Syria: Possible NATO or UN intervention?

Considering that's the US's excuse for invasions, that unnerves me

Yeah it's not like we've heard that before *cough*white man's burden*cough*

Was reading time today and saw this interesing article by Fareed Zakaria.

I know it's a little long, but he does bring up some good points imo.

To Clarify my stance on this: I do not support either side, Assad or Rebels. I just do not want the United States of Amurrica or NATO of any form to get involved, if they haven't done so already.

That's genuinely what he said, when I was having a discussion with him over whether invading Mexico is a good idea.

From what I understand, Al Qaeda is not a unified organization.
We could be dealing with a seperate branch that acts differently from what we are familiar with.
That being said, we have to remember that we are dealing with individuals here. They may hold differing beliefs.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that the application of a common vision of what Al Qaeda is may not be the wisest choice. They are not an organization with a united means, but more a scattering of groups with a common goal, but different means and extremes. There exists the possiblity for something worse than what is now, but there also is the chance for something better; a hope rapidly fading with Assad's regime.

I highly doubt that Assad's regime will transfer power to a Democratic government, restored order or no.
And in the meantime, hundreds die.
For the sake of principle, the Western nations have to respond to this. As cliche as it is, it hold truth that NOT acting sends a message to dictators that the chance of intervention is smaller than they think.
NOT interfereing may result in disaster for Western influence in the region. With the current crisis, those who don't support Assad's regime may turn to the only other option they have. Even putting aside the obvious choice, they will still lose faith in the West. Even objectively stepping away from the angle of Western influence, there are few, if any, groups and certainly not the majority of the international community, that would stand to benefit from the rebels choosing another. For that matter, the rebels probably wouldn't stand to gain as much if they were forced to choose an alternative.
The real one losing in the event of an intervention would be Assad's regime. And NOBODY but Assad's regime really seems to have a problem with that. Russia is just following their policy. I don't think that they like Assad's regime anymore.

I am not saying that peace talks shouldn't happen.
I am just saying that something has to be planned in the event that they fail.
At this point, we can place some hope there, but investing in it alone would be foolish.

Sometimes war is necessary. Peace and pacifism hold until the first sword is brought down or the first shot is fired.

I'm just going to break this up by sentence rather than actually quoting that long-ass post.

"Western influence in the region"? Now it's more Victoria 2-esque, and on top of that, you just revealed the imperialist nature of the West without knowing it.

"As cliche as it is, it hold truth that NOT acting sends a message to dictators that the chance of intervention is smaller than they think." So it sends a message to Dictators that we won't intervene, it also sends a message to other countries that we're not going to get involved in everything. Then again, the Cold War killed the America I love.

"The real one losing in the event of an intervention would be Assad's regime."
No. The losers of an interventions would be
A) Assad's Regime (Loss of Power)
B) the people of Syria (Because of all the civilian atrocities commited by both sides, the utter destruction caused by western attacks, the siphoning of resources to NATO countries, and the "isolated incident" horrific and brutal murders of Syrian civilians by NATO troops.)


"Sometimes war is necessary. Peace and pacifism hold until the first sword is brought down or the first shot is fired." When Assad shoots West, the West can shoot back.

Sorry I should have written the guys in the video I posted, but it's safe to say that they are radical islamists.

You did read the quote I posted, right? About the whole genocide thing?

Trying to keep this short, but there are some major flaws here.
1. "Western" principle is pretty much dead and have always just been somewhat of a cover that could easily be pushed aside for the sake of geopolitics.(Saudi-Arabia, Iran, China and so on) It's not something that determines the cause of action for countries unless it's in a PR/IR stunt.
2. "Western"(and I assume you mean American here) influence in the region is not really necessary since the strategic resources in Syria(i.e. oil) are not significant.
3. The real losers of an intervention would be Assad and the Syrian people. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan and you would see how an intervention could turn out...

Planning an intervention while peace talks are occuring would completely alienate the Assad regime.

Every nation has a sphere of influence just by existing. And some without existing.

Which is the other side of the coin.
I support intervention in terms of maintaining at least some respectable shred of dignity by the West by being consistent, but I altogether abhor the idea of one nation intervening in another for some trumped-up reason pulled from a mythical code of 'justice' and 'morality'. I understand perfectly WHY they want to intervene, but I don't LIKE it, nor am I obligated to.
Most nations have enough on their plate and are no nation is perfect.
I can understand intervention for military or economic reasons, but I scrutinize political and 'moral' reasons with greater amounts of doubt.

The first we agree on.
The second is a foregone conclusion.
It is true that there is a near 100% chance of 'collateral damage' occurring if an intervention is done, but there is truth in the idea that the people would at least have a forums and an oppertunity to complain about it.
It is also true that they would not have much choice but to deal with the West, but it is also true that they would have that oppertunity and the money wouldn't end up in the hands of those who currently oppress them.

The outcome is by no means ideal, but it is probably preferable to the current situation.

All speaking in terms of what the West believes, of course.
Remember that you are dealing with ideological idealists.