What should the USA and other countries do about Syria?

As of June 2012, Syria has become the next Rwanda, Bosnia, or Libya as it would have been if NATO and the Arab League not acted.

The Syrian dictator's answer to protest and unrest is to kill as many of his people as he can. These are war crimes. According to genocide watch:

"The evidence is now conclusive that the al-Assad regime is committing intentional crimes against humanity. Among the crimes the al-Assad regime is committing are: indiscriminant, widespread attacks on civilians, arbitrary detention of thousands in the political opposition, rape of detainees, widespread torture- including torture and murder of children- and denial of food, medicines and other essential resources to civilians."

http://www.genocidewatch.org/syria.html

Are we going to sit back again and watch another Rwanda unfold?

What needs to be done IMO is the following:

1) Organize a coalition of European, American and Arab/Islamic nations who are willing to take action.
2) Help the rebels to form a unified front.
3) Send arms to the rebels fighting against Assad.
4) Organize well-guarded safe havens behind which refugees are protected against attack by the Syrian regime, using all military powers of the coalition, and from which the rebels themselves can mount offensives against the regime.
5) Continue complete sanctions against the regime.

It is no use now to try to "prevent civil war." It is already happening. The people want Assad out. The war criminals must be brought to justice now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What should the USA and other countries do about Syria?

As of June 2012, Syria has become the next Rwanda, Bosnia, or Libya as it would have been if NATO and the Arab League not acted.

The Syrian dictator's answer to protest and unrest is to kill as many of his people as he can. These are war crimes. According to genocide watch:

"The evidence is now conclusive that the al-Assad regime is committing intentional crimes against humanity. Among the crimes the al-Assad regime is committing are: indiscriminant, widespread attacks on civilians, arbitrary detention of thousands in the political opposition, rape of detainees, widespread torture- including torture and murder of children- and denial of food, medicines and other essential resources to civilians."

http://www.genocidewatch.org/syria.html

Are we going to sit back again and watch another Rwanda unfold?

What needs to be done IMO is the following:

1) Organize a coalition of European, American and Arab/Islamic nations who are willing to take action.
2) Help the rebels to form a unified front.
3) Send arms to the rebels fighting against Assad.
4) Organize well-guarded safe havens behind which refugees are protected against attack by the Syrian regime, using all military powers of the coalition, and from which the rebels themselves can mount offensives against the regime.
5) Continue complete sanctions against the regime.

It is no use now to try to "prevent civil war." It is already happening. The people want Assad out. The war criminals must be brought to justice now.

It is civil war. This is one possible end:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...ylor-convicted

I will spare you the grisly ends of two Romanian dictators (Antonescu, Ceausescu), Saddam Hussein, and Moammar Qaddafi.

Syria seems to be an impossibly tangled Gordian Knot. Assad is a butcher and needs to go, but if the Allawite Shi'ites that are Assad's support base lose control of the Syrian state they will be almost certainly be the victims of genocidal retaliatory violence by the Sunni majority. And I fear the longer Assad holds on to power the more vicious the Sunnis' retaliation against the Shi'ites will be.

Originally Posted by Odin

Syria seems to be an impossibly tangled Gordian Knot. Assad is a butcher and needs to go, but if the Allawite Shi'ites that are Assad's support base lose control of the Syrian state they will be almost certainly be the victims of genocidal retaliatory violence by the Sunni majority. And I fear the longer Assad holds on to power the more vicious the Sunnis' retaliation against the Shi'ites will be.

Yes, Syria is not Libya. All I see is one gigantic CF that we best avoid. I'm sure this vortex will eventually suck in Lebanon,Iraq, and Jordon. Iran may be an outlier as well. So the questions are:
1. If/when Assad is gone, then what do we end up with?
2. Obviously, intervention with "military power" will lead to unexpected results. Yuck. Another Afghanistan like tribal society similarity. I pass.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, Syria is not Libya. All I see is one gigantic CF that we best avoid. I'm sure this vortex will eventually suck in Lebanon,Iraq, and Jordon. Iran may be an outlier as well. So the questions are:
1. If/when Assad is gone, then what do we end up with?
2. Obviously, intervention with "military power" will lead to unexpected results. Yuck. Another Afghanistan like tribal society similarity. I pass.

A lot of what happens in Syria depends on whether or not this is a youth revolt a la Egypt, as well as the sectarian battle lines. If it is, we can hope the young people win, and watch to see what government they form. If Assad crushes them entirely, there will be no civil war for a while, but the minute he or his regime weakens, there bloody well will be.

