pieces to take out in that campaign).

Then there's the risk of the large stockpiles of chemical weapons either a) being used by Assad on a large scale or b) getting into the hands of Hamas or the extremist Rebels... and that will need watching carefully and would require abrupt military action to prevent if needs be.

The level of risk of regional destabilization is pushing the debate more and more towards action and I believe in the next few months we're going to see more and more White House talk about action as they make their plans in the background. The 'US troops on the ground' is just not a winnable argument right now so any action will be from distance. Creating a NFZ or a partial NFZ or creating a kind of safe zone for the Rebels to build strength from while arming them with more and more high tech weapons (hopefully the right guys!).

1 million Syrians have been displaced so far and the countries which are taking them need this crisis to turnaround sooner rather than later. There is simply no chance for a Rebel/Assad peace. He has to go no matter what happens here and the US is starting to realize that they need to do what's necessary to tip the balance in favor of the rebels.

The most recent UN guy Brahimi is gone at the end of May - he's quitting - he tried to make Assad see sense - didn't work. There's nobody after him. That's the end of the UN dialogue. Attacks in Damascus itself are increasing and the whole thing HAS to end there no matter what. A US/European/Gulf partnership could take out the Syrian air force/air defenses or even begin to take it out (which would cause officers to jump ship) and this in turn would cause an escalation in the movement of people out of the potential conflict zones which by itself would further pressure Obama's gulf partners into action. The Rebels would reorganize with the help of US 'Advisers' and get armed up the wazoo and the conflict would escalate all the way to Damascus while the international community nervously watched those chemical stockpiles - the large scale movement/mobilization of which would be the FINAL RED LINE which would bring the international coalition to war (which essentially they are already at - with Israel hitting sites and the US and their partners arming the rebels as they are).

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

He mowed down people protesting which started this whole thing.

I see the Israeli attack on Syria has driven some rebel promoters to drop the pretense about it being a purely peaceful revolution at the beginning.

This was never a “revolution”. I among other leftists in Lebanon signed a petition early on after the events in Deraa in which we denounced the regime and mocked and dismissed its narrative of armed groups roaming the country and shooting at people. I now figure that I was dead wrong: I do believe that armed groups were pre-prepared and armed to strike when orders (from Israel and GCC countries) arrive. They had a mission and it had nothing to do with the cause of liberation of Syria from a tyrannical regime.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/israel-bombs-syria-again


Some western observers say the bombing is a clear sign that Israel is frustrated by the gains Syrian forces have made in recent weeks.

...these attacks by Israel come after a significant few weeks in which – in the central areas of the country, President Assad’s forces have made some notable strategic gains against the various rebel forces.

Alongside that, fighters from Hezbollah, coming in from Lebanon in the west to these central areas of fighting, have made a real impact on the ground.

It appears Israel has noted that and – under the guise of wishing to prevent the flow of arms from Syria to Hezbollah – has decided to act unilaterally.

Clearly there will be a degree of US greenlighting of all this – or at least enough for Israel to calculate that the dangerous gamble is worthwhile. But as I say, Israel was watching events closely on the ground and did not like one bit what they are showing.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/act-war-israel/4826

I doubt the gamble will prove to be worthwhile. The attack will probably put off a lot of Syrians from joining the fight against Assad. We may even see defectors willing to re-join the Syrian army. I suspect the rebels are going to find it increasingly difficult from now on to find new Syrian recruits while the army will continue to replenish its ranks with ease. If the US want to win it looks like they will have to put boots on the ground because Israel may well have blown any chance the rebels had of winning.

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Then there's the risk of the large stockpiles of chemical weapons either a) being used by Assad on a large scale or b) getting into the hands of Hamas or the extremist Rebels... and that will need watching carefully and would require abrupt military action to prevent if needs be.

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

So how do you think the US would stop large stockpiles of chemical weapons being used by rebels?

Sierra Oscar

cyberhog wrote: »

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

And what's more, while the UN is stating that there is increasingly growing evidence that rebels are using chemical weapons, they cannot find any evidence that government forces have used such weapons.

Syria crisis: UN's del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin'

Testimony from victims of the Syrian conflict suggests rebels have used the nerve agent sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla del Ponte told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

However, she said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.

Be like Nutella

I think the US would treat the acquisition of large stock piles of Chem weapons by the rebels as a very dangerous situation. If they even managed to get them or secure the sites it would of course be a major signal that the Rebels are making serious ground so there's that.... but in all likelihood the stock piles are being watched extremely closely by all manner of platforms, satellite, UAVs, high alt spy planes and possibly human Intel of some sort so they'd know quite quickly in all likelihood. Also the Rebels are depending on foreign arms and they know well that if they used any more chem weapons or on a larger scale than they may have a;ready that they're risking it all. The US advisers on the ground (of which there are guaranteed to be some like in Libya) will be a) trying to get arms to the right guys b)side line and isolate the wrong guys and c) deal with the chem weapons threat both from an Assad perspective and form a dangerous rebels perspective.

