• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How long until somebody does something about Syria?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
It won't be too long before there are small enough explosive micro drones that one could fly up his nose or next to his head and press the explode button. Of course that is a targeted assassination of a head of state, but on the other hand would result in the least loss of life.
He is a legit target if in an official war. Perhaps one need be declared on him so that this could happen. His wife will find it particularly hard to go on shopping trips if she is being rushed for safe house to safe house as well.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,344
3,013
126
How long until somebody does something about Syria?

oh...about as long as it takes one of Lemon Law`s predictions to come true..lol
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
Let the UN, Europe and the surrounding Arab nations deal with it. There is no reason why the US should be involved in that mess.
I have to admit, i'm very conflicted on this issue. I do find it very telling how the surrounding Arab nations and the Arab League have been basically useless. The Arab league and UN having been issuing nothing but lip service. Not lifting a finger to help. Boy oh boy though, if the U.S. decided to get involved, you can bet there would be calls for jihad by many in the Arab world and how once again, America would be criticized for being the world police. Red China is supposedly a "rising superpower" why doesnt she do anything?
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Due to the Libyan intervention, we are caught in a catch-22. If we go in, we are trampling on the Russian's ally - that is bad for obvious reasons. However, if we do not go in, we alienate the group which wins the fight (and it will be the rebels eventually).

The rebels already have held up signs saying the world was safer with American Republicans in office and blaming Obama for attributing to the many deaths.



It is pretty telling when Islamic Arabs are wishing Bush was in office still...
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
What I would like to know is just what effort the Obama administration has made to work with the Russians on this problem. Any outside solution will have to involve the Russians, so have we or anyone else even tried yet? Syria is money and land for a military base to Russia, their only base outside Russia's borders in fact.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,753
4,623
126
Due to the Libyan intervention, we are caught in a catch-22. If we go in, we are trampling on the Russian's ally - that is bad for obvious reasons. However, if we do not go in, we alienate the group which wins the fight (and it will be the rebels eventually).

The rebels already have held up signs saying the world was safer with American Republicans in office and blaming Obama for attributing to the many deaths.



It is pretty telling when Islamic Arabs are wishing Bush was in office still...
Yeah, it's nice having an American idiot president ready to blow a Trillion dollars to fight on your behalf.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,929
1
81
Why should we worry about Syria? Why should we help the Syrian rebels? Look at what the Lybian rebels have done? Once they got in power, they started to rape, kill and pillage. If we do end up doing something in Syria, I would suggest just sending 10 nukes to get rid of the damn place. At least it would stop taking so much space and time on the news.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,054
4,426
126
Due to the Libyan intervention, we are caught in a catch-22. If we go in, we are trampling on the Russian's ally - that is bad for obvious reasons. However, if we do not go in, we alienate the group which wins the fight (and it will be the rebels eventually).

The rebels already have held up signs saying the world was safer with American Republicans in office and blaming Obama for attributing to the many deaths.



It is pretty telling when Islamic Arabs are wishing Bush was in office still...
But...if Bush would have decided to help Libya, he'd have invaded Australia. :rolleyes:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
This is a fair point and no I would not go there myself with a rifle. However, as a few UN nations did with Libya they could do here. Assad needs to be told clearly he will be targeted by serious military airpower if he doesn't cease this behavior right now.

I am not talking about boots on the ground.

Fwiw I have n idea at all what overall percentage of the population actually supports him.

The UN IS THE cop of the world and it is doing jack squat here exactly as it did in Libya for far too long.

As much as the West loves oil it was also the west that's pushed for the Libyan no fl zone and although Libya is an oil country there was never any scenario in which oil was benefitted by the ouster of gadhafi. I think western powers supported that--along with the Arab league because it was simply the right thing to do.

There comes a time when by ignoring evil that you could have stopped you have become complicit by your apathy.
Don't blame the UN, blame the people who hold power over the UN who have given it very limited power and support to do anything.

