Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

I put this in America's corner because it's clear Russia and China will block any such approval by the United Nations. Also because John McCain, one of the few Republicans I occasionally respect (....well, I should say I've gone back to respecting once his campaign was over where he kissed all the wrong tuckusses for all the wrong reasons) has brought up the topic.

I think the one reason the Obama administration hasn't considered this is there is not a strong enough opposition to support, so nobody would clearly inherit the keys to the country. Frustratingly the only reason there is not a strong opposition is the very reason Assad needs to be gotten rid of: he'll eradicate anyone who looks at him funny.

It's clear from my earlier posts that I don't think democracy can be imposed from outside, nor will it spring up magically once a country has be blasted to pieces. But would it be worth it to maybe not remove Assad, but to stop the carnage? If he knows his forces will be attacked whenever he kills his own people, he may stop killing them. And then there may be time for an opposition to grow.

Thoughts?

Introducing violence from outside would be improper, I think. 'Imperialistic' even. None of our business. Once Assad destroys the opposition, things will get better in the country. Like when Saddam was in charge before he was unseated by foreign Imperialistic powers. Don't want to make the same mistake again. I also think Assad should be given nuclear bomb-making technology - to deter foreign interventions.

Oh Orwell. You are so trying at times.

What! I get persuaded over to your non-interventionist view, and you don't like it!

No, you see - when I advocate different tactics for closely related situations, I'm being subtle. A demonstration of the discerning diplomatic eye for historical and devilishly complex realities.

When you advocate different tactics for closely related situations, you're just being a dunderhead.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time trying to argue with me, I'll just continue to demolish you with airtight and unassailable logic.

halfwise wrote:No, you see - when I advocate different tactics for closely related situations, I'm being subtle. A demonstration of the discerning diplomatic eye for historical and devilishly complex realities.

When you advocate different tactics for closely related situations, you're just being a dunderhead.

I'm afraid you're wasting your time trying to argue with me, I'll just continue to demolish you with airtight and unassailable logic.

You sound like GB now... Like him, I haven't seen any of your evidence for your views yet. Indeed, I haven't even heard your views yet!


I'm reminded for some reason now (don't ask me why) of how amazed I was when Eldo accused me of not addressing his arguments in an earlier discussion. I admit to baiting him and being a jester too, but I actually addressed his ideas very directly. I think he saw the jibes and pointy-stick-jabbing, but failed to realize I was actually taking him seriously.

These debates seem to be full brush stroke stuff, encompasing a million thin brush strokes of 'ideas' often lost in the thick application of same. Whenever I try to highlight certain "thin' brush strokes - you know, bring separete 'ideas' into sharper focus to test their veracity - I get the paint can thrown at my head - or it feels that way!

Calling me a 'dunderhead' is not really an argument as such btw, though I concede that the likes of Eldo and GB believe that kind of thing makes for a saliant point of reference in their general thesis on anything, strategically speaking.

I should have said "mischievous dunderhead". It was affectionate and very tongue in cheek, as in you're not the only one....

halfwise wrote:I should have said "mischievous dunderhead". It was affectionate and very tongue in cheek, as in you're not the only one....

Am I that stupid you had to explain!

blame it on the writing...I have yet to perfect the jaunty sly style this forum so demands.

halfwise wrote:blame it on the writing...I have yet to perfect the jaunty sly style this forum so demands.

We make no demands here --- we're pacifists!

please excuse my extreme political ignorance, but I am a woman so thats normal, but women notice things like nice shoes, and this Assad chappie has always had nice shoes, and suits and he has a huge neck like Sir Percy from Blackadder, so for years I thought, oh that nice 'western Assad', he's not like that bonkers chap in Lybia that looks like Michael Jacksons Uncle who shags camels, and wears sheets. No I thought, he's not going to murder children and 'disappear' journalists and dissidents. But I was wrong. Its always the quiet ones with shiny shoes, neat hair and suits who are the worst tyrants, look at Hitler.

Mrs Figg wrote:please excuse my extreme political ignorance, but I am a woman so thats normal, but women notice things like nice shoes, and this Assad chappie has always had nice shoes, and suits and he has a huge neck like Sir Percy from Blackadder, so for years I thought, oh that nice 'western Assad', he's not like that bonkers chap in Lybia that looks like Michael Jacksons Uncle who shags camels, and wears sheets. No I thought, he's not going to murder children and 'disappear' journalists and dissidents. But I was wrong. Its always the quiet ones with shiny shoes, neat hair and suits who are the worst tyrants, look at Hitler.

It almost makes you begin to think that all fashionistas might, actually, be evil... What a terrible thought, Mrs Figg!

Ah, the old "look fairer and feel fouler" observation. I know some dirty jokes along those lines....

As for me, a girl wearing old canvas shoes as opposed to those ridiculous heels will always win my heart. I like her scrappiness to be grounded. It goes both ways: any chap who has shiny shoes should be avoided at all costs, but women always are suckers for the shoes.

I guess what I was trying to say, very badly, is that people seem to like easily identifyable dictators and tyrants, like Sadaam, and Gadaffi, and the Iranian Munchkin and the North K Jabba the Hutt. Assad was flying under the radar for a long time in the public mind. But I do think if the Syrians develop a large opposition and the leaders ask the West for help like the Lybians did, we should help them in some way. Sometimes I wish they could develop stealth drones and whilst the government of these dictators are having tea and torture in their govt building, we could drop a little bomb on the lot of them wipe em out and then the people can have a clean start having got rid of all the warmongers and idiots in one fell swoop. call me old fashioned.

I largely agree, and if Bin Laden had been living in my neighborhood, I likely would have asked him to babysit my kids, if I had any. Seems like such a nice calm old man with a twinkle in his eye. Not being sarcastic either.

As far as taking out leaders goes, it would be nice to just prune off the bad top and leave the apparatus of government still in place: that's the mistake made in Iraq - cleansing out the Baathist, while being Baath was one of the requirements for any government post. Anarchy ensued. Stupid, stupid.

But assassination is a slippery slope. The one good thing war has going for it is consequences on both sides, so people are more likely to try diplomacy first. I'm afraid assassination is too much an easy way out.

yes I know, I was being a bit flippant about the bomb idea, sorry. Its a serious question. its obviously far more complicated than just taking out a few leaders, I often wonder however if the members of the ruling caste were removed a light pruning here and there, would the shoots of Democracy peep through, in North K it seems to be one family who hold the reins of power, what would happen if they were gone? Maybe anarchy, maybe a new beginning?

Lets not hide from the truth on this one here- the reason the West will not support the Syrian people likein Libya or even in Iraq is Syria is strong. Its army is very large, exceptionally well supplied with all the latest gear, dedicated and supremely well trained. We might win in the end but getting there would cost a huge deal of bloodhsed among our troops- somethng that has not happened in recent years- the people of the West dont have the stomach for weekly casualties of our own that would probably be in the hundreds, notr the one or two every week or so that die in current conflicts.

I think thats why cutting them off at the top is probably the only way, as diplomacy aint going to stop them. The only problem with cutting off the Hydra head is that two more will probably pop up to take their place.

halfwise wrote:Ah, the old "look fairer and feel fouler" observation. I know some dirty jokes along those lines....

As for me, a girl wearing old canvas shoes as opposed to those ridiculous heels will always win my heart. I like her scrappiness to be grounded. It goes both ways: any chap who has shiny shoes should be avoided at all costs, but women always are suckers for the shoes.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about Halfwise...

Mrs Figg wrote:I guess what I was trying to say, very badly, is that people seem to like easily identifyable dictators and tyrants, like Sadaam, and Gadaffi, and the Iranian Munchkin and the North K Jabba the Hutt. Assad was flying under the radar for a long time in the public mind. But I do think if the Syrians develop a large opposition and the leaders ask the West for help like the Lybians did, we should help them in some way. Sometimes I wish they could develop stealth drones and whilst the government of these dictators are having tea and torture in their govt building, we could drop a little bomb on the lot of them wipe em out and then the people can have a clean start having got rid of all the warmongers and idiots in one fell swoop. call me old fashioned.

halfwise wrote:IBut assassination is a slippery slope. The one good thing war has going for it is consequences on both sides, so people are more likely to try diplomacy first. I'm afraid assassination is too much an easy way out.

Neville Halfwise?

Mrs Figg wrote:yes I know, I was being a bit flippant about the bomb idea, sorry. Its a serious question. its obviously far more complicated than just taking out a few leaders, I often wonder however if the members of the ruling caste were removed a light pruning here and there, would the shoots of Democracy peep through, in North K it seems to be one family who hold the reins of power, what would happen if they were gone? Maybe anarchy, maybe a new beginning?

Well said.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Lets not hide from the truth on this one here- the reason the West will not support the Syrian people likein Libya or even in Iraq is Syria is strong.

America versus Syria? I'll give you excellent odds, Petty.

and... "people of the West dont have the stomach for weekly casualties..."

Only certain mealy-mouthed starry-eyed don't have the stomach, Petty.

Fuckers. Though in general I don't support having an armed general population, in some cases like this it would have been nice to have some retaliatory vigilante justice against such brutes. May have saved a boy's life.

Teenager, 14, Executed By Islamist Rebels in Syria
By Alexander Marquardt | ABC News – 8 hrs ago

A teenager selling coffee in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo was arrested by Islamist rebel fighters for insulting the Prophet Mohammed, beaten and then executed in front of his family, a watchdog group claims.
The boy, Mohammed Qatta, 14, reportedly refused to give a customer coffee, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Sunday.
"Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won't," the boy said, who was known by his nickname "Salmo."

Extremist rebels driving past in a black car overheard the comment, the opposition Aleppo Media Center said. Qatta was taken away by the fighters and later brought back, his head wrapped with his shirt and his body covered with marks from whipping.
The rebels then read out the boy's sentence - not in a Syrian accent, but in classical Arabic. They accused the boy of blasphemy and told the crowd - which included the boy's parents - that anyone who insulted the Prophet would suffer a similar fate.

Qatta was then shot in the mouth and neck. A graphic photo was released late Sunday of the dead boy clearly showing wounds that matched the reports.
The boy's parents confirmed the accounts in an interview posted online on Monday by the Aleppo Media Center. In it, his father stoically recounted the execution while his mother wailed.
"Why did they kill my son," she cried. "We are not for or against anybody in this conflict, may God take revenge on them."

The Islamists and their group have yet to be identified. Large swathes of rebel-held Aleppo are under the control of al Qaeda-linked rebel groups who have set up Sharia courts and welcomed large numbers of foreign fighters into their ranks. The United States and its allies have struggled with the question of whether to arm an extremely fragmented opposition force whose strongest elements have pledged allegiance to al Qaeda.

Aleppo is expected to become of the focal point of Syria's two-year civil war in the coming days as Syrian forces look to take back full control of Syria's most populous city in a new offensive reportedly dubbed "Northern Storm."
ABC News' Nasser Atta contributed to this report

Im definetly on the wrong planet, I dont want to be a part of this one.
I just dont understand it at all.