quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
So the new pivot is that Russia will broker international arms inspectors monitoring syria's chemical weapons.
No real comment necessary. Although Will has a great time going the debacle...

So, the options on the table now are:
1. Do nothing
2. Limited strikes to send a message.
3. Depose Assad.
4. Let Russia take the lead in a diplomatic solution that doesn't include our military getting involved.
5. Some combination of the above
Um, personally, I'm all in favor of #4 (#1 is my second choice, unless we get a resolution authorizing military force from the UNSC).

Desi,
Do you remember the parable about the horse?
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of the horse, the rider was lost?
More or less saying, sometimes, being pennywise is being pound foolish. For lack of paying the cost of a nail, horse and rider or lost.
In this case, we had a chance to intervene (cheaply) early and arm secular rebels. This would have broken the Syrian/Iranian link, and ended syrias intervention into lebanon, and supporting terrorism via Hezbolla.
It also would have deprived the russians their only mediterranean base.
So we had an opportunity to make a positive difference in syria.
The Assad regime is winning on the ground. We had a second opportunity here to rebalance the strategic balance, by way of targetting Assad's air assets, command centers, and yes, perhaps the chemical weapons facilities (although I'm not in favor of that part).
This would give the FSA the chance to regroup, if the US had the fortitude to follow through.
America looks like a completely untrustworthy ally to the middle east nations that are acting as American proxies - the saudi's, the qatari's, the jordanians.

If only we'd have armed the Afghani rebels in their fight against the Afghan regime (and then, their ally, the USSR), we'd not have had to spend so much to go into Afghanistan, topple the Taliban we helped create by arming Afghani rebels in their fight against the Afghan regime, and hunt out al Qaeda, who, as it turns out, were the Afghan rebels we armed to fight against the Afghan regime amd tjeor ally, the USSR.

Ooops.

If only we'd have crushed the Iranian elected leader to install a theocracy instead. We'd be much better off.. um... oops.

If only we'd have armed and supported Iran's neighbor and enemy in a war, we'd not have... um... oops.

While what you are saying might very well be true, what would the consequences have been of those actions? We installed Hussein in Iraq. Then, we paid to take him out. We armed the Afghan rebels, and then ended up fighting them (and still are). Our actions in Iran haven't exactly worked out in our favor, have they?

We should let Syrians decide how Syria is to be governed, and who is going to do that governing. Simply because we are militarily stronger doesn't mean we should intervene to bring about changes we think are in our favor. That's imperialism, and I absolutely do not support that. FFS, that's part of what the American Revolution was all about!

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

this Russian initiative can't work on the ground (versus politically). The idea of locating and somehow 'seizing' or even controlling these chemical weapons, in the context of a civil war, seems to be pretty implausible.

Oh, you're seeing the difficulty not in Russia's offer or Syria's willingness to follow through, but Syria's ability to follow through during a civil war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Not every intervention ends badly. Not every intervention ends well.
You speak about the American Revolution - but it is doubtful that we Americans would have won if the French hadn't intervened.
Panama, saudi arabia, jordan, egypt (till O's arab spring)...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)