Syria again - your solutions?

[aelf]

What do you mean the UN is 'allowing' the Russians and Chinese to draw out Assadist victory? The UN is not a league of superfriends, here to fight evil. It is an international diplomatic forum that nations use as a neutral platform in diplomatic negotiations. Russia and China vetoing any Syrian bill is not the UN letting them do as they wish. It is merely Russia and China exploiting their positions within the Security Council. And if you think the UN is useless then you are clearly dismissing the good it has brought to the greater human race.

People like that decry the UN for being unable to be a world police. But give them a UN equivalent with teeth and chances are the same nutcases would be moaning about the loss of sovereignty and the evil New World Order.

We cannot make sense of American conservatives' beliefs because there isn't much sense in them.

 

[Glassfan]

Taking this to the UN and allowing the Russians and Chinese to delay and draw out an Assad victory is a clear indication of Obama's disregard. "Demands for Sanctions" is another.

What do you mean the UN is 'allowing' the Russians and Chinese to draw out Assadist victory? The UN is not a league of superfriends, here to fight evil. It is an international diplomatic forum that nations use as a neutral platform in diplomatic negotiations. Russia and China vetoing any Syrian bill is not the UN letting them do as they wish. It is merely Russia and China exploiting their positions within the Security Council. And if you think the UN is useless then you are clearly dismissing the good it has brought to the greater human race.

I thought my meaning was clear that by pretending to follow the UN's lead, President Obama was showing his lack of regard for the tragedy in Syria.

And yes, at times, the UN has acted like the superfriends. During the Korean War for instance. And Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But UN backbone usually requires the leadership of a power like America or the UK - and it clearly doesn't have that now.

 

[Flying Pig]

People like that decry the UN for being unable to be a world police. But give them a UN equivalent with teeth and chances are the same nutcases would be moaning about the loss of sovereignty and the evil New World Order.

Well, when an accident of Russian stroppiness did give them serious teeth, the UN quickly became an instrument of Western foreign policy; where the opinions of different countries carry different weights, a powerful UN can never hope to truly represent everyone.

With regard to Syria, the main problem is that in Libya there was a vague sense of a 'bad' side and what could, in the right light and if we squinted a bit, be called a 'good' side. In Syria, there's two 'bad' sides, and it's not entirely clear which is the worse of the two - or, to be bluntly honest, exactly who the opposition are. Intervention either way would be a lot of blood and a lot of treasure for an impossible-to-guarantee outcome.

 

[Tahuti]

People like that decry the UN for being unable to be a world police. But give them a UN equivalent with teeth and chances are the same nutcases would be moaning about the loss of sovereignty and the evil New World Order.

We cannot make sense of American conservatives' beliefs because there isn't much sense in them.

Now you're pretty much confusing Paleocon's with Neocon's. Paleoconservatives usually fear a powerful UN and often connect these with Alex Jones-esque fears of NWO. Neocons simply support or oppose a powerful UN depending on what they consider US' interests (for instance, the Neocons supported the first Gulf War using its UN support as an argument, yet ignored the UN's opposition to the second).

 

[aelf]

Now you're pretty much confusing Paleocon's with Neocon's. Paleoconservatives usually fear a powerful UN and often connect these with Alex Jones-esque fears of NWO. Neocons simply support or oppose a powerful UN depending on what they consider US' interests (for instance, the Neocons supported the first Gulf War using its UN support as an argument, yet ignored the UN's opposition to the second).

You're speaking as though the average conservative can meaningfully identify himself as either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative.

That said, what I said applies to neoconservatives as well, as long as a powerful UN doesn't mainly serve Western/American interests.

 

[Cutlass]

I think with the neocons, it's really a matter of assuming that any UN action must by definition be what the US wants it to be, or the UN is a terrible thing. The don't recognize the UN for what it is.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think with the neocons, it's really a matter of assuming that any UN action must by definition be what the US wants it to be, or the UN is a terrible thing. The don't recognize the UN for what it is.

You mean the UN isn't supposed to be a tool to implement US foreign policy? This changes everything!

 

[say1988]

I think with the neocons, it's really a matter of assuming that any UN action must by definition be what the US wants it to be, or the UN is a terrible thing. The don't recognize the UN for what it is.

Yet, at the same time it is an oppressive foreign tool for taking over the US and oppressing all Real Americans[TM] through things like Agenda 21 and a useless waste of space that cannot do anything.

Really, it is used simply as a generic source of scaremongering and justification.

 

[del62]

I guess moaning about American conservatives is a lot easier than offering meaningful solutions to what is hapenning in Syria

 

[Tahuti]

You're speaking as though the average conservative can meaningfully identify himself as either a paleoconservative or a neoconservative.

Its pretty much a US thing (though in the UK, while unlikely to actually use such language, the UKIP may be considered Paleocon while the Tories may be considered Neocon). Also the vast majority of Republicans would probably qualify as Neoconservatives, since unlike the mainstream GOP stance, Paleoconservatism has an ideological opposition to pretty much anything that involves something outside the US' borders.