Some people here are doing their utmost for some reason to paint all of the rebels as bad guys, terrorist, inflicting massacres etc... There are a lot of elements to this rebels force and some of them deffo are bad, real bad. They've done bad things for sure and I hope they'll be hunted down eventually for what they've done but there is of course a huge number of Syrians who are fighting to get Assad out and rightfully so and they deserve respect - you'd think we'd understand their plight a little better from our own perspective - do we not recall how many atrocities were carried out by Collin's men in the name of freedom. My great uncle was one of his twelve men, Frank Bolster - and he killed for Collins from the age of 16 - shot 'accused' British spies in front of their wives as they lay in their hotel beds. I'm not proud of those actions individually or what my great Uncle did but no rebellion happens without atrocities on both sides - it's the nature of civil war. Different groups fighting for different reasons to achieve different ends, armed with different weapons, led by different men. This Syrian thing is a mess but Assad is the bad guy here - he has to go to bring this thing to potential end. He is the one using the state military to kill innocent Syrian civilians. He owns and controls the large chemical stockpiles. He is the head of an elite minority cabal within the political system. It's all on him. Arms were always going to get to some bad guys and there was always going to be atrocities on both sides.... always.... 100% guaranteed.... nothing different here than any other rebellion situation in history.

As for Israel and the Israel CT theory here - I don't know. I think Israel are just taking out supplies that might get to Hezbollah and they don't give a sh1t what Assad thinks. But it may be a stupid move as you say - it may incite knee jerk nationalism - either way it arms Assad with propaganda.

Be like Nutella

" In December, American officials spotted what they believed was a more direct threat: preparations to load bombs containing sarin onto airplanes. The White House approached Russian officials, who contacted Iranian officials, who passed a warning to Assad, and the regime restrained itself. “I’m convinced that they would have used chemical weapons in a very indiscriminate way,’’ Gary Samore, Obama’s former adviser on weapons of mass destruction, told me. Samore said that the sarin bombs, which typically contain huge quantities of agents, are probably still primed for use. “Sarin is a binary weapon; once it’s mixed, you can’t unmix it,’’ he said. "

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/13/130513fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

Pinewoo

Be like Nutella wrote: »

For my part I think the primary concern should be a global concern with the atrocities which have happened in the last 2 years and some kind of combined effort should be made by the international community to stop the bloodshed, get Assad and his guys out of power (by force) and get the Syrians to a table to build a new Syria. It may be 'pie in the sky' thinking to a large degree but that's what I think nonetheless.

Isn't that what started this whole civil war 2 years ago, I mean I find it quite ironic your solution to the problem is the problem itself.

Be like Nutella

care to expand? what started it was a protest which was put down with machine guns

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

" In December, American officials spotted what they believed was a more direct threat: preparations to load bombs containing sarin onto airplanes. The White House approached Russian officials, who contacted Iranian officials, who passed a warning to Assad, and the regime restrained itself. “I’m convinced that they would have used chemical weapons in a very indiscriminate way,’’ Gary Samore, Obama’s former adviser on weapons of mass destruction, told me. Samore said that the sarin bombs, which typically contain huge quantities of agents, are probably still primed for use. “Sarin is a binary weapon; once it’s mixed, you can’t unmix it,’’ he said. "

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/13/130513fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

I wouldn't rely too much on western (mainstream) media for your information, because it's usually untrue. This is the same media that cheered the troops as they entered Iraq and fought a fake war. All you have to do is look at the language they use, I have highlighted it for you. Do you see a pattern? My favourites are "officials" and "adviser on weapons of mass desturction" (well that position has had a good reputation :rolleyes: )

I really hope that you do not take everything you hear in the Mainstream Media to be the word of god, because it most likely is not. That is why I don't bother getting involved with the news regularly - if there's big news, someone will most likely tell me. If proof (real proof) of Syria using WMD is released I will most likely me hear about it from someone else. If Syria is attacked by the US, if IRAN is attacked by the US/Israel, I will definitely hear about it. Get what I'm saying? All I'm recommending is is that you shouldn't get too caught up on what is being preached by the media, because it is a well known fact that the media will tell you what they want you to know, not what you want to know.

cyberhog

One of the wise men of American foreign policy believes "Intervention Will Only Make it Worse"

The various schemes that have been proposed for a kind of tiddlywinks intervention from around the edges of the conflict—no-fly zones, bombing Damascus and so forth—would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/syria-intervention-will-only-make-it-worse/

Norwesterner

The U.S should be helping the legitimate Syrian Army in their War on Terror and help them defeat Al Qaeda in Syria.
Anything else is just bonkers.
The SAA (and Hezbollah) is the only military entity on the globe actively defending Middle East Christians from total genocide.
Just think about how crazy that sounds.