Someone - on this forum? - suggested that the first of the latest round of massacres was Assad's My Lai, his Tienanmen Square. Well, we all know what happened in Tienanmen Square. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What should the USA ...do about Syria?

Stay the f**k out.

Any questions?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Stay the f**k out.

Any questions?

-Color me "ambivalent" for now.

Corrections:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...As of June 2012, Syria has become the next Rwanda, Bosnia, or Libya as it would have been if NATO and the Arab League not acted...

1) The Tutsis took care of Rwanda themselves; the Interahamwe weren't much of a match against guys who could actually shoot back;

2) NATO in Bosnia wouldn't have been worth a fart in a windstorm without the USA;

3) Same thing goes for NATO and the Arab League in Libya. We did the initial heavy lifting, and kept NATO and the UAE supplied thereafter.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, Syria is not Libya. All I see is one gigantic CF that we best avoid. I'm sure this vortex will eventually suck in Lebanon,Iraq, and Jordon. Iran may be an outlier as well. So the questions are:
1. If/when Assad is gone, then what do we end up with?
2. Obviously, intervention with "military power" will lead to unexpected results. Yuck. Another Afghanistan like tribal society similarity. I pass.

So that means we just let genocide proceed? I think we've learned that is not a viable course over the last 80 years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So that means we just let genocide proceed? I think we've learned that is not a viable course over the last 80 years.

-We stopped mass murder in Afgahnistan and Iraq, but for some reason you showed little appreciation for that. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So that means we just let genocide proceed? I think we've learned that is not a viable course over the last 80 years.

Oh no Eric! That is how it always starts! Then we send our thugs to commit even bigger genocides! It has been like that since the Native Americans!

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Oh no Eric! That is how it always starts! Then we send our thugs to commit even bigger genocides! It has been like that since the Native Americans!

Native Americans may have fought against each other, but they were not committing genocide against each other when Americans conquered them and put them onto reservations. That was conquest, not stopping genocide. Let's look at history correctly before we say how things "always start" and see things dogmatically in black and white.

I am glad the allies stopped Hitler's genocide, at least half way through. We did not stop the communist ones; only instead we waged wars supposedly to keep communism from spreading. But Vietnam was a misguided attempt to stop another Stalin when Ho Chi Minh was in fact not like him at all. A little correct history would have kept us out of that war, and not thereby instigated the war in Cambodia that resulted in the genocide we supposedly wanted to stop. In fact, the people we fought against were the ones who invaded Cambodia in 1979 and stopped the genocide there.

As long as it was in Europe, America was willing to stop a genocide again-- in Bosnia, in actions in which American lives were not lost. I'm glad we did those. But in Africa we let a genocide proceed. We supposedly learned our lesson and acted more-or-less correctly in Libya. But now we are allowing another genocide to unfold in Syria, and we should do what we can to stop it-- short of actual invasion with troops on the ground. We CAN do that, as Libya proved.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So that means we just let genocide proceed? I think we've learned that is not a viable course over the last 80 years.

1. Not "genocide", "civil war". Civil wars are messy and nasty affairs.
2. 80 years? OK I'm game.
WWII : Japan did bomb us at Pearl Harbor. Pretty clear there was an existential threat.
Korea : Who knows? We still have a DMZ there and crazies running N Korea. We're not going to take out the crazies because that would suck China in.
Vietnam : 'nuff said.
Beirut : Utterly stupid. Marines got killed for nothing.
Grenada: dumb again.
Panama: Noriega stopped being our stooge or something. First proof that heavy metal music can be useful for psyc-ops.
Gulf War I: Saddam also had the audacity to stop being our stooge.
Gulf War II: Saddam threatened our oil supply. We got rid of him this time. Also big profits for Blackwater.
Balkans: Feel good war. I think the ethnic cleansing was pretty much done before we got there. So it's all nice and stable since there's a place for everyone and everyone is in their place. I.E. the Muslims have their country, the Catholics have theirs, etc. Yes, and Serbs have their place. See the term, Balkanization for details. Of course there is a lesson here. The culture wars in the US should stop, lest Balkanization happens here.
Afghanistan: Before-> Remove Taliban for harboring Al-Qaeda. After Afghanistan is a "no mans land". <- Al-Qaeda is still around there and in another no man's land, Eastern Pakistan. We ask Pakistan to "do something", Pakistan can't do this stuff because the central government does not really control Eastern Pakistan, tribal elders do. The US and Pakistan argue over who needs to do what about Al-Qaeda.
Libya : Too early to tell yet.
There may be some others I've forgotten about.

