Dear people of Syria

Hi, it's me - Barack Obama, peace nobel prize winner. Please be warned that in a few days my military forces will kill a few hundreds or thousands of you. The reason we will throw bombs on your houses is that we must punish your dictator for the gas attacks against your families. Do not get your hopes high - we won't free you of Assad or even weaken the rebels considerably - that is not in our national interest. It will only be two or three days of bombing in order to show the dictator that he cannot kill you without international reaction, after all he does not have the monopoly on killing Syrian civilians! . Also, we have no UN mandate, so we can only draw the humanitarian card, sorry.

Cameron the pussy pushed me into action but now he does not help claiming that his parliament does not allow it, very funny. Since when do you ask the parliament when you want to kill people in other countries? You simply send drones or special forces and kill them, end of story. Of course I know that he only wanted to deflect public criticism from his attack on the freedom of UK citizens, good plan. I think not many attention has been paid to our NSA activities lately, either. Thanks for helping me out of this - even involuntarily.

You might ask why we did not do anything in the last 2 years when already 100 000 Syríans have been killed in the civil war but these people were killed with conventional weapons - many of these had been sold to Assad by Western countries - really good and effective weapons. Killing people with conventional weapons is not against our ethical values - we do that every day. But a red line was crossed with that gas attack - or at least I said something to that effect a while ago and now people hold that against me. What can I do - either I bomb your homes or I lose my face and you really cannot ask that from me. You may get the feeling we have no real goal or plan and that is completetly right. But I must do something or else I will look like the total loser when I have to go to the G 20 summit next week and face this guy Putin. Trust me, it won't take long, just take cover. Yours truly B.O.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

You might ask why we did not do anything in the last 2 years when already 100 000 Syríans have been killed in the civil war but these people were killed with conventional weapons - many of these had been sold to Assad by Western countries - really good and effective weapons.[/QUOTE]

Well played.

So YV, what's your point? Should we do nothing? I don't know what the American plans are, but I doubt even the American military is stupid enough to still believe that launching a few tomahawks will be very effective after Assad's men have evacuated most significant command centers and have secured the chemical weapons, however, I don't see them doing anything very useful either (though quite possibly some very stupid things to aggravate matters), so the rest of the western world needs to consider its options.

I think we are obliged to intervene, and we should have done so almost two years ago. I am of the opinion that Russia and China are deliberately and systematically sabotaging the United Nations and must therefore be ignored. Those countries that do feel a responsibility to stop the carnage ought to create a no-fly zone over the entirety of Syria (so that firebombings like the one that took place yesterday, on a crowded schoolyard can no longer take place). Following this, a safe corridor should be created to allow anyone who wants to to flee the fighting. Through this same corridor, medical attention should be given to anyone who needs it, regardless of affiliation (and, on a related note, we should help Israeli hospitals (*NOT* the Israeli government) to foot the bill for treating the many Syrian refugees who come there seeking very necessary but also very expensive medical treatment).

When this is in place, we should attempt to disarm as much of Syria as possible, meanwhile exerting the maximum of pressure on all sides to cease fire and start negotiations, while securing, removing and safely destroying any chemical weapons that are encountered. It is very important that we do the utmost to prevent ethnic cleansings (with Kurds in the north, Alevites and Sunni's throughout the country, small groups of orthodox/coptic Christians, this is not unlikely) and I personally feel that the Kurds in the north are entitled to our help. first of all because they are by far the most secular and emancipated group in Syria, hated by both Assad and anti-Assad radicals, and second of all because Turkey is just itching to get at them under the guise of striking against Assad.

I don't think military intervention alone will do much good, but we can't just stand by and let the massacre of an entire nation take place under the eyes of the international community. Even aside from the ethical implications (and they are by far the most important, I feel), if we allow this conflict to drag on, it will escalate further and may well spread to neighboring regions. There will then be a continuous conflict zone all the way from Libya to Afghanistan, which will likely drag both Iran and Turkey into the conflict if it goes unchecked.

Yes, we run the risk of Iraq 2003 by intervening (although the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a certainty where the WMDs in Iraq were purely fictional). By not intervening, we run a risk of another Munich 1938.

It is a very difficult scenario indeed, and we are faced with the damnable scenario of having to choose between a variety of bad alternatives. However, standing by and talking about it will not just lead to a continuation of bloodshed on an apocalyptic scale, it might just create another World War.

You have quite far reaching ambitions for what the international community should achieve in Syra and I applaud you for that. I wish the so-called world leaders had similar ambitions.

Unfortunately, neither Russia-China-Iran nor the USA-EU-Gulf States are in fact interested in saving Syrian lives. If they were interested they would not have watched a de-facto genocide in Syria in the last 2 years.

It's only about oil and gas pipe lines and everything else is just propaganda. In Europe we are more brainwashed by the Western media and therefore we really believe the Russians are the bad guys but they are protecting their gas sales  to Europe monopoly just as the Saudis and Quatar want Assad gone in order to be able to lead their pipes through Syria into Turkey/Europe. The stability of Gulf oil supply is the main concern for the USA and Europe. Do not get fooled by the pretended concern for Human life by our politicians, it's all money and nothing else. If Europe, the USA or the Arab League really would want to end the blood shed in Syria they would TALK with Russia, with Iran, even with Assad.