BuilderPlumber

I don't understand why the West want to get involved in helping worse dictators overthrow the current ones. To me, Assad is a brutal dictator but by Middle East standards he is far from being remotely close to the worst. The Syrian resistance seem to be dominated by so-called 'Islamists' (that is, hardline al Qaeda types to give them their proper name) who would render this once religiously apolitical nation another Afghanistan or Somalia. The disasters we have seen so far include:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq: Saddam was greedy and lead his country into poverty but it takes two to tango. The West and its sanctions lead to the hell on earth in Iraq as well. But, when Saddam was removed for doing 9/11 (which is one thing he did not do - his jails were full of the so-called 'Islamists' who would do things like that and who Saddam feared as much as the West), Iraq spiralled into a new meaning of hell on earth and the war caused the whole world economy also to go into recession. Today, the affects of this unnecessary war both in Iraq and worldwide as still felt. Only good thing maybe is Bertie Ahern never got to be president and would be president if Saddam was still in power!
Afghanistan: Taliban had to go for damn sure. But the place still remains violent and the laws there are only marginally better than they were under the Taliban and much WORSE than anything in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Hardly a success.
Libya: Again, the same old laws remain despite removing Gaddafi, the man who imposed so-called 'Sharia' on his then advanced country. Still very violent too.

The only country where a revolution would be a success is Iran but the West tolerate the bunch that control it even though officially they are supposed to be 'enemies'. Revolution will work because religious conmen lead the last one in 1979, still unfinished as it was robbed by these conmen. Now, Iran's next revolution will end these and be the final blow to satanic devilworshippers who desecrate Islam. Just like 1969 Libya and 1979 Iran ushered in religious conmen dictators in the first place. Still, it is ironic that compared to the regimes and/or wars emerging in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, Iran even under its current tyrants is moderate in comparison!

Jonny7

Basically put..

Most countries support the opposition in Syria, since March 2011, however over time, the conflict has worsened and drawn in more unsavory elements - the same started to happen in Libya.

The extremist Islamists also do not constitute the majority of rebels, yet they receive a large amount of press, attention and condemnation

The US and EU and much of the world generally support a democratic process in Syria and have a strong distaste for Assad, therefore they continue to support the opposition - but now with reservations

Critics of the West and countries like Russia and Iran are seizing on the change in the conflict and the influx of foreign fighters to accuse the "West" of "supporting terrorists" when it really isn't the case. No one wants to see Islamic extremists running a post-apocalyptic Syria, lest of all the US (and Russia)

Russia and Iran do not have any particular love for Assad, in fact they see him as overstepping his mark, however they want him to hang on and leave under an "election" in 2014 and be replaced with a cooperative ally who doesn't slaughter everyone and is favorable to them.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Critics of the West and countries like Russia and Iran are seizing on the change in the conflict and the influx of foreign fighters to accuse the "West" of "supporting terrorists" when it really isn't the case. No one wants to see Islamic extremists running a post-apocalyptic Syria, lest of all the US (and Russia)

Did you not foresee the "influx" of terrorists when US began its funding of the opposition? I did, because the US has done it so many times that it's blatantly obvious now. The US funded the Taliban back in the 2000's - do you think the CIA had no idea that the Taliban had a connection with terrorists? Of course they did, and they funded them so they would have someone to fight once they got over there. The US knew all along that terrorists would get involved in the conflict and in the future we will probably see the same thing that happened in Afghanistan happen in Syria.

It's all about greed.

DarkDusk

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia............

Oh, I wonder how this works? If you're a friend of the US, the media stays quiet about you. But if you are an enemy, the media goes nuts about everything you say and do.

LET'S SEND THE TROOPS OVER TO SAUDI ARABIA! (sorry, not gonna happen)

Imagine if that happened in Syria, IMAGINE.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

Did you not foresee the "influx" of terrorists when US began its funding of the opposition? I did, because the US has done it so many times that it's blatantly obvious now. The US funded the Taliban back in the 2000's - do you think the CIA had no idea that the Taliban had a connection with terrorists? Of course they did, and they funded them so they would have someone to fight once they got over there. The US knew all along that terrorists would get involved in the conflict and in the future we will probably see the same thing that happened in Afghanistan happen in Syria.

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

It's all about greed.

Can you explain how the US/EU stance toward Syria is about greed?

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

When the Taliban decided to ban the growing of the opium crop, the Bush administration funded the Taliban in the region of $40 million. I was looking for a link for the official State Department's website backing this up but it seems to be taken down (I wonder why?)


Can you explain how the US/EU stance toward Syria is about greed?

Every war the US has gotten involved in has been about greed. Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan was about spreading freedom and democracy?

Jonny7

This thread is on Syria.

There is a thread on Iraq I've posted in and there have been several on Afghanistan.

Greed plays little if any part in the US/EU response to Syria.

Generally speaking - It's a shared concern for human rights and human suffering, a desire for a stable (and democratic) Syria both for the Syrian people and for the benefit for the region, yes that includes Israel, to further isolate Iran and to see the Al-Assad leadership gone. There is also the ever-changing real politik of relationships between e.g. Saudi, Turkey, Qatar, Russian influence and regional jostling.

There is a lot of residual over-cynicism generated by the Bush years, the war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars; this has caused some to perpetually taint subsequent administration and any allies (whether it be Norway, UN, Canada, whomever) with the same disillusioned brush.

The facts speak differently. Anyway.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is a lot of residual over-cynicism generated by the Bush years, the war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars; this has caused some to perpetually taint subsequent administration and any allies (whether it be Norway, UN, Canada, whomever) with the same disillusioned brush.

You do know it doesn't matter who is in government? Politicians are merely puppets for corporations and the elite. Obama has lied and deceived the world population into believing that he is a "good" president and a good change after Bush. We hear stuff in the media about Syria's use of WMD - let's see the proof, and not from French journalists who have a vested interest in funding the opposition.

We still don't even know the truth about Bin Laden. Was he killed on May 2nd 2011? Where's the proof? There is actually no proof that he was killed in 2011, and Obama's reason for not showing pictures of the body is that it would cause terrorists to become hostile towards the US. If they did in fact kill Bin Laden, then I think terrorists would have enough reason to attack the US without seeing any pictures. Depending on the mainstream media and politicians for information is folly. I base my beliefs on fact, not because someone told me it was true.

The reason the US is involved with Syria is the same reason they are involved with other countries in the Middle East - destabilization.

Jonny7

Conspiracy forum thatta way -->

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy forum thatta way -->

I'd like if you'd respond to what I said about Bin Laden, just out of interest.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

I'd like if you'd respond to what I said about Bin Laden, just out of interest.

Well, if you know when and where he died - feel free to share, I'm sure the entire Republican party, including the senators who saw the photos, the Pakistani officials, government and ISI, Al Qaeda group and entire rest of the world will be red-faced when they find out they've all been duped

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, if you know when and where he died - feel free to share, I'm sure the entire Republican party, including the senators who saw the photos, the Pakistani officials, government and ISI, Al Qaeda group and entire rest of the world will be red-faced when they find out they've all been duped

I have no idea when he died. There was reports from a Pakistani newspaper published back in the early 2000's that he was killed. Why would you kill this man, the most powerful terrorist known to man kind who was simply shot, killed, removed from the scene, loaded onto war ship, given a DNA test matched against his family, facial recognition test, traditional funeral performed, buried at sea even though he did not "die" at sea, all of this happening in a few hours and you all believe this? OBL was the key to gaining information about all major terrorist organisations around the world so I would say keep him alive and tell the world “he's dead”. Maybe that is what happened. All I know is the original story stinks.

You still didn't comment, do you believe the original story?

Addition: An article that spells it out easily, graphic btw: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/proof-us-lied-about-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden-graphic-2626346.html

Jonny7

/cracks knuckles


allow me to humour you

Reasoning.

Think about it.

All the Seals are in on it (who are now furiously writing books, much to the annoyance of the Pentagon) a decent portion of Obama's administration are in on it, all those captured at the compound are oscar winning actors, including the children. The democrats and republicans are working together.

No leaks. No mistakes.

Vast intelligence agencies, including the powerful ISI, who share a very paranoid relationship with the US - completely fooled. In fact, every intelligence agency in the world, privvy to much more info than you or me will ever know.. fooled. Al Qaeda, splinter groups, Taliban, militants - fooled.

They can conduct this extraordinary conspiracy to fake the killing of the most wanted man in the world a mile from Pakistan's elite military academy..

but they just can't photoshop a picture.


Official story cannot be plausible because "it stinks", but the alternative, which can only ever be a massive watertight incredible conspiracy is plausible.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

/cracks knuckles


allow me to humour you

Reasoning.

Think about it.

All the Seals are in on it (who are now furiously writing books, much to the annoyance of the Pentagon) a decent portion of Obama's administration are in on it, all those captured at the compound are oscar winning actors, including the children. The democrats and republicans are working together.

No leaks. No mistakes.

Vast intelligence agencies, including the powerful ISI, who share a very paranoid relationship with the US - completely fooled. In fact, every intelligence agency in the world, privvy to much more info than you or me will ever know.. fooled. Al Qaeda, splinter groups, Taliban, militants - fooled.

They can conduct this extraordinary conspiracy to fake the killing of the most wanted man in the world a mile from Pakistan's elite military academy..

but they just can't photoshop a picture.


Official story cannot be plausible because "it stinks", but the alternative, which can only ever be a massive watertight incredible conspiracy is plausible.

Well, the Bush administration were pretty good at lying through their teeth about WMD in Iraq. :rolleyes: There was plenty of intelligence agencies and the like around then. But, like last time, there is plenty of people speaking out about it, but again there is no action.

Jonny7

Actually there were WMD in Iraq (some Western supplied) it's just that Saddam did actually remove or dispose of them

The Bush administration weren't so much lying through their teeth (I mean they fully expected to invade the country and uncover the weapons), rather they were arrogantly convinced of some pretty weak intelligence and quite consumed with their own spin.

Of course they could have just planted some WMD in the desert

There is still so much residual cynicism from Iraq and Bush's subsequent war on terror that some simply cannot comprehend a different administration is capable of acting in a way that is anything but nefarious and sinister.

Start down that road, with that mindset, and suddenly the conspiracy theories seem a lot more appealing..

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is still so much residual cynicism from Iraq and Bush's subsequent war on terror that some simply cannot comprehend a different administration is capable of acting in a way that is anything but nefarious and sinister.

So you agree with killing people with drone strikes, without a fair trial? Obama is violating international law with this new version of terrorizing other countries. Killing (attempting) militants in foreign countries will increase the probability of an attack on the US, not decrease. As he heard recently, the motivation behind the Woolwich murder was the UK's foreign policy.

