What could be done in Syria

i think they need to send some peacekeepers from the UN just to make sure that the people aren't getting shot at then try and get the president to go to court using Syrian court system

Don't forget Limbaugh.

In all honesty, nothing can be done until I understand who exactly the rebels are. While many groups have been formed to show support for the rebels, but what is the actual central leadership? What heads the rebels? Until then, they are disorganized, and we might as well be handing guns to civilian mobs. Once such a unified stance between the rebels is taken, then actually sending weapons, support (UN peacekeepers). Luckily, the rebels already have the blessing of most Arab countries, the Arab League, etc.

I second the opionion.

I do agree with you that eventually Syria will re stabilize but i reckon Syria would be to fucked to rebuild.

But under what kind of leader? Honestly, intervening there to make sure another dictator doesn't just take power would be, in my opinion, the right move. I also want to point out that it doesn't really look like the rebels are going to win. We should have intervened but, you know, the daily show freedom packages and all that stuff

But who would we be helping? I can't tell what the centralized Syrian rebel leadership is. Only a disorganized mob with guns. We could be handing them to terrorists for all we know!

Well it doesn't look like the rebels are gonna give up until they win or until every last one of them is dead. The more Assaad rejects peace, the better chance we will have of China and Russia allowing intervention.

Whoever we decide to support. We will look through all the rebel leaders and find one that upholds human rights and democracy, and then give our massive support to him/her. I don't care about their political ideology, I don't care about their religious beliefs, I don't care what they think about the west, as long as we get a leader in there that will be fair, and will create a stable democratic government.

That isn't the issue. The issue is the fact that the rebels are disorganized and there is no clear cut leader. We may support a man who has the ideals you describe, but may not be a recognized leader, or is hated by other rebel factions. We need a clear cut, this person/committee is the head of the rebel forces, and all rebels are under their command. But that is currently not the case. you have a bunch of citizen militia, ex-soldiers, armed citizens, and just simpler civilians all under different factions, not working together. Until they have such a leadership like there was in Libya, simply sending weapons or intervening isn't the best option. Once such leadership is shown, then UN peacekeepers, supplies, weapons, etc. can be sent.

I pick the Pro-Assad team, because fuck it

If the other rebel leaders see that this is the man or woman that the west wants to lead the rebels, then the rebels will rally behind him/her. Do you know why? Because if someone is supported by the UN or US and her allies, then that's like the ultimate trump card. Giving someone our support practically places them in charge. That's the advantage of being the most influential nation in the world. I don't see why we don't use that advantage to promote our democratic values of freedom for all. But, the Daily Show freedom packages skit had it right, look it up, while being comedy it is also sadly true.

Well when you put it like that, yes, of course we will be supported. I just don't want it another Iraq/Afghanistan job; rushed, retarded, without UN support, and unjustifiable But, as the with our freedom packages (just saw the skit, so funny, and of course so how we do everything), Syria does not sit atop lots of oil, and the only reason we should commit there is 1) Because we are meh with Assad and 2) Its an ally of Iran.