Syria: Possible NATO or UN intervention?

Hey guys, inefficiency=corrupt now.

Is this where you go on that rant about Native Americans?

Seeing as how the rebellion is being led by Al Quaeda and there affiliates it's safe to assume that a new regime would be worse.

You wouldn't happen to have sources to back that up?

Its more of a gut feeling. Just take a look at the barbarians who came into power in Libya and Egypt and you'll see a pattern emerging. Assad being a fairly secular leader makes the perfect target for these radicals.

.........
I know I truly missed you when I finished reading that post.

So a gut feeling makes it a certainty?

YEAAAAH BOOOOIIII, FASCISTPATRIOT IS BACK!!!

Well, Al-Qaeda did officially declare support for the rebels, so yar.

They claim to support a lot of things that have nothing to do with them.

I'm mad I missed this.

@Kali and @ComradeLer, stop insulting each other, you're both twisted and hateful human beings that just happen to belong to different ideologies and happen to hate different groups. You're made from the same mold. Its funny to watch you both insult each other with things that apply to both of you.

Everyone else, why do you all seem to assume a UN or US or NATO intervention in Syria would be an intervention to help out the rebels? If there is to be an intervention, it would be to stop both sides from fighting, I don't think we would (officially) support either side. What we would do instead is force a ceasefire and force both sides to negotiate, like what the UN is trying to do. The problem is, the UN has no force behind it to stop the needless massacre and killings, while a US or NATO intervention would have a lot of force behind it to ensure the ceasefire and negotiations take place.

To add to Kali's point that they do affiliate themselves with matters that don't actually concern them:
Just because they say that they support something doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually doing anything to help.

And keep in mind that just because Al Qaeda supports them doesn't automatically make their cause wrong.
Parhaps the US and Al Qaeda both believe that Assad is corrupt and his regime should be pulled down.
It doesn't make the cause unworthy. Quite the opposite in some respects.

Why does every single interesting thread have to turn into these giant bashing contests between two fucking made up stupid groupings on this forum?! Can't you guys actually talk for a couple of hours without beginning to hurl stupid and lame insults at each other, or are you really so childish that you can't resort to anything else?
The factionalism on this forum is killing the intellectual debates, and I'm sick and tired of it.

Logic and reason don't matter when opposing ideas meet.

I'll stick with what Kali and Imperial said.

But it's what will happen after Assad is overthrown by these guys that matter...
Like I already said:

True and not at the same time.
While a regime from Al Qaeda might not be ideal, we don't currently have hard proof of it being worse.
Certainly it is not much better to allow Assad's regime to continue to kill people.
In other words, it is trading a terrible reality for a possibly good, possibly bad future.
At least there is that much room for hope.
Assad's regime is getting to the point (indeed may have already passed) that there is no hope.

That is NOT to say that I support Al Qaeda.

So you're saying you would take over the country? You think the people of Syria would put up with that?
Also, how can a military intervention stop fighting? Are you going to shoot every person that shoots someone else? Would that not lead to your forces being attacked, until you're in a full scale war with the Syrian people?
How can you 'force' the sides to negotiate? How would you set up their country? What gives you the right to decide how their country will run?

Why is this the same argument we had on the Mexico thread? Why are you still wrong?

1. Looking at Afghanistan when the Taliban were in control, I think we can get a pretty clear picture of how a Al-Qaeda controlled Syria is going to look like. Just add a genocide or two of Christians and Alawites and you got something a lot worse than the dictatorship of Assad. We're talking about a serious dysotopia here.
2. I don't think there's a lot of hope for Assad in the long term, but he might be able to restore order for the time being and secure a peaceful transition to democratic elections. I'm not saying that we should support Assad, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.
3. The peace talks is currently our best hope of securing a peace/compromise between the different factions and avoid outright civil war. An intervention now would destroy them.

If you want a horribly unstable, oil-giving, puppet state that will eventually be anally raped by radical islamists (not even mentioning the amount of extra bloodshed), then wish for a NATO intervention.

You need to talk some sense into Mosh for me.

And remember, he's not an imperialist, he only wants to help them..