The US, and other Western powers, should mind their own business - whether it's in Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan or Syria.

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

No, the US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000s or 1990s or at any time. They DID however fund the Mujahedin in the 1980s and also Osama bin Laden's Saudi and Arab mercenaries. These at the time were the 'good guys' fighting the 'bad' commies.

The reason why al Qaeda and bin Laden turned on the US was simply because of the end of the cold war. the US and USSR improved their until then poor relations and part of the deal was the US would stop funding the Mujahedin and the USSR would stop funding and helping the communist Afghan government. Afghanistan was left to its own devices by both superpowers and fell into civil war. All funding to the Mujahedin - now broken up into rival factions the biggest 2 of which became the Northern Alliance and the Taliban - by the US was cut and al Qaeda and Taliban saw themselves with no funding (the Northern Alliance and Shah Masoud got help from Iran) so were out for revenge against the US. They played the 'Muslims being repressed all over the world' card but the real reason for 9/11 and other al Qaeda actions was personal.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

So you agree with killing people with drone strikes, without a fair trial?

Well that's a bit of a different debate.

The drone strikes are to kill militants who are either fighting in NW Pakistan or crossing the border and fighting in Afghanistan.

The number of people killed directly or indirectly by these militants is far higher than civilians accidentally killed in drone strikes.

Islamabad milks the situation by publicly painting the US as the bad guy, but behind the scenes support the drone strikes as the Pakistan army and the country in general is seriously struggling with the militants

The major point of contention is - how much of a recruitment tool are the drone strikes in the long run? and how much of the Bush admin's war in Afghanistan and the war in terror in general has fueled this militancy?

If the drone strikes stop, more civilians will lose their lives in the short run, troops in Afghanistan will face more pressure, the fledgling Afghan security forces will have a harder fight, and so on

Also, if the drones stop, Pakistan has no rebate, no scapegoat.. they'll have to face up to the fact they literally have factories (Madrassas) that pump out young men willing to blow anyone who doesn't succumb to a certain extreme brand of Islam.

So, if you're asking me, then no, I don't support the drones, but it's a difficult one to call because I don't have all the information.

Jonny7

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

No, the US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000s or 1990s or at any time. They DID however fund the Mujahedin in the 1980s and also Osama bin Laden's Saudi and Arab mercenaries. These at the time were the 'good guys' fighting the 'bad' commies.

The reason why al Qaeda and bin Laden turned on the US was simply because of the end of the cold war. the US and USSR improved their until then poor relations and part of the deal was the US would stop funding the Mujahedin and the USSR would stop funding and helping the communist Afghan government. Afghanistan was left to its own devices by both superpowers and fell into civil war. All funding to the Mujahedin - now broken up into rival factions the biggest 2 of which became the Northern Alliance and the Taliban - by the US was cut and al Qaeda and Taliban saw themselves with no funding (the Northern Alliance and Shah Masoud got help from Iran) so were out for revenge against the US. They played the 'Muslims being repressed all over the world' card but the real reason for 9/11 and other al Qaeda actions was personal.

I think it's very unfortunate that Massoud was killed - he seemed like one potential glimmer of hope for that hellhole.

TheSB

Obama is using the same bull**** WMD lies that got the US into Iraq. Where is the evidence?? There is just as much evidence that chemicals were used by the rebels.

He is going to support the rebels, a group insiting on the creation of a Islamic state in Syria. I have watched numerous videos of the rebels fighting, they hate democracy and they they hate America. Syria has been a SECULAR country under Al-Assad. Syria gauranteed freedom of religion, their laws were based on the French system (not Sharia), women could walk openly in the streets without being covered in a focking shroud. History is repeating itself and America will learn the the same painful lesson again the hard way.

Manach

I would hope for a speedy and fair resolution under UN auspices to the situation, but I know that it is unlikely. As for WMDs, I did honestly believe the US when these were raised as at issue in Iraq. So as I was wrong to do so then, the burden of proof would needed to be verified from a non-alligned source.

Norwesterner

Obama wants to bring in gun control in the U.S, but arm sectarian death squads in Syria.
Soon to be used on European nightclubs, train stations and hotels.
I've put Obama up there in the same level as Bush II for sheer incompetence and failure.

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think it's very unfortunate that Massoud was killed - he seemed like one potential glimmer of hope for that hellhole.

That is very true. Up until the 1970s, Afghanistan was a peaceful and friendly country where those who visited loved and went back to. It was poor and religious, yes, but peaceful and historical. It was like stepping back into ancient Persia. Masoud was a good leader and the main threat to the Taliban. It has been said that the Taliban only tolerated 9/11 by al Qaeda if al Qaeda took out Masoud for them.

But what messed up Afghanistan and the entire Persian and Arab worlds was intervention by superpowers. The US support one lot of thugs, the USSR another lot of thugs. The arms industry which controlled both superpowers made a killing literally and moneywise. Now, we have done it also to Iraq and Libya in recent years and now Syria. God help the world.