As far as I can see it, Obama simply wants to hold onto what little "superpower" status the US still has. If they walk away from Syria being hailed as heroes, it will simply delay the inevitable. The US empire is falling, and fast.

since Rome first started ritual slaughter, rape and pillage in the name of "civilization"..over the last 2,000 yrs many countries have been world caretaker....
France, Spain, us (UK), Germany, Austria and a few others besides...It's currently America who are the "Holy Roman Empire" - and they're
doing no better or worse than any previous "world ruler"....not condoning or condemning them

personally, I'm waiting to see what kind of job China or Islam make of it, when they grab the baton.

Surely China would still do a mildly better job than (extremist) Islam... though still not a good job either way in the first place

So... since no one intervened in Syria's civil war at the start, no one should intervene now when internationally banned weapons have been used against the citizens of that country? Really? I'd hate to see the US involved in yet another war - and it's clear no one else is interested in dirtying their hands with this, just bullshitting about what the US should or shouldn't do - but I'd hate it more if the US and the rest of the world stood by without some effort to punish the Assad regime for the use of those outlawed weapons, or to, at least, lessen the chances of the regime being able to use them against the Syrian people again.

edit - double post

it's a no-win situation
intervention? damned if you do, damned if you don't.

anyone remember saddam hussein? yes, he was the one who GW Bush's father helped install, yet GW boots him out.

and what happens when you remove tyrannical dictators like Assad?
well, democracy is all well and good...until a large minority take a dislike to the democratically elected leader...look no further than egypt for the best ever example of "don't like him, i didn't vote for him, so i think i'll start a fucking civil war"....

sad fact: the whole world wants democracy - but 99.9% of it is unable to live with it

[QUOTE]

[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b] So... since no one intervened in Syria's civil war at the start, no one should intervene now when internationally banned weapons have been used against the citizens of that country? Really? I'd hate to see the US involved in yet another war - and it's clear no one else is interested in dirtying their hands with this, just bullshitting about what the US should or shouldn't do - but I'd hate it more if the US and the rest of the world stood by without some effort to punish the Assad regime for the use of those outlawed weapons, or to, at least, lessen the chances of the regime being able to use them against the Syrian people again.[/QUOTE]

The whole international community should have intervened - two years ago! By talking and finding a diplomatic solution for the country. Which kind of intervention can the US do now? They talk about a limited military strike of two or three days not intending to remove the regime. So what will happen in those two or three days? The regime will hide and more innocent people will die. 

Russia is a partner of Syria like Israel is a partner of the USA. What would the USA do if Russia bombed Israel? Certainly they would not stand by and watch. So, what will Russia do? We do not know but an escalation is always more likely when third countries intervene with military force. We should not forget that a big part of the Syrian people is on the side of the Asssad regime and a big part of the so-called "rebels" are fanatic killers, as well. Half of the refugees fled from the rebels and not from Assad - for example Syrian Christians. Imo there is no alternative to talking and working out an international peace solution but unfortunately nobody has even started to talk yet. I hate the cynicism and lack of compassion of our politicians. For once they should remove the oil dollars from their minds and help the poor people in Syra.

All "should haves" are irrelevant. Now, after the illegal use of chemical weapons, the international community - not the US alone - has a responsibility to act. We should all worry about Russia - and China and Iran. But we should also worry about chemical weapons winding up in the hands of the fanatics who have mingled with the rebels.

The example of Russia attacking Israel is incomplete. If they indiscriminately attacked Israel, the US would respond and a world war would ensue. If Israel used chemical weapons against its own people, however, even the US would have to somehow intervene.


[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]

it's a no-win situation [/QUOTE]

This is the bottom line. And it sucks.

What would a military strike achieve in your opinion? Who would be killed and what would be the outcome? How can it be a punishment for the Assad regime when more innocent victims are killed? Would you personally take responsibility for killing these innocent people? You are right "would haves" and "should haves" do not matter now but for once the international community should come together and find a peaceful outcome.

Barb
i'm not particularly for or against military action. but what would be your solution?
because as far as i can see - you allow the status quo to prevail OR you oust the current regime. there is no other option.
it's not as if Assad will wake up one morning and say "you know what? i've been wrong all these years, i'm a bastard, i'm sorry and i'm stepping down, i hope you'll all forgive me"

and it's not as if the rebels have a chance of ousting him - while they are not allowed to fight on a equal terms. everytime they make any headway, he presses the "chemical option" button and seizes control again.

on the basis of the above: military intervention is the only option, and innocent human life is the price that gets paid.

I do not have a solution. I also do not have the facts that you have - I do not know who pressed this "chemical button" - in Germany the press claims that the attack was an "accident" according to information obtained by the BND (German secret service). I do not say it is true but I do not have any serious information about the actual situation in Syria, the military strength of the Assad regime or the so-called rebels. I watch TV and read the press and one thing is obvious: if Russia and the West would agree on a common Syria policy Assad could not fight this international agreement, he would have to oblige. However - neither Russia nor the West are in fact interested in saving lives in Syria - they are only bothered about their economical an geopolitical interests. Russia wants to preserve their monopoly in gas supply for Europe while the Gulf states want to build their gas pipes via Syria/Turkey - which Assad does not allow in order to protect the economical interests of his ally. The USA and Europe are interested in the stability of the oil supply from the their main allies, the Gulf states. If they all cared about the victims in the Syrian civil war they would work together.

What would happen if the USA topples the Assad regime in Syria? Probably the same that has been happening in Iraq since 2003: ongoing civil war with thousands and thousands of victims (Look up "Iraq body count"), a country in ruins, a people with no future and no perspective. Military force cannot bring peace in the Middle East, we have seen that over again.