Syria: Barack Obama says the world 'cannot be bystanders' as slaughter continues

[jakeXT]

President Barack Obama declared Friday that the US and its allies would consider "every tool available" to stop the slaughter of innocent people in Syria, using his most forceful words to date in response to an increasingly grim crisis that has gripped the world.

The president did not give specifics about what the US or other countries would do to help. Lacking international consensus on any armed confrontation, and with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad unyielding, the United States has only limited options and leverage.

"It is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally and send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition," Mr Obama said after a meeting with the Danish prime minister. "It is time for that regime to move on. And it is time to stop the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government."

The president added that nations cannot afford to be "bystanders" as the killing continues.

...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9105303/Syria-Barack-Obama-says-the-world-cannot-be-bystanders-as-slaughter-continues.html

[IndyJones]

1. I agree with not standing by while slaughter continues, so why doesn't that same logic apply to

Mexico? Over 50,000 killed in the last few years, yet the world looks the other way. Why?

[JesterCS]

2. well there is SOME oil down there isnt there? *sarcasm* n/t

[jakeXT]

5. It would certainly be easier to get the oil through Syria for Israel than

through the Med. sea.

Possible transhipment via Israel

It has been proposed that oil from the BTC pipeline be transported to eastern Asia via the Israeli oil terminals at Ashkelon and Eilat, the overland trans-Israel sector being bridged by the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline owned by the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC).[20][21]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan_pipeline

[dipsydoodle]

3. The US as a general rule

usually only comments or acts in situations where they have a vested selfish self interest.

[greiner3]

8. I beg to differ;

At least where the US intervened in the former Yugoslavian pockets of genocide.

On the whole, I tend to agree with your sentiment.

[24601]

18. But not always - e.g. Somalia in Dec 92. The original mission was stop the fighting, open supply

lines and feed people. It didn't go to shit until it later shifted to changing their society in out image.

[jakeXT]

4. Didn't we ship weapons to Mexico ?

[boppers]

6. Is Mexico's official government shelling their civilians?

No?

There's the difference.

[IndyJones]

14. Many believe that the government is working with the drug lords.

[David__77]

16. Why does that matter?

If the government cannot protect the people, then it isn't protecting "human rights." Obviously, per "responsibility to protect," there is no such thing as national sovereignty, so someone else to step in and do what the government cannot.

[EX500rider]

19. Venezuela's murder rate is 3 times Mexico's. n/t

[CAPHAVOC]

10. Bring the troops home now!

Leave the weapons. In a year our problems will be solved. On to Damascus!

[jwirr]

12. And as we leave make sure that the weapons are in the hands of the rebels. On this I agree with

John McCain.

[Arctic Dave]

11. I think you mean Colombia.

Look at all the state sponsored murders there. And yet, Obama gives them a free trade agreement.

So, yeah, when it comes down to it, Obama doesn't have a lot of room to get holier then thou.

I won't even get into his own murder of innocent civilians all in the name of fighting terroist. Assad is doing the same thing, just on a larger scale.

[CAPHAVOC]

13. I was just joking about the Lawrence of Arabia movie.

Given time and opportunity the Arabs will fight amongst themselves to a stalemate.

[slackmaster]

7. I think it's France's turn to take on another foreign civil war

[DUIC]

9. Sending in the cheese eating surrender monkeys?

That will only embolden Assad.

[Laughing Mirror]

15. Sarkozy would never do that now

The presidential election is coming up and he's in full campaign mode.

[Ter]

17. Why not?

It's Syria's business.

[pampango]

20. Salon (Jordan Michael Smith): Why Obama won’t intervene in Syria

Syria looks like Libya all over again. A brutal dictator uses his military to repress his country’s protests. A civil war erupts. And, oh yes, a split opens among American liberals over what to do about it.

With a few notable exceptions, the conservative movement has been of one mind on foreign policy issues since 9/11. All right-wingers supported the Afghanistan war, and virtually all supported Iraq, as well. Every conservative believes President Obama has been a craven appeaser of America’s enemies, and now all believe that pressure should increase against Iran, even if that means another war in the Middle East.

Liberals have shown no such unanimity. They were divided not only on Iraq but also on President Bush’s 2006 surge, Obama’s Afghanistan escalation, and the intervention in Libya. Views fall roughly along two lines. Dominating the party since Bill Clinton’s ascension are liberal hawks who believe it is in America’s interest to use military power abroad to promote human rights and expand democracy. More popular among the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party are attitudes skeptical of the use of force in major wars. (The only exception to this split is over the use of drones, which nearly all Democrats support).

There are two significant reasons the administration has not pushed for military intervention, however. First, the international consensus that existed on Libya is not present in Syria. Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-sponsored U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian government. Imagining that they would agree to a military intervention is simply fanciful.

The second reason Libya isn’t acting as a template for Syria is one of logistics. As Middle East expert Marc Lynch has explained, “Military intervention in Syria has little prospect of success, a high risk of disastrous failure, and a near-certainty of escalation which should make the experience of Iraq weigh extremely heavily on anyone contemplating such an intervention.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/why_obama_wont_intervene_in_syria/singleton/

The US and others should do something but it should not be military, either direct military involvement or arming the opposition.

We and others should pressure the dictator as much as possible nonmilitarily but realize that repression often works at least in the short run.

[jakeXT]

21. Kosovo option?

'US to announce aerial blockade on Syria'

US readies for possibility of intervention without UN resolution, Asharq Al-Awsat reports, citing US military official; plan to include humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees on Turkey's border

The Pentagon is readying for the possibility of intervention in Syria, aiming to halt Syrian President Bashsar Assad's violent crackdown on protesters, the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday, citing a US military offical.
 
According to the official, the intervention scenario calls for the establishment of a buffer zone on the Turkish border, in order to receive Syrian refugees. The Red Cross would then provide the civilians humanitarian aid, before NATO crews would arrive from Turkey and join the efforts.

..

The intercession is to be modeled after NATO's efforts in Kosovo, which brought an end to the Serbian control of the region. NATO's plan of action included prolonged aerial shelling.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194506,00.html