Syria: Possible NATO or UN intervention?

Seems as with the new massacre at Syrian town called Houla, where goverment troops went in and massacred over 100 people during the weekend. During that weekend that zone saw heavy fighting with the Free Syrian Army and the govermental troops.
So, speculate,argue,think or draw a picture if you think somekind of outside intervention is possible in the near future?

Let's kill some people to stop people from killing some other people.
Sounds logical.

Fair point since it has worked lots of times in the past.

Obvious regime change is obvious, if Russia will stop supporting them...

So you'd rather we sit back and watch people get slaughtered? Oh wait, if we sit back we are criticized for not doing anything, and if we intervene we are criticized for being imperialistic assholes only out for our own interests.....

While intervention is probably necessary for the continued survival of the rebels, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Like I have stated in many other threads on this topic, the rebels (still) don't have that clear command structure; that organized leadership that the UN should support. If we simply support mobs of unorganized civilians, than more death could be caused. If we don't know who is in charge of the rebels we give the weapons or money to, then how are we not to know that is Al-Queda we aren't giving the support to. And with sending actual ground troops, I disagree. We should just do what we did in Libya. No American deaths, little money spent, with a clear victory. Not like Iraq and Afghanistan. That is my opinion.

Um... actually it tends to work as long as you know what you are doing and follow through.
Nazi Germany didn't collapse on its own accord. And I have yet to see evidence that they were going to stop the Holocaust.

If Americans hadn't killed Germans in WWI then they wouldn't have killed Jews during WWII.

Um... I'll have to check that one.

And who started WWI? Who was the most aggressive?

Not that it matters either way.
I can in no way see how your statement counters the assertion that violence can halt violence, if only temporarily.

Ler is stupid, Imperial is right.

The most aggressive? That's very subjective and I don't believe I can give you a straight answer. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia after a terrorist attack. Russia backed Serbia. Germany backed Austria. France backed Russia. Germany invaded Belgium to more easily invade France so Britain backed Belgium. I blame everyone equally for WWI, personally.

I wasn't really countering that, just that the violence of WWII is a direct result of the violence caused in WWI.

Umm... ok.
I don't know why you brought that up since it wasn't what I was talking about, but ok.

I was thinking more along the lines of "killing people in WWI lead to more killing 20 years down the road."

Which is why I put in the 'temporarily' part of my post.

But of course, the chance of that here is likely far less.
We are not really talking about the semi-destruction of a country where the other half will live to take revenge.
We are talking about a dictator and a handful of his close 'friends' maintaining their power by force.
The majority of the globe is directly opposed to them, only a handful are apathetic to the situation, and only one is backing their contiued existence and not even because they like them.
In the event of an intervention, I would consider the chance of a backlash slim to none, as there is only be an extremely small number of people who support the current regime and would lament its loss.

I don't think either are going to happen anytime soon. One of them should, but with Libya no one will want to do another intervention for a while. Ler's stupitity amazes me, as usual.

Consider how many wars, murders, military interventions, civil wars and battles there have been in the last 4000 years. Now consider that not a single one of them has ever brought us a step closer to peace."Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

I love how you pick on the weak arguments and ignore the strong one that directly challenges your argument. Typical.

Well that's just ignoring the facts of the today and the past. Wars in Europe has been commonplace since practically forever, but since 1945 there has been no major wars(Yugoslavia was not a major war) and only a couple of minor ones. That's definetely a step in the right direction, though we still need to work on peaceful cooperation.
Then there's also the whole UN thing and other international peace promoting organizations, but I guess that's just what we had 4000 years ago...*facepalm*

That's not really the definition of insanity, but Einstein's attempt at a easily understandable definition, and though Einstein was a genius, he was not a psychologist and he wasn't really that good with people.
The Oxford definition is: "In a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction"

Now on the subject at hand:
I don't support an intervention in Syria and here's why. Syria is currently ruled by the Alawis, which is a sect of Shia Islam. The Shias are a minority in with roughly 13% of the population in Syria and the Sunnis make up 75% of the population with Christians accounting for about 10%. This mix of divisions has so far been kept in check by Assad, and though I do not support him, he has provided stability for the region. An intervention could, if not handled right, lead to an all out civil war between the different groups and possibly genocide that would make the current figure of 9000 deaths look like nothing.
Furthermore an armed intervention would not guarantee success like what we saw in Libya. The terrain in large parts of Libya is suited for the air support that we provided the rebels, and were a decisive factor in the overthrow of Gaddafi. The geography of Syria is mostly rugged hills and mountains, and the desert in the east does not contain any major population or strategic value.(like a crapton of oil)
The rebels will not necessarily be better than Assad. It has already been confirmed that Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations have significant influence in the rebellion and that their groups are the most organized of the rebels. We could very well see Assad being overthrown, just to face another Taliban-like regime in Syria, and as much as I hate Assad, I prefer him over the Taliban.

And us standing here letting Assad slaughtering civilians is gonna help? I'm not saying that we send in a massive army to put down Assad. I'm saying that we do something similar to what we did in Libya. Airstrikes, sending in supplies, that kind of thing. Something, at least.

It isn't just Assad slaughtering rebels. Half of those massacres we hear about were committed by the rebels (A very large part of whom are made up of Al-Qaeda members, and other radical/Extremist organizations). And you guys are already sending in supplies, and you have been since the conflict started - Much like in Libya.

Hell, Asaad has already offered to stand down, to make a new constitution, and has made several offers of a ceasefire - All of which were broken, or rejected by the rebels. This isn't a matter of freedom fighters vs corrupt government, it is a matter of Extremists vs Extremists -And by the way, you know that latest massacre, in which 96 people died? Turns out it was the rebels who did it.