Russia, China renew opposition to foreign intervention in Syria

The reason I didn't answer is because his question had nothing to do with what I said, or the topic. It was a poor attempt at a strawman, to discredit me. In short, Syria is nothing like the Rwanda situation. The American government is physically supporting the side that is most likely to commit genocide, and has thus far committed all of the massacres. So yes, I can completely understand an intervention in a situation like Rwanda. But sly is saying we should intervene on behalf of the people who are responsible for all of these atrocities, and then claiming 'If we don't invade them, the world will be angry at us' to which my statement regarding Rwanda was directed.

TL;dr - Sly compared apples to potato's, accused me of being a murderer, and generally just continues making Americans look like psychotic retards.

What tells you that the rebels has committed all the masscres? Oh, the Syrian governemnt. What a good source.
And when does Sly say that we should intervene just because then if we didn't that people would make fun of us?

...

What an amazing comeback. I am taken aghast at this amazing, well thought out response.

Riiiiggghhhhttt. It's the rebels committing the massacres. I guess those reporters who are in Syria in the thick of the action got it wrong, because we should totally trust a Russian news source (since Russia being pro assad doesn't factor into the equation right?) and an australian teenager who wants to set America on fire, over the reporters who are there. And btw, where did the rebels get the artillery to bombard themselves? Last time I checked, most of the military was sticking to Assad.

What if, now this is a shocking revelation. Both sides are committing massacres and war crimes.

I don't see why people are bringing up Rwanda as an example of why we should help the rebels in all this, y'all realize that both the Tutsi rebels and the Hutu government committed genocide against the other group, right? With the conflicted reports about who's committing what war crime, it seems like Syria isn't very dissimilar from that, and we shouldn't be focusing about which group to help, but rather how we can protect more civilians from the aggression of both sides. Maybe the UN should focus more on providing safety to civilians through peacekeeping forces, rather than providing military support to any side.

Impossibru!

UN peacekeepers are a joke. They can't keep peace for shit. They can't fire or stop anything unless they are personally attacked. That means people can be slaughtering each other and they can't do dogcrap, because they are not being attacked themselves.

Yes it bloody well is! There is no genocide, sure, but its still a place where BOTH SIDES are massacring innocent civilians. Don't make the mistake of thinking Assad is only killing the rebels and don't make the mistake of thinking the rebels are just killing Assad's forces. You know, most of the massacres are probably being committed by small groups of opportunists on both sides, instead of the official forces.

Group of rebels kills innocent civilians = genocide

I think you've got some definitions to look up there bud.

You wanna try to back this up without incredibly unbiased news sources? I'd prefer Reuters , they're a pretty good no nonsense less bias news source.

Finally, at least something sane.

I don't believe he ever said whose side we should intervene on, if any. Personally, I'd be in favor of an intervention on neither side to enforce a ceasefire, and then appraise the situation from there.

Here's what he means. If random civilians are being massacred somewhere, then the US is likely not to intervene. In that case, half the world will be screaming about how the west supports brutal dictators. But if the US DOES intervene, then half the world (the other half) will be screaming about western imperialism. Its called being fucked over coming and going.

Mosh, how can anyone 'enforce a ceasefire'.
If Assads army shot at you, you would have to kill lots and lots and lots of them. That would hardly help the situation and certainly wouldn't be a ceasefire.

By disarming people. You don't just nicely tell them to tone it down a little. An enforcement of a ceasefire often leads to violence, but not as much as was previously going on and it often puts a stop to it.

It would be far too easy for Assad, or the rebels, to claim you're invading their country, and then shoot you.
You cannot disarm 500 tanks, this is simply silly.

Also, there is no guarantee how little or how much violence would come after your 'enforced ceasefire', the only difference is the violence could be blamed on you.

Coe we go with my plan of just a caption of trade embargoes on Syria. They can"t sustain themselves on their own resources.

Like this?

I think some sort of embargo could help, but you'd have to be careful what you restrict, and also make sure countries around them also take partin the embargo, which might be difficult.

Well, its a military intervention to enforce a ceasefire. We ARE invading their country. Remember I'm extremely pro intervention, and I want a United World. Do you really think I'd be opposed to invading a country?

Right, you destroy them. Through air strikes. Not many places to hide 500 tanks. Same with Syrian and rebel aircraft. After that, you disarm groups of people at different places across a timeline of a month or so, you get the rebel leaders and Assad to sit down with your leaders, and you figure out exactly what's going on.

Once again, its an invasion, of course there's no guarantee on how much violence besides the fact it should be over sooner rather than later. And of course it can be blamed on us, we invaded.

Trade embargoes never work. Especially not in a place that is most likely going to get supplies from Iran and other countries anyways. Furthermore, we can't do any embargoes because that requires the UN. And guess what? China and Russia are going to continue vetoing us.

Our focus should be on getting Russia and China to come around to agreeing to a blockade. Syria is.not rich in natural resources and the government can't sustain itself for long without foreign support other than Iran.

@General Mosh

If I understand you right, you're saying we should kill Assad's army, kill the rebels, then kill anyone who dislikes us killing their family members/leaders/friends.
Then you try to talk to Assad, but as you just killed all his army friends, he will either commit suicide or try to kill you, at which point you will have to kill him. Either of these options would result in more people deciding American troops need to be killed, so you would have to kill those people.

By that point, huge anti-war protests are taking place across the developed world, you have been voted out of office, and tried for war crimes.

Mr. Mosh, you would become a hated war criminal, and would live the rest of your miserable life in a jail cell.

I simply cannot fathom how you think killing millions of people can bring a 'United World', or any kind of world anyone would want to live in.

How the fuck did you get that from what he said?

I can see where Russia and China are coming from, and they have a point.

Theres no actual formed opposition that we can supply and usher into power, even if we could. Russia and China are simply being more cautious then us, unfortunately, though, this leaves tens of thousands to die either in Assad's secret police prisons, or shot on the street.

No, Russia has an interest in keeping the assad regime around, that's why.

While true, skyicewolf is still correct. There is still no unified leadership for the rebels.