So over 80 year? Yup, 1 no brainer war, 2 not settled wars, and a whole slew of clusterfuck wars.

Edit. So many wars that I forgot one, silly me.
Somalia. Cf "Blackhawk Down"

Eric, LV is a troll posing as a stereotype of a "Leftist", ignore her.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

1. Not "genocide", "civil war". Civil wars are messy and nasty affairs.
2. 80 years? OK I'm game.
WWII : Japan did bomb us at Pearl Harbor. Pretty clear there was an existential threat.
Korea : Who knows? We still have a DMZ there and crazies running N Korea. We're not going to take out the crazies because that would suck China in.
Vietnam : 'nuff said.
Beirut : Utterly stupid. Marines got killed for nothing.
Grenada: dumb again.
Panama: Noriega stopped being our stooge or something. First proof that heavy metal music can be useful for psyc-ops.
Gulf War I: Saddam also had the audacity to stop being our stooge.
Gulf War II: Saddam threatened our oil supply. We got rid of him this time. Also big profits for Blackwater.
Balkans: Feel good war. I think the ethnic cleansing was pretty much done before we got there. So it's all nice and stable since there's a place for everyone and everyone is in their place. I.E. the Muslims have their country, the Catholics have theirs, etc. Yes, and Serbs have their place. See the term, Balkanization for details. Of course there is a lesson here. The culture wars in the US should stop, lest Balkanization happens here.
Afghanistan: Before-> Remove Taliban for harboring Al-Qaeda. After Afghanistan is a "no mans land". <- Al-Qaeda is still around there and in another no man's land, Eastern Pakistan. We ask Pakistan to "do something", Pakistan can't do this stuff because the central government does not really control Eastern Pakistan, tribal elders do. The US and Pakistan argue over who needs to do what about Al-Qaeda.
Libya : Too early to tell yet.
There may be some others I've forgotten about.

So over 80 year? Yup, 1 no brainer war, 2 not settled wars, and a whole slew of clusterfuck wars.

The point being, that the situation in Syria is NOT like most of these; it IS genocide, and that's what I'm talking about. Not about threats to us (e.g. WWII). Not about a preventive war (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). An ongoing slaughter on a mammoth scale. Should we just let it proceed? If not, what do we do, that would actually work, somewhere short of military invasion?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Native Americans may have fought against each other, but they were not committing genocide against each other when Americans conquered them and put them onto reservations. That was conquest, not stopping genocide. Let's look at history correctly before we say how things "always start" and see things dogmatically in black and white.

I am glad the allies stopped Hitler's genocide, at least half way through. We did not stop the communist ones; only instead we waged wars supposedly to keep communism from spreading. But Vietnam was a misguided attempt to stop another Stalin when Ho Chi Minh was in fact not like him at all. A little correct history would have kept us out of that war, and not thereby instigated the war in Cambodia that resulted in the genocide we supposedly wanted to stop. In fact, the people we fought against were the ones who invaded Cambodia in 1979 and stopped the genocide there.

As long as it was in Europe, America was willing to stop a genocide again-- in Bosnia, in actions in which American lives were not lost. I'm glad we did those. But in Africa we let a genocide proceed. We supposedly learned our lesson and acted more-or-less correctly in Libya. But now we are allowing another genocide to unfold in Syria, and we should do what we can to stop it-- short of actual invasion with troops on the ground. We CAN do that, as Libya proved.

No Eric. I mean that they always target an "evildoer" before they start their wars.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The point being, that the situation in Syria is NOT like most of these; it IS genocide, and that's what I'm talking about. Not about threats to us (e.g. WWII). Not about a preventive war (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). An ongoing slaughter on a mammoth scale. Should we just let it proceed? If not, what do we do, that would actually work, somewhere short of military invasion?

From that "genocide" watch URL:

• The Arab League, Turkey, European Union, US and other nations should impose targeted sanctions against financial accounts, visas, and businesses owned by top Syrian officials;
• Arab and NATO nations should offer to cooperate with Russia to air lift and ship in humanitarian and medical relief supplies to all parts of Syria;

The 2 above items which they had lined our for the US/NATO seem reasonable enough. I shall just agree with what Genocide watch suggested and just let it go at that.

How is this a civil war? We have a leader using military action against protestors and dissenters, this seems pretty awakening to me.

And what action our government decodes to take against Syria depends on a number of factors, one of which is - alas, but let's be realistic - how many barrels of oil they're sitting on.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Stay the f**k out.

Any questions?

