Who will end up replacing Assad? Another democratically elected official?

 

Will that official come from the leadership of the rebels?

 

I don't even know who or what makes up the rebels. Anyone have any insight?

 

Not so sure I would describe it as a humanitarian effort when we don't even know what we're getting in the leadership that would follow. And given our recent track record with nations we're currently involved in, helping them would be a massive failure and lead to more instability and countless innocent lives.

Why would Obama want to incur the wrath of his bomb throwing mentor and buddy Bill Ayers? Syria is a civil war. Ayers and many of his friends (now Obama supporters) opposed our involvement in Vietnam because they claimed it was a civil war. Now if Obama and his supporters say we go into Syria because of Assad's use of chemicals weapons, then they give support to Bush for going into Iraq, for Saddam used chemical weapons on his people, even if we did not find WMDs after the invasion. Obama better watch it or Ayers might return to his bomb throwing days.

A few complicating interests regarding an intervention:

 

• The US doesn’t have terribly much to gain in terms of resources or territorial position, but it does have a strong interest in the stability and future of the region. Al Qaeda was able to operate out of Afghanistan because there was no real government there. Ignoring the world as though what happens in it won’t affect us because there are no immediate interests at stake has proven myopic.
  
• Relatedly, fundamentalist Islamic groups have made up and increasingly larger faction of the Syrian rebels. It’s suspected that these factions are receiving outside support from sympathetic governments or groups. Assuming the rebels eventually win out and Assad falls, which is the consensus expectation, these groups will have a larger say in the formation of a new Syria, which, again, will cause problems for the US and its allies in the area. Backing less fundamentalist rebels, if they can be accurately distinguished, could be a way of mitigating this.
  
• There is the humanitarian aspect. There have been estimates placing the death toll above 70,000 people, with civilians making up the majority of those dead. This will go on until one side wins out. If claims of chemical weapons are true, that death count could grow even more rapidly. Supporting one side or another could bring about a swifter end to the deaths.
  
• Again, relatedly, a UN-supported no-fly zone was enforced over Libya that prevented Qadaffi from using his air power for similar purposes. A no-fly zone over Syria could prevent Assad from deploying his chemical weapons and could tip the balance of power against him. However, China and Russia sat on the sideline to allow the UNSC to pass the no-fly zone resolution. They will not do that here.
  
• Intervening unilaterally or without international legitimation could also hurt US relations in the future, which could further complicate matters with relations in the region.
  

 

It's hard to close your eyes and plug your ears and expect it to all shake out for the best. But, it's equally hard to act as though military involvement is the perfect solution here. It's not an easy situation from any angle. At this point, I think any intervention has waited too long to change much. If chemical weapons turn out to be in use and they turn out to be as destructive as people imagine, then I think more pressure needs to be applied to Russia and China to go along with another no-fly zone. Simply arming the rebels might be the least involved and clandestine measure, but I'm not sure that's a wise idea either.

 

 

Actually he could still easily deploy chemical weapons without aircraft. You forget that the war in which chemical weapons were used the most was one in which aircraft were little used for the purpose we know today. Most of the gas used in that war was deployed via artillery which it could easily be done again with Assad.

Ayers did not 'throw' bombs. He and the Weathermen packed them full of nails and other projectiles for maximum carnage and set them off from a far - killing and maiming police officers usually. The one that killed his girlfriend at the time was a large shrapnel bomb destined for the Ft. Dix officers club dance.

Obama preparing to send lethal arms to Syrian opposition, officials say - The Washington Post

I will admit this is a tough situation. I'm personally tired of saving all these countries and wasting all our resources. Then for those countries to turn around and hate us for it. But at the same time Obama did draw the line and we have to stick to our word as a country. Tough tough scenario. My worry as stated by some , is who will take over if we do come in take control.

No matter how it turns out Syria will be another country ran by the Brotherhood.. Then we'll have to deal with all three(Syria,Egypt,Libya) when they attack Israel.

Related: Russia delivers new al-Qaida warning to U.S.

Hawking Something - By Micah Zenko | Foreign Policy

Over 70,000 deaths so far by Assad, if this was another country in the past we would have already been there by now. The U.S. drew a line inthe sand, now do something, or others will see the idle threat and whatever we say will be laughed at n the future as we will be seen as having no back bone.

 

Bush was crucified for doing just this.

Obama wants to get into Syria and allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take over like in Egypt and Libya. The Obama goal is to take leaders out and allow the Botherhood to take over and persecute Christians and allow for harsher Sharia Law. After thinking long about it I have come to the conclusion Obama is a Muslim. He is taking out extremist like bin Laden and allowing for what they say are civilized Islam to take over known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama wants to get into Syria and allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take over like in Egypt and Libya. The Obama goal is to take leaders out and allow the Botherhood to take over and persecute Christians and allow for harsher Sharia Law. After thinking long about it I have come to the conclusion Obama is a Muslim. He is taking out extremist like bin Laden and allowing for what they say are civilized Islam to take over known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

So I guess those in DC like McCain and Graham have the same "agenda" as Obama?

So I guess those in DC like McCain and Graham have the same "agenda" as Obama?

 

They must, why I don't know. McCain is a major disappointment to me.

 

They must, why I don't know. McCain is a major disappointment to me.

 

As I have said in the past, the worse thing that happened to the Muslim Brotherhood is they were elected to power in Egypt. People now see they can't rule a country, and they still have problems, and the protests there are proof of this.

 

But Syria is difficult for the US no matter who is in office, we can't allow 70,000 people, mostly innocent being killed, but we can't allow our arms to get in the hands of some of the rebel groups who if gain power will not be friendly to the US.

As I have said in the past, the worse thing that happened to the Muslim Brotherhood is they were elected to power in Egypt. People now see they can't rule a country, and they still have problems, and the protests there are proof of this.

 

But Syria is difficult for the US no matter who is in office, we can't allow 70,000 people, mostly innocent being killed, but we can't allow our arms to get in the hands of some of the rebel groups who if gain power will not be friendly to the US.

 

No matter the protest of the Brotherhood, they still remain in power.

Our weapons will supply the rebels and they are extremist. Which when they overthrow the government, free elections, democracy will be promised only to be lied to like in Egypt. Christians will be persecuted and Obama will be happy as it is his agenda.