 

[Bootstoots]

I guess moaning about American conservatives is a lot easier than offering meaningful solutions to what is hapenning in Syria

You got that right. So what's your idea?

 

[MantaRevan]

I mean, western intervention is going to be a bad thing in the long run assuredly. Outside of diplomacy, I don't see much in the way of progress being made in the near future either. And even that is questionable. I hate to say it, but I think the best thing to do is ignore it.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think with the neocons, it's really a matter of assuming that any UN action must by definition be what the US wants it to be, or the UN is a terrible thing. The don't recognize the UN for what it is.

It's more the admission, which conservatives of all flavours don't like to make, that sometimes your own government doesn't know what's best for everyone or even make the right decisions about its own affairs - compare our own Tories' outrage when the European Union tries to tell them how to run things such as workplace health and safety, while at the same time they complain that the Greeks aren't following the EU's guidance smilingly enough.

 

[kramerfan86]

Just stay out of it unfortunately. Unlike Libya where there was a somewhat organized resistance and opposition government to support (and even THAT isnt going perfect) there is no one to really support and get behind here. Just removing the problem would create anarchy, which surely would create as many massacres and casualties as the status quo currently is

 

[Tee Kay]

Best case scenario: negotiated solution, perhaps under international mediation, perhaps forced by the threat of international intervention, based on these five points.

1. Assad must go. Perhaps a year ago he could have remained in power, but not after everything that's happened. He could be exiled and granted immunity from persecution, like Saleh.
2. Round table talks between different rebel groups, religious leaders, and mid-level officials from the current government.
3. All armed forces, rebels and governments, to be disarmed and general amnesty granted to all fighters on both the government and rebel sides, with the exception of those implicated in known massacres of civilians outside of combat zone.
4. Transition in three stages: first stage under Assad's immediate successor, second stage under a national unity government, the formation of which should be the first priority of the round table talks, the third stage under a partially-elected government under a provisional constitution.
5. Negotiation to be conducted on the basis of a united, federal and democratic Syria.

 

[Skwink]

This isn't America's problem. The Arab League should deal with it.

 

[Azale]

This isn't America's problem. The Arab League should deal with it.

Oh good god, then the people of Syria really are doomed.

I don't see much point for the US to become involved. Liberal interventionism starts getting messy when you don't apply a blanket standard for your interventions. What separated Libya from Syria? Saudi Arabia from Iraq? North Korea or the DR Congo from Somalia? What's the actual plan here, is it cheaper market access or ideological crusading? Whatever America's foreign policy ideals are, they seem to vary from region to region.

The fact that it is mostly (from what I've read) a Sunni insurgency against a secularist government means trying to inflame the rebellion might cause spill over into neighboring countries with strong Sunni factions.

 

[r16]

it is Iran's fault for still refusing to give up its network of influence for the right to have the nuke , which by the way , we never ever intend to ratify . It is just about to explode into a Middle East wide sectarian conflict . To serve in the Sunni camp , instead of remaining neutral this country was willingly modified . And ı am a Hanefi Sunni , even if ı don't practise .

esad is not even the first to go . For all the brutality of "his" thugs , he didn't start it .

foreign countries , which somehow include this one , must stop interfering , which is of course the perfect pipedream .

how do you disarm an army with supposed 4000 tanks ? And nobody likes united countries in the Middle East these days . And it is most unlikely that the sides will give massacring as soon as some summit to influence with gruesome footage is around .

this supporting the poor freedom fighters business is getting out of hand . And for the recent news that our seperatists are ready to give up arms is , you might well get the drift , before ı say things that is a red card offence . We are not going .

 

[Pokurcz]

Forces of the Arab League combined with Turkish forces should go in with ground units supported by western airforcess.

It is a pity that the americans have spent all their good will on the second invasion of Iraq, while Russia and China can't support dissidents in an other country while they themselves opress minorities of their own. (Not to mention Russia selling weapons to Assad)

 

[Snorrius]

1. Assad must go. Perhaps a year ago he could have remained in power, but not after everything that's happened. He could be exiled and granted immunity from persecution, like Saleh

Assad must stay. He is at least secular dictator and mild secular dictatorship is a way more progressive government for the countries of this region. We do not really need there another failed religiously-intolerant Muslim state with outdated way of running things as there are already more than enough.

2. Round table talks between different rebel groups, religious leaders, and mid-level officials from the current government.

Ideally rebels should be crushed, and Muslim states which provide support for them should be bombed or at least be given a serious warning to cease this support.

3. All armed forces, rebels and governments, to be disarmed and general amnesty granted to all fighters on both the government and rebel sides, with the exception of those implicated in known massacres of civilians outside of combat zone.

Rebels should be disarmed and jailed. Government's armed forces should be provided with modern arms for rebel-crushing.