Exactly!! I have to leave right now to do some errands, but later I will post some information that shines a whole different light on the Syrian situation.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And what action our government decodes to take against Syria depends on a number of factors, one of which is - alas, but let's be realistic - how many barrels of oil they're sitting on.

And the winner is...... Gray Badger!

Some alternative opinions in regards to Syria.

Stepped Up Media War on Syria

Stepped Up Media War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman

When America goes to war or plans one, media scoundrels march in lockstep. Journalism is the first casualty. Managed news misinformation substitutes for truth and full disclosure.

################################################## ################################################

Targeting Bahraini Human Rights Lawyer Mohammed Al-Tajer

by Stephen Lendman

Since anti-Al-Khalifa protests began early last year, Al-Tajer was persecuted for defending human rights and denouncing Bahraini repression publicly.

################################################## ################################################

Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre

National Review

By John Rosenthal

It was, in the words of U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan, the “tipping point” in the Syria conflict: a savage massacre of over 90 people, predominantly women and children, for which the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed by virtually the entirety of the Western media. Within days of the first reports of the Houla massacre, the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, and several other Western countries announced that they were expelling Syria’s ambassadors in protest.

But according to a new report in Germany’s leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the Houla massacre was in fact committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and the bulk of the victims were member of the Alawi and Shia minorities, which have been largely supportive of Assad. For its account of the massacre, the report cites opponents of Assad, who, however, declined to have their names appear in print out of fear of reprisals from armed opposition groups.

According to the article’s sources, the massacre occurred after rebel forces attacked three army-controlled roadblocks outside of Houla. The roadblocks had been set up to protect nearby Alawi majority villages from attacks by Sunni militias. The rebel attacks provoked a call for reinforcements by the besieged army units. Syrian army and rebel forces are reported to have engaged in battle for some 90 minutes, during which time “dozens of soldiers and rebels” were killed.

“According to eyewitness accounts,” the FAZ report continues,

the massacre occurred during this time. Those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houla’s Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla’s population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet.

The FAZ report echoes eyewitness accounts collected from refugees from the Houla region by members of the Monastery of St. James in Qara, Syria. According to monastery sources cited by the Dutch Middle East expert Martin Janssen, armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in the village of Taldo in the Houla region.
Already at the beginning of April, Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery warned of rebel atrocities’ being repackaged in both Arab and Western media accounts as regime atrocities. She cited the case of a massacre in the Khalidiya neighborhood in Homs. According to an account published in French on the monastery’s website, rebels gathered Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in Khalidiya and blew up the building with dynamite. They then attributed the crime to the regular Syrian army. “Even though this act has been attributed to regular army forces . . . the evidence and testimony are irrefutable: It was an operation undertaken by armed groups affiliated with the opposition,” Mother Agnès-Mariam wrote.

— John Rosenthal writes on European politics and transatlantic security issues. You can follow his work at www.trans-int.com

This piece is from FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) It sheds some legitimate doubt on what we have been hearing and reading about what is happening in Syria at the hands of that government.

Was Houla Massacre a Manufactured Atrocity?

But is the Houla massacre really "better documented" than other atrocity stories emerging from Syria? On June 7, a major fissure began to appear in the storyline, when leading German daily newspaper Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung (FAZ) quoted sources who said that the Houla massacre was carried out by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and that their victims were nearly all Alawi and Shia—populations traditionally loyal to Assad. According to Syria expert Patrick Seale (Agence Global, 6/12/12) ,who quoted translated parts of the German story, FAZ sources said after the killings, "the perpetrators then filmed their victims and, in videos posted on the internet, presented them as Sunni victims of the regime."

On June 7, the BBC began to back away from its earlier stories that had reported the conventional line, blaming pro-government forces for a massacre that including the cutting of women's and children's throats. As the UK media watch group Media Lens (6/13/12) reported:

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/06/14/...ured-atrocity/

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric, LV is a troll posing as a stereotype of a "Leftist", ignore her.

-Huh. Lady Hoo Hoo is a parody of a Leftie? I thought Odin and Eric were parodies of lefties. Go figure!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And what action our government decodes to take against Syria depends on a number of factors, one of which is - alas, but let's be realistic - how many barrels of oil they're sitting on.

-The US military exists for US interests. We can argue over exactly what constitutes "US interests", but even Eric:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The point being, that the situation in Syria is NOT like most of these; it IS genocide, and that's what I'm talking about. Not about threats to us (e.g. WWII). Not about a preventive war (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq)...

...admits that this is not about "US interests."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What should the USA and other countries do about Syria? ...Are we going to sit back again and watch another Rwanda unfold? ...The people want Assad out. The war criminals must be brought to justice now.

