• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Syria and UN Security Council Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
To intervene or not to intervene?

Anne-Marie Slaughter offers a plan:

How to Halt the Butchery in Syria

FOREIGN military intervention in Syria offers the best hope for curtailing a long, bloody and destabilizing civil war. The mantra of those opposed to intervention is “Syria is not Libya.” In fact, Syria is far more strategically located than Libya, and a lengthy civil war there would be much more dangerous to our interests. America has a major stake in helping Syria’s neighbors stop the killing.

Simply arming the opposition, in many ways the easiest option, would bring about exactly the scenario the world should fear most: a proxy war that would spill into Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan and fracture Syria along sectarian lines. It could also allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Syria and perhaps gain access to chemical and biological weapons.

There is an alternative. The Friends of Syria, some 70 countries scheduled to meet in Tunis today, should establish “no-kill zones” now to protect all Syrians regardless of creed, ethnicity or political allegiance. The Free Syrian Army, a growing force of defectors from the government’s army, would set up these no-kill zones near the Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian borders. Each zone should be established as close to the border as possible to allow the creation of short humanitarian corridors for the Red Cross and other groups to bring food, water and medicine in and take wounded patients out. The zones would be managed by already active civilian committees.
Click to expand...

Is this the right way to proceed? Haven't heard a better idea (or any other idea really).

ETA: I'm personally not for any plan that ends with US troops occupying Syria or parts of it on a long-term basis.
 
Last edited:
Slaughter said:
The Friends of Syria, some 70 countries scheduled to meet in Tunis today, should establish “no-kill zones” now to protect all Syrians regardless of creed, ethnicity or political allegiance. The Free Syrian Army, a growing force of defectors from the government’s army, would set up these no-kill zones near the Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian borders.
Click to expand...

And how are we supposed to maintain these "no-kill zones"?
 
As suggested before, the Arab league countries should spearhead any peacekeeping mission with Western countries providing logistical and humanitarian support.

Western nation troops should steer well clear of Syria. Its about time the Arab league does more than just talk and throw scraps all their fellow brethren. They should commit armed troops, not the UN, not NATO, not the US or former coalition countries.
 
Last edited:
bigjelmapro said:
As suggested before, the Arab league countries should spearhead any peacekeeping mission with Western countries providing logistical and humanitarian support.

Western nation troops should steer well clear of Syria. Its about time the Arab league does more than just talk and throw scraps all their fellow brethren. They should commit armed troops, not the UN, not NATO, not the US or former coalition countries.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. Of course, the Arab League is not made up of paragons of democratic virtue.

I think you are right though that Western countries should steer clear.

At the very least we know they won't be welcome. We also know that none of the laptop bombadiers on this thread have the first clue about Syria and what kind of forces they will be ushering into power.
 
Slaughter said:
Establishing these zones would require nations like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to arm the opposition soldiers with anti-tank, countersniper and portable antiaircraft weapons. Special forces from countries like Qatar, Turkey and possibly Britain and France could offer tactical and strategic advice to the Free Syrian Army forces. Sending them in is logistically and politically feasible; some may be there already.
Click to expand...

My guess is that, yes, they already are.
 
bigjelmapro said:
As suggested before, the Arab league countries should spearhead any peacekeeping mission with Western countries providing logistical and humanitarian support.

Western nation troops should steer well clear of Syria. Its about time the Arab league does more than just talk and throw scraps all their fellow brethren. They should commit armed troops, not the UN, not NATO, not the US or former coalition countries.
Click to expand...

Arabs can't fight.
 
Virus said:
What would you say is the psychology behind the Nazi-left and what do you think motives them?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's the same psychology at work in a movie theater or at a sporting event. These self-righteous blowhards have identified the US, Israel and western power in general as the "bad guys" while all those assuming an anti-US, etc... posture become the "good guys". Naturally, when it comes to entertainment such as movies, sports, or international politics- part of the "fun" is in rooting for the good guys and against the bad guys.

All events and situations must then be viewed and interpreted exclusively through this prism. Which is exactly why the Nazi-left and the Paultard right promulgate absurd, and often racist, conspiracy fantasies about 9/11, the Kennedy assassination (RFK), 7/7, the holocaust, the Serbian genocide and the current Syrian uprising. They find themselves ideologically exposed and must resort to these infantile theories in order to maintain some shred of a political position.

Of course concerns regarding suffering, freedom, civil rights and justice are basically irrelevant to these narcissistic cultists, except as tactical weapons in support of their sacred doctrines.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
What would you say is the psychology behind the Nazi-left and what do you think motives them?
Click to expand...

Can we get back to Syria here?

We will always have the Nazi left with us, so we need not concern ourselves with it in this thread.

CE: Russia hosting talks/peace overture.

Why not?

So far, little else seems to have been effective. Can't hurt to try.
 
Peace talks with who? We don't know who's storming cities with tanks and shelling them. We don't know who's gunning down demonstrators and carrying them off to be tortured in dungeons.
 
So today the constitutional referendum took place.

Russia sent Aleksey Pushkov, head of the Duma foreign affairs committee, to investigate the situation and RT interviewed him yesterday, also about the "Friends of Syria" meeting and why Russia didn't take part. Informative:


Here are reports about the referendum itself by AlJazeera and RT:


http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-vote-constitution-211/

At AlJazeera they show a muslim who is happy with Article 3, which says that the president has to be a muslim, but complains about other stuff. On RT they show a Christian who approves of other stuff and, unisono with many of the Western press who paint this as a farce, complains about Article 3, which excludes him. RT also shows a member of the constitutional council who explains that with 90% muslims in the country, they decided to include this article to please them instead of the 10% non-muslims, to get their support. Realpolitik.

If you want a western perspective from the ground, go look for yourself. Good luck. Must be because of the dictator not letting journalists in. Oh wait, here are some more:


Meanwhile on CNN:

CNN and other media outlets cannot independently verify opposition or government reports because Syria has severely limited access to the country by foreign journalists. But the vast majority of reports from the ground indicate government forces are massacring citizens in an attempt to wipe out dissidents seeking al-Assad's ouster.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder where Russia's 'line in the sand' lies on this. I doubt they'd go to war over Syria, but there's got to be a a point... right?

Also Russia and China didn't veto the no-fly zone over Libya, but were then pretty pissed (it seemed) at how the original nfz turned into a 'bomb the rebels into power' NATO war. I wonder if the Russian/Chinese intransigence over Syria may be linked to this 'get an inch, take a country' approach used by NATO et al?
 
Just a philosophical thought game:

We all pretty much agree that a state has the 'right' to defend itself from armed insurrection / challenges to its power (I'm assuming).

However, we don't like it if there are civilian casualties (however one defines civilian).

We all also know that NATO bombs don't cause civilian casualties.

To halt the deaths of civilians in Syria, NATO should sell / give Assad precision guided munitions.

AMIRITE?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom