Either we should go for regime change or stay out of Syria

[LearningCurve]

This in-between option is the worst of all. The statement is being made that "Assad needs to be punished." I can't imagine anything being contemplated is going to punish him personally.

Will there be an assassination attempt or capture? No.

Will his family be targeted? No.

Will his personal property be confiscated or destroyed? No.

Will the chemical weapons be destroyed or removed? No.

What is most likely to happen, is a few targets will get struck by missiles. The people who die in these strikes will probably not be anyone Assad sheds tears over. The targets damaged will not cause Assad to grieve. Instead, what it will look like to the world is exactly what it is: the US beating its chest because Assad defied the prohibition on chemical weapons. To some, that will be cause to see Assad as a hero.

On the negative side, the US will make no friends in the Middle East by any military strike. Every person we kill will turn family members into passionate haters of the US. IF the rebels are successful, and overthrow Assad, they will hardly be grateful for limited action. We please no one with a middle course, except our own pride. Because our red line was crossed.

You can make a passionate argument for intervention or non-intervention, and I will take your arguments seriously. No one has yet to make any kind of argument that some sort of middle stance is the best possible approach. However, many have succeeded in reaffirming my opinion is the worst.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Any military assualt will help Assad with the Arab world.

It will be spun as a western aggression against another Muslim country.

[KittyWampus]

2. It apparently wouldn't help Assad with the Sunnis. And I don't think Iranians

are keen on the use of gas to kill fellow Muslims.

[Arctic Dave]

3. So less then half of the Muslim world would be OK with it?

I think Sunnis would be angry about it too, especially the ones in Iraq. They might even take his side.

[David__77]

4. That's right. Arab Sunnis don't generally like Assad...

But they will always cheer for a defeat of the US.

[NutmegYankee]

5. You know, I almost hate to say it, but...

The Bath party is probably the best thing to leave in place in Syria. They stand for Arab nationalism for all Arabs, no matter their religion. Under their rule, they get a secular state that protects all faiths and woman get equality. The Sunni rebels are basically the religious right wing of the country.

I say stay out.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. One can always hope for a Secular party that values human rights to come to power

We shouldn't ever convince ourselves that a totalitarian dictatorship is best. There is always a better way.

That said im opposed to solving this situation with violence.

[NutmegYankee]

15. I don't disagree, but in the absence of another choice

I don't want us to support a side that would massacre the religious minorities of the country and impose strict religious law. The West has done done enough damage there.

[Supersedeas]

18. that's the question: is it our problem to solve?

[mysuzuki2]

6. The problem is who would replace him?

The rebel factions are no angels either. Why replace one monster with another? I think we have to face the fact that there is little we can do that will make things better for the Syrian people. If I thought there was any action the US could take that would really make a positive difference, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, I don't.

[gopiscrap]

7. stay out

[Initech]

8. Yeah well regime change worked out so well in:

Iraq? No.
Afghanistan? No
Vietnam? No
North Korea? No.

If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again.

[LearningCurve]

17. Vietnam IS an example of regime change

We were just on the losing side of that one.

[jazzimov]

9. NO. Destroying any advantage.

Actually, we were lucky because the pro-Assad forces didn't see an advantage from using these weapons. Unfortunately, they will probably assume that they weren't used properly and try to use them again, this time effectively.

What SOMEONE has to do is to demonstrate that using such weapons is NOT in their best interests, so that they do not use them again.

I would prefer that the UNSC does this - but Russia's veto power doesn't make that likely. SOMEONE needs to do SOMETHING!

We are the world's last superpower - if we don't take a stand, who will?

NOT to take a stand on civil unrest - that is their problem. But when the existing administration goes so far as to use weapons that have been banned in 98% of the world.......

That is no longer THEIR problem, it's now OUR problem. In truth, it's the WORLD's problem, but some will step up and some may not. We have to step up.

[bhikkhu]

16. I agree. You can trivialize the result, but doing nothing sends a whole different message

Assad is winning the war, and one of his tactics is using chemical weapons to clear out opposition held areas.

The last thing we need is to a demonstration of how well that works, and how the rest of the world, in spite of international law, no longer really cares. Gadhafi and every other deposed dictator would be kicking themselves (from their grave or not) for not realizing.

One of the reasons chemical warfare was done away with in the first place was how effective it was at killing large numbers of people. Troublesome neighborhood? Local unrest? Protests? Check the wind, turn the gas loose, and the problem is gone by the end of the day. You don't need a large military to rule then, and you certainly don't need the consent of the populace.

That would be the message of doing nothing.

[NightWatcher]

10. A half-assed attack with no goal or objective, why bother?

Doing no more than stirring the shit accomplishes nothing.

[LearningCurve]

12. It is worse than nothing

eom

[LostOne4Ever]

13. What about trying to solve this situation through peaceful means?

Pushing for peace talks or some other form of diplomacy while sending in humanitarian aid?

Why must the only options be violence or apathy? if those are the only options well then:

[roamer65]

14. We can't bomb our way to peace.

We need to get peace talks going, even if it means partitioning of Syria.