With the recent and dramatic escalation of military actions in the country, I don't think there can be any doubt that Syria is in open civil war. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18918473 Syria conflict: Rebels seize Turkey, Iraq border posts http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18897773 Meanwhile, the UNSC, pushed by China and Russia, fiddles. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/19/syria-attacks-thursday.html And the man who may have helped bring down four (and now maybe after this conflict, five) Middle Eastern despots---languishes in prison. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-international-wikileaks-arab-spring http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.3323cc1e5d9410063f569c60a47dd4ac.631 Manning's treatment should 'shock' court: lawyer The Arab Spring continues. Is there any hope for the country? Is international intervention required? I personally think it is, and I personally think the revolution can be very beneficial in the long run, even if it doesn't look so now. In any case, the tipping point is long past. Assad must pay for his crimes. The world let the CCP murder its' own people in cold blood, it cannot, in good conscience, allow this to happen again.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-16/red-cross-applies-geneva-conventions-to-syria/4132520 It needs to be said. Much as it might have been "obvious" for some, international law doesn't rest on the opinion of a few pundits and astute observers. If an international organization like the Red Cross puts its' voice to the chorus, then the tide begins to turn to something where Assad MUST be held accountable. For the relevant clause---
You answered the first question. You didn't answer the second. Are you claiming that the mere fact that Assad violated the Geneva Conventions serve as sufficient and proper grounds for an invasion? And I'll pose another question. Hobbes once said "Law without the sword is merely words." So, whose sword is going to be used for this? Really, it's a question which in general should be applied for the general bull**** that is international law, though the Geneva Conventions are an exception.
It's funny how Northside Breeze recaps well-known news, subtitles them with dramatic words for effect, and starts feeling like a political/economic analyst because of it. Also, it's hilarious that he seems to think Assange (the guy who is seeking asylum from freaking ECUADOR) actually played a role worth mentioning in bringing down Arabic despots.
Aww, how cute ATW. I didn't even have to reply to get you all over me again. Welcome home. Anyways, I don't know if your reading comprehension suffers, but my reference was to Manning. If you want to dispute the fact that Manning's imprisonment is a) unconstitutional and b) unwarranted, do it through argumentation rather than cheap unsubstantiated references. On the second point, you might actually have something, but on the first, you're probably dead in the water (heads up).
Um, wait. You want me to answer why Assad should be taken to justice? I don't know, mass murder? The Geneva Convention is what he should be held accountable to, but I can't even understand how anyone could argue the why of bringing Assad in front of a tribunal. In any case, the sword in this case might just have to be the FSA aided semi-covertly by international forces, or Turkey. The latter gets messy with the NATO implications, but given the personal enmity that is developing between Assad and Erdogan, I could see it happening. And yes, theoretically if people were committing war crimes on their own people, that would be grounds for an intervention, but Rwanda et al. have taught us not to be so hasty to call those shots, I suppose. I don't like nation-occupying, but a short intervention that establishes some stability, then a quick pull-out, might be in order.
If it's a choice between Russian backed government, or American backed, I choose Russian backed 100% of the time. Easier to get rid of down the road. But since Syrians are dying so fast, I'm rooting for the US backed side, and hoping the FSA flip the backers off once all is said and done. Unfortunately, this will only happen in my dreams, and a foreign invader offering money, power and weapons will always find 1 individual out of 100's of poor, uneducated right wing military men to assume power and insert foreign interests into an allegedly sovereign nation's government. Maybe a council of such people; that seems to be the preference these days. Iran is a major political factor in the Syrian conflict. Probably more important to the involved foreign governments than Syrian lives. Frankly could not care less about the politics behind it, I'm rooting for a combination of whichever politics will result in fewest Syrian deaths and the most independent Syrian nation.
I will note the hilarity of Americans calling international law BS when its been drafted and structured in their favor.
Well the US, Saudis, Israelis and others got what they wanted-- a civil war for the Syrian people. Hopefully not too many innocents will be killed in order to play power politics against Iran. Assad, despite being useful in the recent past for such tasks as torturing folks we renditioned there is no longer as useful. So this tyrant like others before becomes deposed when no longer useful to the US. Oh I forgot our military support is as always because we love us some human rights and democracy. We just want the Syrians to be democrats like our wonderful ally the medieval King of Saudi Arabia, who we pretty much encouraged to crush militarily the Arab Spring in Bahrain. This fiction is of course only believed outside the Middle East. Caught Fox News today while waiting in a business for a few minutes. Laughably but sad at the same time, they were putting out a load about how Syria has massive stocks of chemical weapons --the largest in the Middle East. Oh my!! I am surprised they didn't talk about how Syria had blimps or some other fiendish device that could be used against the humble Fox viewers as they watched the tube. Same ol. Same ol.
Maybe if you read the actual thread content instead of contributing absolutely nothing, this wouldn't happen. In any case, Wikileaks' role in Tunisia has been documented back and forth through the leak of documents detailing the extent of corruption of the presidential family, and in case you haven't remembered, Tunisia was the spark that lit the whole region on fire, including Egypt.
You think Mohamed Bouaziz's suicide was in any part due to Assange? French newspapers (and others of course) have been reporting on corruption & the excesses of the Tunisian ruling family for YEARS.
Actual working Democracy is a hard tightrope to balance on. The more natural human condition is a consolidated central power that rewards allies and punishes opponents. Ethics aside, it imposes an order. Through most of human history ruthless execution of power has been the standard procedure. The determination of criminality or resolute leadership is made by the victors. If Assad did prevail, he might be the hailed the Lincoln of Syria; preserving the nation. The antithesis is of course chaos, more of what you have left in the wake of the Arab Spring movement so far. To organize that into a civilized form of power and opposition takes the willing compromise of educated, motivated, men of good will.
That's actually to some degree why I don't like it. It lets us cloak standard power politics under that stupid veneer of human rights and the international community, which in and of itself is dangerous in safeguarding American nationalism in the long run. An example of that concept for me is Nuremberg, which I openly state was a massive, massive sham (let's openly laugh at ex post facto, guys!) and which was degrading to both the Nazis and the Allies. The appropriate thing to do would have been to simply shoot the bastards. Because since Assad is the President of Syria and has been fighting the Syrian people, he should answer to the Syrian people assuming the Syrian rebels win. NOT to a bunch of international bureaucrats or the "world community", whatever that is. I have no interest in a civil war, an internal conflict that mostly has kept within the boundaries of Syria, becoming something which the UN sticks its nose in. The fact that mass murder is being committed within the Syrian state does not make it an American concern ( whom after all are the ones who will be intervening). Perhaps it makes it a humanitarian concern.
Another series of ATW posts filled with lots of insults and blanket dismissals, and yet zero actual ability to counter anything said or proven any content of your own. What is your purpose in these threads? You obviously can't or have no interest in contributing any actual value, so what's the point? Do you like being a troll? Does it make you feel good to derail or ruin otherwise decent threads where people are having actual conversations without the usual trolls? Do insults somehow make you feel internet-tough?