BuilderPlumber

Norwesterner wrote: »

Obama wants to bring in gun control in the U.S, but arm sectarian death squads in Syria.
Soon to be used on European nightclubs, train stations and hotels.
I've put Obama up there in the same level as Bush II for sheer incompetence and failure.

Obama and Bush 2 did not really control the US. They are figureheads and have to fit into a system. Obama would be against a lot of things but he is not allowed to go against the system: a system where the gun and its use is a fundamental part of how America does its business internally and externally.

Even so and whoever is the ultimate decision makers, I cannot see the sense of arming these thugs in Syria of all people. Sure, of course, the US arms industry controls the government and will assassinate presidents and high up officials if necessary. BUT surely there are loads of African rebel groups and others who are not linked to al Qaeda.

By right, America and the West should stay out of Syria. Helping install a far more evil regime in Syria than Assad's seems to be what they want to do though. Is this also a kind of appeasing of blooming al Qaeda? A sort of a deal like support our bid to take over the Middle East and there will be no more 9/11s? You'd wonder. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are/were all enemies of al Qaeda as are some others America lists as enemies.

Hannibal

TheSB wrote: »

Obama is using the same bull**** WMD lies that got the US into Iraq. Where is the evidence?? There is just as much evidence that chemicals were used by the rebels.

He is going to support the rebels, a group insiting on the creation of a Islamic state in Syria. I have watched numerous videos of the rebels fighting, they hate democracy and they they hate America. Syria has been a SECULAR country under Al-Assad. Syria gauranteed freedom of religion, their laws were based on the French system (not Sharia), women could walk openly in the streets without being covered in a focking shroud. History is repeating itself and America will learn the the same painful lesson again the hard way.

Which "rebel" group are they actually going to back though? The US will only look at the evidence that suits them and it will be trial by media. The US back Saudi Arabia which is one of the most ruthless Islamic states around. In some ways dictators or strong men leaders like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam etc kept their countries in check because since they were removed or attempted to be removed there's been civil war and anarchy in these countires. They mostly huffed and puffed but never really done much to threaten the outside world.
On WMD there's no trasparency on Americas great ally Israel's WMD arsenal yet they expect Syria to be open with them and Iran likewise. When looked at from an Arab and Islamist point of view it's easy to see the hatred toward the US and Israel
The US never backed the rebels in Cuba or other countries who liberated themselves from oppressive and corrupt governments simply because Batista was an ally who was happy to let the US have their fingers in every pie and even after 50 years they won't end the blockade because of powerful lobbyists and this is the same in Israel.
The key to the middle east is to solve the Israeli problem and get them to open up to the outside world about their WMD's (see Mordechai Vanunu for example) and to get them to withdraw from Golan, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem as this will let a lot of pressure off and set about Arabs trusting Americans rather than being rightly suspicious of their motives.
Islamists will always exist no matter how much the west don't understand their system but the main thing is to give some to get some and don't try influence and interfere in every way possible.

BuilderPlumber

Dotsey wrote: »

Which "rebel" group are they actually going to back though? The US will only look at the evidence that suits them and it will be trial by media. The US back Saudi Arabia which is one of the most ruthless Islamic states around. In some ways dictators or strong men leaders like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saddam etc kept their countries in check because since they were removed or attempted to be removed there's been civil war and anarchy in these countires. They mostly huffed and puffed but never really done much to threaten the outside world.
On WMD there's no trasparency on Americas great ally Israel's WMD arsenal yet they expect Syria to be open with them and Iran likewise. When looked at from an Arab and Islamist point of view it's easy to see the hatred toward the US and Israel
The US never backed the rebels in Cuba or other countries who liberated themselves from oppressive and corrupt governments simply because Batista was an ally who was happy to let the US have their fingers in every pie and even after 50 years they won't end the blockade because of powerful lobbyists and this is the same in Israel.
The key to the middle east is to solve the Israeli problem and get them to open up to the outside world about their WMD's (see Mordechai Vanunu for example) and to get them to withdraw from Golan, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem as this will let a lot of pressure off and set about Arabs trusting Americans rather than being rightly suspicious of their motives.
Islamists will always exist no matter how much the west don't understand their system but the main thing is to give some to get some and don't try influence and interfere in every way possible.

All very true. Saudi Arabia is a worse regime than the ones in Syria, Saddam's Iraq, Ahmadinejad's Iran, Mubarak's Egypt or Gaddafi's Libya combined. Saudi and NOT Iran is the leading sponsor of Islamic rebel groups like Hamas. The US also sponsored such groups in Afghanistan when it suited.

Batista's Cuba was bankrolled by the US mafia. The US were happy to turn a blind eye to mafia activities as long as they did their transactions in Cuba and donated some of their money to political campaigns. The mafia had huge sway in 1950s and 1960s America and were more than likely responsible for killing Kennedy and controlled Johnson. Castro's Cuba ended the cosy relationship between the mafia and the Batista regime. Ironically, Castro wanted the US as an ally and was not really a communist at all until the US government (on behalf of the mafia) turned his friendship down. With no other option, Castro approach the USSR for aid and they told him that in order to get USSR aid, he would have to set up a communist government. The rest is history.