I support the UN having a stronger role; those who attack the UN have no place criticizing it for not doing more when they are the cause (not saying you fit that).

The UN security council is meeting right now about this. Let's hope they decide to take action.
 

gevorg

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2004
5,075
1
0
Whoever is arming the rebels, needs to stop, they're just adding fuel to fire (I suspect its nearby countries, possibly by third parties that originated from NATO). Rebels will not overpower the Assad by themselves. The Russians have the ball in their court now, they need to heavily press on Assad and tell him that if he doesn't do what we/UN say, with proof, we'll step back and make him another Qaddafi. Continuing to send weapons to Assad is a very bad game on their part.



 

Harabec

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2005
1,371
1
81
Why should anything be done with Syria? Why Syria anyway? Why not Darfur? Or are they worth less than Syrians?

The world is an evil place. People die. You can't save everyone, even if you care about them.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Why should anything be done with Syria? Why Syria anyway? Why not Darfur? Or are they worth less than Syrians?

The world is an evil place. People die. You can't save everyone, even if you care about them.
In the realm of geopolitical importance, Syria is far more important than Darfur. A life is a life, and all are equally important, but to a government, they are both equally unimportant...
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
Don't blame the UN, blame the people who hold power over the UN who have given it very limited power and support to do anything.

I support the UN having a stronger role; those who attack the UN have no place criticizing it for not doing more when they are the cause (not saying you fit that).


The UN security council is meeting right now about this. Let's hope they decide to take action.
Actually, I probably do from time to time.

I have always hated the veto votes in the un security council and it's likely Russia or China would use it again this time to ensure nobody can do anything.
Why should anything be done with Syria? Why Syria anyway? Why not Darfur? Or are they worth less than Syrians?
MAYBE this could be a quicker way to stop killing. If the buck stops with one guy and you take him out he falls apart. Africa seems to mired in war like it's an entrenched part of the psyche of many there, as if there really is nothing to ever be done about it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Actually, I probably do from time to time.

I have always hated the veto votes in the un security council and it's likely Russia or China would use it again this time to ensure nobody can do anything.
Actually, I think criticizing the vetoes is supporting a stronger UN. There are practical issues about what to do if the vetoes are removed, and the UN passes a measure a major power disagrees with and the major power refuses to go along with it - the UN is not really going to say 'ok, let's start a war with the major power to force them to do what the majority wants'.

Not sure how to solve that - one issue is how the UN needs to ask for everything for each mission that's approved.

Should the UN have funding and a large force established in advance it can use?

That is politically unlikely - countries seem to much prefer spending on their own defense forces to contributing to the UN's, the US more than most.

So, it's not so much the UN that's broken on this, as the countries' politics for peace.

It doesn't seem like we can get around the problem issues - even if nationalism leads to oppression and war, countries prefer it - and a strong UN still can have 'corrupt' votes, because it's nations voting their interests that are not necessarily 'justice'. Instead it's not clear how to mainly have it be useful, on security issues, for more than smaller bad countries with a broad consensus having measures taken - a Libya, Iraq, Syria. And even there, there are veto issues as it stands.

And the US isn't perfect on this - while Russia and China protect wrongdoing countries, the US has done the same - and is almost guaranteed not to vote against Israel.

So, it's useful for those weaker countries that don't have a veto power country allied.

Save234
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,511
0
76
Two main reasons we are not involved in Syria.

1. No oil - Libya has lots of oil, so we got involved.
2. Russian bases in Syria - Libya had no Russian bases to worry about.
Forgot one:

3. Syria is in the axis power with Iran.

Attack Syria, piss off Iran, much bigger conflict.




Syria is a clear example of how the UN got the nickname Useless Nations. This type of situation is what the UN should be solving, together as the world.

The blowback from Iran will be less severe if a UN joint mission stopped the violence vs just the US doing it alone.

Iran isnt dumb enough to attack everyone.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Forgot one:

3. Syria is in the axis power with Iran.

Attack Syria, piss off Iran, much bigger conflict.
Interestingly enough, right now that might be a bad thing for Iran. Since it appears many want to war with Iran, if we can force their hand via Syria we get what we want and they are the cause.




Syria is a clear example of how the UN got the nickname Useless Nations. This type of situation is what the UN should be solving, together as the world.

The blowback from Iran will be less severe if a UN joint mission stopped the violence vs just the US doing it alone.

Iran isnt dumb enough to attack everyone.
I agree with all of this.
 

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Total deaths: ~14,000

That's about the same as those who died in Mexico during the last half of last year.

Total Deaths in Mexico during the last 5 years due to Drug Violence: ~50,000

It's really hard for me to justify spending a trillion dollars sending a couple hundred thousand soldiers overseas (or whatever ridiculous shit we'd come up with) when we have our own problems here at our own border.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
Syria is a clear example of how the UN got the nickname Useless Nations. This type of situation is what the UN should be solving, together as the world.

The blowback from Iran will be less severe if a UN joint mission stopped the violence vs just the US doing it alone.
Very good point about the UN, or rather its failure to handle this situation. This article about the UN and Syria was just posted, thought a link would be in order. Unfortunately, I expect Assad is quite aware of the UN's impotence and unwillingness to engage in any sort of the type of action this situation needs.

UN envoy Kofi Annan set to meet Syria's Bashar al-Assad

Kofi Annan has travelled to Damascus for talks with the Syrian leader Bashar al Assad.

Mr Annan's plan to end the country's conflict has been overshadowed by international revulsion at Friday's massacre in the Houla region.

Mr Annan called the massacre "an appalling moment with profound consequences".

Survivors have told the BBC of their shock and fear as regime forces entered their homes and killed their families.

Mr Annan said the Syrian government has to take "bold steps" to show it is serious about peace.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Forgot one:

3. Syria is in the axis power with Iran.

Attack Syria, piss off Iran, much bigger conflict.




Syria is a clear example of how the UN got the nickname Useless Nations. This type of situation is what the UN should be solving, together as the world.

The blowback from Iran will be less severe if a UN joint mission stopped the violence vs just the US doing it alone.

Iran isnt dumb enough to attack everyone.

UN is working as intended. It give world powers veto to prevent anyone force the issue and create conflict. If Russia feel strong enough to veto in UN, it will feel strong enough to supply Syria arm, or even engage in the conflict if US and allies go at it without UN.

UN simulates world politics, except that it let the politics work itself out in the conference room and not war zones.

Nobody care about Iran, nobody is doing anything about Syria because of Russia, plain and simple. Syria is at the heart of central asia, Russia's play ground and is Russia's strategic partners. Russia want to exert control and establish their influence in this region, much like the US want to do in few other countries. You don't want to start engaging Syria rebels unless you want to start a proxy fight with Russia.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Why dont you strap on a back pack buy a gun and head that direction? Why ask someone else to fight the war? You dont expect Europeans to sign up to die for syrians do you?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,752
20,154
136
What I would like to know is just what effort the Obama administration has made to work with the Russians on this problem. Any outside solution will have to involve the Russians, so have we or anyone else even tried yet? Syria is money and land for a military base to Russia, their only base outside Russia's borders in fact.
Of course we've tried. We have been trying for about a year now. There have been massive diplomatic efforts at all levels to try and get the Russians to stop their support for the Syrian government.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,752
20,154
136
Total deaths: ~14,000

That's about the same as those who died in Mexico during the last half of last year.

Total Deaths in Mexico during the last 5 years due to Drug Violence: ~50,000

It's really hard for me to justify spending a trillion dollars sending a couple hundred thousand soldiers overseas (or whatever ridiculous shit we'd come up with) when we have our own problems here at our own border.
I sincerely doubt we would be sending any significant amounts of troops to Syria. We would be looking more towards the Libyan model.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY