What could be done in Syria

Just want to hear everyone's thoughts on how to solve the problems in Syria.

FINALLY a good thread about politics (also all should go to debate about Afghanistan thread)I bow to you aussie

I wish UN would intervene. But if it does. I don't think Obama would play along because its too close to elections if something goes wrong.

In the end the Arab league maybe able to resolve this, on their own.

Also we don't know much about the rebels.

In Libya, now there are more radicals than before and sharia law is more common. So its not all rainbows and lollipops

So I guess I would like to know about the rebels etc before UN would intervene. I am all for destroying dictatorships. As long as the next government is not as bad the one before....

I would have to disagree with you on getting rid of Assad. If he goes there is no doubt their will be civil war in Syria. Assad is also backed by a number of Religious minorities in Syria, such as Druids, Alawites and Christians. Syria is also supported by China, Russia and Iran so the U.N would not be able to intervene because Russia and China have said they will veto any plan that calls for regime change.

Personally I believe the Assad regime is best for Syria. His iron fist control is the best option for such a diverse nation. If he goes Syria it will be another Libya or Egypt. To me, Assad is the lesser of two evils.

Also U.N intervention would require boots on the ground and a lot of soldiers will be killed if that happens. A no fly zone would not work as Syria's main power is its Army and a no fly zone would be a repeat of Libya and even in Balkans, it will only prevent one way of killing.

I can't see any solution that would work that wouldn't cause death and destruction on a large scale. Supporting Assad is probably the better solution.

Sorry if there is know real structure to my reply i just type things that come to my head.

Assad needs to go but something has to be done to ensure a stable transition.

No not a good excuse. Its like saying in the 1990 when former Yugoslavia was going down we should have let Serbia dominate or bring another iron fist dictator like tito. So no. If the problem is the diverse nation.. Simply make bunch of new states from it. For example the best option for Iraq's safety is 3 state solution. To Kurds,shiia and sunni Muslims.

And Russian,Chinas and Iran's votes can be diverted by international pressure. Yes it might take a lot of boots in the ground but those would be peacekeepers and that's kind of their job. assad is already causing more death and destruction than intervention would ever do.

You have a good point but I still think Assad is the man for the job. Russia and China would veto any U.N decision because they have done that before. If one of them were to veto and the other didnt then U.S and international pressure would be used on that country but together no pressure will change there mind. Foreign intervention will not happen the world is in a shit financial state and no country would send in troops due to the lack of public support and another Afghanistan happening. Once they are in there it will be years before they can leave. There is also no guaruntee that a multi state option would work.

Relating to the Balkans, didnt they create seperate states but they all declared war on each other anyway and commited genocide. Not sure how the whole Balkan issue played out.

That sounds good but I reckon if Assad goes there is nothing stopping the various armed groups from fighting each other. It would be like Libya all over again creating instablilty in the region.

1.when In Balkans Yugoslavia broke. First, the ethnic groups started to fight, so its was agreed on the borders, then they went to war with itch other.

2. If you are right that today's world is not capable intervention, then what do you call Libya?

3.And no it wouldn't be a new Iraq.

The best solution to prevent another Afghanistan in Syria would be to create a huge camp with peacekeepers guarding it. And then all the civilians could take refuge in that camp. While in the same time rebels and government troops are fighting. Right now it seems that rebels are gaining a upper hand. So if we intervened we could save a lot of lives.
4. And if we extended the intervention from camp to air bombing. Many more human lives would be saved.

5.Also if we would put boots on the ground the locals would support it unlike in Afghanistan.

6.And yes of course the peacekeepers on the last option would be there for a long time, just like we have peacekeepers in Lebanon that have been there for a looong time.

Right now the UN needs to focus on getting rid of Assad. He is the hang up for a lot of the rebels. Hopefully if Assad goes peacefully the country will be able to take steps towards democracy. No dictatorship is worth the bloodshed of innocent people who are tired of corruption. Assad must go.

Please refrain from double posting.

A lot of people talk about Russia's stance on Syria. But so far, no one here has mentioned Turkey. Turkey has been gaining a lot of influence (or regaining, if you want to mention the Ottoman days) in the Middle East recently. In the last decade, Turkey warmed up to Syria considerably, but since the Arab Spring and Assad's violent crackdown, Ankara has become incredibly cold and one of Damascus' fiercest critics. It shares a large border with Syria, plays home now to many Syrian refugees, and is very vocal in wanting Assad to go. It would be interesting to see how Turkey, being a NATO state, would intervene if the other Arab League nations decided to act.

By the way, I think the situation's going to continue to deteriorate there without question.

This is the right way to go about Syria. A UN resolution with the Syrian people and mind and which states CLEARLY that there is to be NO military action. The reason Russia is threatening a veto is because the US turned a resolution that was supposed to provide a no-fly zone and negotiations between two sides to bring violence to an end, into bombing and regime change.
I recommend you read the following article on the potential resolution:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/2012131133436856622.html

No the reason Russia is vetoing anything is because they have military interests in Syria specifically a naval base.

Probably both. It doesn't help when credibility is damaged like that though.

Russia's not alone in putting its military interests before the people in question.

I think Russia is trying to protect Assad´s regime, like it tried when criticized the no-fly zone in Libya.

Many of this dictactorships who are now falling where very friendly towards Russia and she politically influenced those dictactorships, in a form of a post-soviet imperialism (we can´t forget that those countries where very dependent from Russia, in military terms).

But now, democracy is gaining grown and Russia is losing his influence and is now at risk of it´s own dictactorship (built by Putin) being destroyed.

I´m not surprised that the most biased TV in history, Russia Today, always criticizes the influence of the West in the Arab Spring.

The no-fly zone passed. The negotiations to restore peace was passed. What was not passed was US & NATO bombing and regime change. The only credibility hurt there was the US'.

To some extent Libya was a success but with the ammount of bombing the Gaddafi's forces went through it still took something like 6 months to overthrow him and even then the Rebels almost lost. Syria would take even longer, costing big $$$. Unlike in Libya, the armed forces in Syria remains mostly loyal to Assad, and the Syrian rebels are not gaining the upper hand, a few thousand troops have defected and are holding onto a few small towns. Just recently Syrian forces launched an offensive into Damascus driving out the rebels.

I do agree with you on the huge camp and let the rebels and Government forces have at each other, that way innocent civilians would not be killed.

Putting boots on the ground would be a terrible idea becuase it would only intensify the situation. The Alawites that run the Government no that if they give up they are finished so they will do anything to survive. By the time that the U.N approves boots on the ground and actually send soldiers in Syrian forces would have stepped up the intensity in the war causing more death in a short period then the hole uprising.

On a side note it is good to see people getting involved in this discussion.

Here is some food for thought:
China and Russia share a similarity: They both do what is in their own interests.
For that matter, so does everyone else, just that Russia is bad at covering it up with good acts and China simply refuses to even try covering it up with good acts.

Iran and Syria share a similarity:
China and Russia will only back them as far as they advance their own [China and Russia] agenda.

And thelistener is right in some respects, however crudely he puts it.
China and Russia won't oppose the invasion as long as it is supported by an overwhelming majority. So long as there is still a significant grey area in the voting, they will continue to veto anything. If they can bring up a single line of doubt that makes other nations change their minds, then they will continue to veto.
In this case, I have not actually seen the draft resolution that was proposed [however many hours I have searched for it] and so I cannot lend credibility or cast doubt as to their actual intentions. However, I will say that the Chinese and Russians are far from incompetant. If they saw some benefit in vetoing it that outweighed allowing it [not necessarily voting for it] then they will continue to do so.

Can anyone actually provide the text of the draft resolution?

What interest do the Russians and Chinese have in Assad remaining in power? Is he even that close to them?