DarkDusk

This is only my observation, but it seems that the media is conditioning the public to information about Syria - it's basically mentioned on the news every day now. This is what happened in the lead up to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

BuilderPlumber

DarkDusk wrote: »

This is only my observation, but it seems that the media is conditioning the public to information about Syria - it's basically mentioned on the news every day now. This is what happened in the lead up to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya...

And Serbia/Kosovo before that! First of all, I will say that the likes of Saddam, Milosevic, Gaddafi, Assad and especially the Taliban were/are no saints but look at the double standards. Israel's aggression towards Palestinians (an ethnic group within its own borders) and invasion of Lebanon coupled with their assassinations of what they describe as 'terrorists' in other countries goes beyond what Saddam, Assad, Taliban, Gaddafi and Milosevic did in many regards.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, he went from US ally to US enemy overnight. When Milosevic started his war against Kosovo rebels in 1998, the US made up its mind to invade the following year. BUT when Israel decides to do similar, the US gives them 100% support! Surely, ALL these were acts of aggression?

True, I notice how the media set articles in motion to make people hate one regime (I remember cheering the end of the Milosevic regime in 1999) but sugar coat other aggression normally by Israel (who did the same Milosevic did to Kosovo to Palestine and Lebanon). Yes, the rich and powerful connected regimes can do anything the want!

DarkDusk

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

True, I notice how the media set articles in motion to make people hate one regime (I remember cheering the end of the Milosevic regime in 1999) but sugar coat other aggression normally by Israel (who did the same Milosevic did to Kosovo to Palestine and Lebanon). Yes, the rich and powerful connected regimes can do anything the want!

It's really p!issing me off now. Woke up this morning and went down to the kitchen and the first word I heard was "chemical". Turned it off straight away.

BuilderPlumber

DarkDusk wrote: »

It's really p!issing me off now. Woke up this morning and went down to the kitchen and the first word I heard was "chemical". Turned it off straight away.

We ALL know where this is going! America's elected figures to my mind have now power so it doesn't matter who is in office! Look at the policies over the past 25 years for example:

1989-1993: Bush Senior was president. The US/West invaded Panama and went to war on Iraq. There was no real reason for the US to get involved in either.
1993-2001: Clinton was president. The US/West went to war with Yugoslavia twice and also bombed Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. There was no reason for them to get involved in these other than to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal!
2001-2009: Bush Junior was president. People had short memories it seemed and what this 'infamous president' was doing was exactly the same as Clinton! Only he had more of an excuse with 9/11. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and a financial meltdown obviously related to all these failed wars resulted. That Bush's wars were messier and the economic outcome far more serious made him unpopular and the voodoo doll of the anti-war movement. In reality, he was no better or worse than the others.
2009-: Obama is president. He inherited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and added Libya to the list. Since all the previous recent presidents launched at least 2 wars during their presidency, Syria seems poised to be Obama's second war.

Prior to Bush senior, US foreign policy tended to be more docile. This was largely due to Vietnam. And fear of pushing the USSR's anger too far. The US found itself to be good at war in WW2 and thus quickly got involved in the Korean war soon after. Then, it was into Vietnam which probably kept it at bay from getting involved elsewhere. The presidencies of Nixon, Ford and Carter tended to be more moderate than previous (Johnson) and future (from Reagan onwards) ones. For once, the US had enough of war and the people hated Vietnam because too many Americans died. Recent wars have ruined the countries involved but not many US deaths. So far, the US has marketed the cause of the financial crisis as not related to the wars (when it obvious was caused by the wars) but that lie will not be able to be kept up forever. It was Reagan who began to get brave and reintroduce the US to war footings. Its invasion of Grenada was a trial run but still he favoured arming others (rebel groups or countries) to take out or at least attempt to take out (communist or troublesome) regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, Argentina and much of Africa. The arming of both Iran and Iraq by the US showed that by then, the US was not even interested in backing any side per se but keeping the arms business profitable! And since then, that's what it seems to be about: pick an enemy, paint that enemy as the worst since Hitler and then go to war (or get someone else to do the fighting)! The arms business are laughing all the way to the bank.

clairefontaine

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

BuilderPlumber

clairefontaine wrote: »

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

The US are excellent at toppling regimes (whether evil ones or otherwise is debatable).

The US are very poor at winning the peace. Most of the places that they have invaded or interfered with (Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Libya, Somalia, etc.) are all messes and failed states. Perhaps the former Yugoslavia is a relative success story. Many point to the success stories that post WW2 Germany and Japan became. True, they became very successful and peaceful countries but doesn't all the death, terrorism (inclusive of nuclear terrorism against the latter) and attrocities committed to get both to that status kind of cancel out the success? And it made the West no better than Stalin's USSR: another economic success built on war and domestic political dictatorial repression.

If the US went into Syria, Assad would not last a month. BUT the chaos would last years. Afterall, Syria borders Iraq and the very same people who caused the trouble there will flood into Syria along with homemade terrorists there too. Syria's problems need to be solved in other ways.

ThreeBlindMice

clairefontaine wrote: »

The US should stay out of it.

