My solution to the Syrian blood bath

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Send NATO planes into Syria, bomb and destroy all military air fields, all Syrian air force planes that can be located, all Syrian military installations that can be located, bomb the Presidential palace and all Syrian government military command facilities.

Bomb any Syrian military ground operations that can be located.

If Russia and China don't like it, tough.  They have stood for far too long in the way of protecting innocent children from being murdered by Syrian thugs.

[Redalgo]

I am not so sure about the palace since I would want to minimize the civilian casualties, but
yeah. The international response thus far has been embarrassingly facepalm-worthy I think.

[dead0man]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

And it turned out that Libya and not Iraq had the WMD. The fail on their part is truly truly epic.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Bomb everything that could shoot at us, what a complex plan!

[dead0man]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

A.sure some, but what does that have to do with the usual suspects and Syria?
II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone
3.why are so many of the people on your side who were for intervention in Libya so quiet on Syria

My gut tells me their hatred of Israel plays a part in it, of course they wouldn't word it like that (though some certainly would).

[dialectical fetishist]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

[Insula Dei]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

The problem with Assad is not that we don't like him.

[dialectical fetishist]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

The problem with Assad is not that we don't like him.

I know. Nonetheless, this is what it will come down to.

[dead0man]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

[dialectical fetishist]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

And you played your role as a fauxbertarian hawk as well as I expected to. Gratz.

[Vosem]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

In Syria, unfortunately, the time window has passed; Russia's been giving Assad very active help and there's a chance of nuclear war if we aid the rebels (brinkmanship, anybody?). We did have a chance during the first rebellion back in early 2011, but we idiotically passed it up attacking Gaddafi, who was much friendlier to the United States than Assad (Gaddafi wasn't Mother Teresa, but I would've thought he's clearly better than Assad).

[dead0man]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

And you played your role as a fauxbertarian hawk as well as I expected to. Gratz.

You're welcome sir!

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

In Syria, unfortunately, the time window has passed; Russia's been giving Assad very active help and there's a chance of nuclear war if we aid the rebels (brinkmanship, anybody?). We did have a chance during the first rebellion back in early 2011, but we idiotically passed it up attacking Gaddafi, who was much friendlier to the United States than Assad (Gaddafi wasn't Mother Teresa, but I would've thought he's clearly better than Assad).

The Russians are NOT going to go to nuclear war over Syria and Assad.  That's just silly.  They'd cry and moan if we removed the governments ability to kill, almost as much as Winston, Fuzzy and friends would, but nobody is going to serious war over this.

[dialectical fetishist]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

Well, at least you're honest, which is more than a lot of people who support these wars.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I know Fuzzy and Winston aren't typical, but they prove my point.  Thanks guys, you played your roles perfectly!

Actually I was just being critical of how simplistic Winfield's plan was.  It doesn't mention anything about troop deployment, the economic or political changes that would take place after the regime of Assad was toppled.......

[Insula Dei]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

How exactly do you set your priorities?

[Mr. Morden]

I was mildly pro-intervention in Libya, but Syria is a heck of a lot more complicated.

For one, you don't have the sort of situation as in Libya, where there are clear boundaries between government and rebel held territory, which are largely separated by hundreds of miles of desert.  That's the sort of situation where intervention from the air is likely to make a big difference.  If the government forces are mixed in with the rebels like in Syria, then it's much messier.

For two, there seems to be a much stronger sectarian element to the war in Syria than there was in Egypt, Libya, or Tunisia.  Much harder for people to defect to the opposition en masse when they're of a different ethnic or religious sect.

My guess is that Assad is toast in the long run with or without Western intervention, but that what follows is years of sectarian bloodbath, a la Iraq 2005-2007 or so.

[dead0man]

And what precedes his downfall is years of bloodbath too.

[The Mikado]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

A.sure some, but what does that have to do with the usual suspects and Syria?
II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone
3.why are so many of the people on your side who were for intervention in Libya so quiet on Syria

My gut tells me their hatred of Israel plays a part in it, of course they wouldn't word it like that (though some certainly would).

There's a ton of differences.  Syria is a tiny, densely-populated country.  A bombing campaign will lead to ridiculous numbers of "collateral damage."  Libya's geography and extremely sparse population, plus the fact that most of the fighting pre-Sirt was going on out in the desert, kept collateral damage way down.  Also, there's the fact that in Libya we had a full-fledged rebel army to collaborate with and coordinate with.  The Free Syrian Army is a joke and there is no rebel "zone of control."  Bombing the Assad regime's military facilities isn't going to be enough to topple Assad and Assad's military is far larger and more formidable than Qaddafi's was, anyway.

[ingemann]

Interesting Winfield, and when Syria end up a uglier version of the Bosnian Civil War, what will you do then?
The problem with Syria is that we don't know how much support the regime have, or how much support the rebels have. What we know is that the regime have widespread support, at the very least from the religious minorities, the middle class, the secularists and everybody who are terrified of Syria ending up as a new Lebanon (the 80ties version).

[Cory]

The Russians are NOT going to go to nuclear war over Syria and Assad.  That's just silly.  They'd cry and moan if we removed the governments ability to kill, almost as much as Winston, Fuzzy and friends would, but nobody is going to serious war over this.

This. Even if Russia did go to war they wouldn't just up and use nukes.

[True Federalist]

Hurr durr, blow up stuff, invade and install regimes we like.

Obviously you mean it sarcastically, but in all seriousness there are many places where this really should be done. However, we should keep in mind priorities - Iran, not Syria, should be Priority #1.

Do you really think we've had success in installing regimes we like in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya?  We have the power to go in and kick over the Syrian anthill as we did in the other three, but we have little ability to control what would result.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Of course that would be the best course of action in the long run, but the usual suspects will tell us "we don't need another war" (as if this would be a "war").  They'd rather sit back, watch and feel superior to those "warmongers" they have to put up with.

Um, look at Libya. It was mostly Republicans who were backing Bush and his wars 100% who acted like that.

A.sure some, but what does that have to do with the usual suspects and Syria?

Who are these "usual suspects" and how much influence do any of them  have on the Obama Administration?

II.your god in Thailand isn't a Republican and was certainly against it...and he wasn't alone

Yes, he is such an influential political figure after all.

3.why are so many of the people on your side who were for intervention in Libya so quiet on Syria

My gut tells me their hatred of Israel plays a part in it, of course they wouldn't word it like that (though some certainly would).

Because Gaddafi was such a friend of Israel. Not to mention that any replacement Syrian government probably wouldn't be Israeli-friendly either, even the most liberal pro-Western government possible would still refuse to recognize Israel without return of the Golan Heights as a bare minimum.

Mikado and Mordem explained the real issues at work, and that establishing a no-fly zone wouldn't be as beneficial since Assad is less relying on air support, while Gaddafi used it as his mainstay to push back the rebel advance and threaten Benghazi. Once NATO crippled his air force the tide turned. Crippling the Syrian Air Force wouldn't make much of a difference.

[dead0man]

Right, because it would be hard, we shouldn't help.  I understand.  I don't agree, but I understand.