...and...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...the situation in Syria is NOT like most of these; it IS genocide...

1) The definition of genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.

Syria does not particulalry qualify. The governement is generally Alawite and the rebels tend to be Sunni, but who gets killed is based on actions (which side you choose) rather than ethnic, racial, or religious differences per se.

2) Any chance you have this concern when the victims are Hazaras in Afghanistan or Kurds in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...What needs to be done IMO is the following...

OK...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Organize a coalition of European, American and Arab/Islamic nations who are willing to take action...

-GWB called this a "coalition of the willing." He didn't get a whole lot of applause from certain sectors of the public, did here?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Help the rebels to form a unified front...

1) They don't need us to do that. They can do that themselves, The Northern Alliance did. If they can't, that's a bad sign.

2) Who will be part of this "unified front"? Al Qaeda?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...3) Send arms to the rebels fighting against Assad...

-Our tax dollars to which rebels?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...4) Organize well-guarded safe havens behind which refugees are protected against attack by the Syrian regime, using all military powers of the coalition, and from which the rebels themselves can mount offensives against the regime...

1) This actaully worked for the Northern Alliance in 2001 and the Kurds in 2003, but...

2) Organize "Safe Havens" where? How many GIs are you willing to use (or lose) for this?

3) Organize them for whom? Again, which groups get to climb into the tree house?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Continue complete sanctions against the regime...

-What do we do when protestor convoys show up to break the sanctions?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...The people want Assad out...

-If I were a Syrian, I would, too (God Bless the USA!). So, how much of your own money will you be donating to the rebel cause to show your seriousness? You are too old to enlist in the US armed forces, but you could go over and donate your talents to the rebels. Should I hold my breath?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-The US military exists for US interests. We can argue over exactly what constitutes "US interests", but even Eric:

This is an easy one for me to answer. US interests = defense of the United States + US territories. It does not include defending Europe anymore since their big boys now and defend themselves. Ditto for Japan. S. Korea is one of those yes, because of crackpots up north. That's why we no longer need all of those military bases strewn all over the world. Just think of the $ we could save if we had a BRAC to shut them down.

...admits that this is not about "US interests."
...and...

1) The definition of genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.

Syria does not particularly qualify. The government is generally Alawite and the rebels tend to be Sunni, but who gets killed is based on actions (which side you choose) rather than ethnic, racial, or religious differences per se.

True enough.


I think this should make things quite clear. Hmmm... Russia has a military base in Syria. So , if we choose to meddle there, then we can add Russia to the list of parties that would get sucked in. I do think we have better things to do than that. That makes Syria an even bigger clusterfuck than I thought.

-GWB called this a "coalition of the willing." He didn't get a whole lot of applause from certain sectors of the public, did here?

"Coalition of the willing" is for domestic consumption. You get token support from some countries who just nod their heads in agreement to whatever military action we take. They don't really DO anything of significance.

1) They don't need us to do that. They can do that themselves, The Northern Alliance did. If they can't, that's a bad sign.

Well there are some plenty of Sunnis in the neighborhood...

2) Who will be part of this "unified front"? Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda might teach them how to make weapons. IIRC Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni organization.

-Our tax dollars to which rebels?

ROFL! Your guess is as good as mine.

1) This actaully worked for the Northern Alliance in 2001 and the Kurds in 2003, but...
2) Organize "Safe Havens" where? How many GIs are you willing to use (or lose) for this?

Good question. Israel? Most likely not. That would be messy. Turkey, for the same reason. Lebanon? Nawww. I've seen that movie once already. Same for Iraq.

-If I were a Syrian, I would, too (God Bless the USA!). So, how much of your own money will you be donating to the rebel cause to show your seriousness? You are too old to enlist in the US armed forces, but you could go over and donate your talents to the rebels. Should I hold my breath?

I'd qualify that with: I don't the the Alawites and Christians there want "regime change".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

.2) Help the rebels to form a unified front.

Let me guess, this will only favour devout Muslims coming to power (after all, it's democracy and free elections you want, right?), help them prosecute the remaining Christians in Syria and unwittingly create even more refugees as well as "refugees" to pour into Europe from the drawn out fighting and bloodshed.

The western meddling in the Middle East carries all the hallmarks of folly.

It is no use now to try to "prevent civil war." It is already happening. The people want Assad out. The war criminals must be brought to justice now.

War criminals? Never mind all the war criminals your shot at regime change will create. These things are never as simple as naive western liberals and imperialist war mongers for World Wide Democracy like to imagine.