Everyday I like Putin more and more.

Putin dose seem more like a gentleman and he certainly stud his ground at the G8 against the allied aggressors of the West.

They should now consider revoking that undeserved Nobel Peace prize from Obama and handing it over to Putin instead.

Be like Nutella

I've always said America and the allies need to jump in and take Assad out before he massacres 250,000+ of his own people. That isn't going to happen for a host of reasons so we can forget about that for now, unless, Assad in a miscalculated act, orders a massive massacre which pushes the international hand and gets Russia off the fence.

100,000 have been recorded killed so far but it's probably more than that.

So barring a massive military intervention what options are left realistically?

When I realized nobody was going to jump in to get Assad out I started thinking No Fly Zone like everybody else, to let the rebels build and organize in safe areas and limit Assad's ability to inflict massacres form his jets or helicopters but after some reality checks and learning about the actual geographical and military facts on the ground there.. it isn't hard to see that creating a NFZ is one very difficult task. It would require two US carrier groups, thousands of sorties and a definite risk, in fact high probability, of losing pilots. Plus, there's no way Obama could get political support for it anyway let alone a UN resolution which Russia and China would block. Also there is the added fact that even IF the US attempted to create a NFZ they would essentially be committing to staying there until Assad collapsed which would leave the door actually open to a full invasion possibility - it's not like they could create a NFZ and then fail ? Military logic says you don't get involved unless you're willing to see it through to victory. And if they did a NFZ then we could easily see Russia and Iran back the rebels much more than now... which would turn this thing into a more violent protracted war which could last years and drain the US of resources and put their men at risk both of which they are not politically willing to do.

Also, I now disagree with the strategic idea of a NFZ on its own - I don't think it would be smart to do something half-assed like that - if you're going to go for an Assad collapse - then either do it 100% or don't do anything militarily at all ! That's where I stand now.

So No invasion (never gona happen anyway),
No NFZ (half assed idea with massive risk.. politically invalid)

So What should the US do/not do?

Fareed Zakaria of Time Mag says very simply: Turn off their money and they'll collapse !

Assad is holding on to his Alawite leaders (military, intel, Business) by a mix of bribes and threats. His military resources and those bribes and everything else is funded through his oil exports almost entirely. So turn it off and he should collapse right? Then we should see mass defections and see the regime run out of money and resources and the rebels will have more success. If it's possible to do then I say do it. Right now Assad is ready to continue to kill approx 150 per day for years into the future - this is the number he's killing right now and it seems to be an acceptable figure to the international community.

Problems:
How to protect the 2-3 million shi-ites in Syria and specifically the Alawites from being massacred after the rebels eventually take Assad down.
The problem of the rebels being hopelessly unorganized and fighting amongst themselves.
There is the growing problem of Al Qaeda growing and taking root in Syria right now which will take years to sort out.

But at least if we can turn off the money supply then Assad will be less capable of killing so many, for so long - and will eventually collapse - faster than if the international community did nothing. Arming the rebels with small arms just means it turns up the rate of killing but doesn't give the rebels any sort of decisive edge so probably means simply more Syrian civilians die. So small arms on their own makes no sense - mind you I have my doubt that this is all the US is giving them at present but let's stick to the official story for now.

The two options that are realistically left on the table if you ignore the NFZ idea are:

1) Give them more serious weapons - whatever that means for the future with extremists present among the rebel side.... if you arm the rebels with serious RPG's and night vision goggles and intel and small drones and ammo and Sat imagry and 50 cal sniper weapons - they'll cause more damage to Assads side - and then these weapons will end up in Extremist hands let's be honest - al nusra is getting its hands on the weapons as far as is reported... which is not good BUT at least you'd be hurting Assad... and it could tip the balance if done on a large enough scale.

and/or

2) Turn off their oil export machine with tight sanctions and bleed the regime dry.

It's one big clusterfuk let's be honest but there are still options available to the international community to reduce the final number of dead that Assad will be responsible for.

He can continue to kill as long as he doesn't miscalculate and do something too big or shocking which forces the international hand.... and he knows this.

Remember - the US had 180,000 troops in Iraq for 10 years and couldn't control the slaughters, the bombings and the ethnic cleansing and they were rescuing an entire population from a sadistic tyrant just like Assad. (ahem...apparently)

Right now Obama's people are playing a Real-Politic strategy of allowing Iran to funnel resources to Assad while the US adds fuel to the fire in the form of small arms to the rebels and then sits back watching this whole thing slow burn away Iran's resources which weakens their regimes position.... or so goes the logic.

Right now Obama is essentially saying:

'hell, we might get some kind of positive out of this. If we can't help the situation in any meaningful way, then let's at least weaken our enemy if possible by draining them of money and weapons and effort'

The right move is to attack Assad's source of money and give the rebels real weapons but do not get militarily involved. It's probably the strategically smart AND Moral thing to do. But right now they're doing neither and Russia is just blocking actions for the sake of a military port and so they can be viewed as tempering the US sphere of influence in a 'still-oil-important' middle east with a quickly reducing US footprint.

Proxy war bullsh1t.

Squeeze the oil exports - cut off his cash !