The world has been propping up that leadership for decades. Keep worrying about the people of Syria because they are about to get the b***f****** of a lifetime from the precious "international community".

My only worry is who will end up in charge if they finally force out their leadership.

Kama:

Whoever ends up in charge, could they possibly be worse than this? The current regime not only murders it's own people but isn't exactly looking out for our best interests as it is. In fact, they are allied with Iran and aid and support terrorism throughout the region. I think the time for standing passively on the sidelines has come and gone. As much as it pains me to say this, it is time for the US to intervene. That would be an easier decision to make had we not been embroiled in two pointless wars for the last decade.

SI

The same thing was said of Ghaddafi and Saddam, and everything actually ended up worse, much worse. In Iraq alone, the US invasion caused nearly 1 million deaths, that's right babe, that's 3 Hiroshimas combined...so to answer your question, yes, it can be much,much, much worse.

Leadership emerges. The cards have been reshuffled.

There needs to be a political agenda, becasue rebellion alone garners little support. Rebellion is viewed as anarchy, but with proper leadership it is viewed as a revolution.

In Iraq alone, the US invasion caused nearly 1 million deaths...

Who said anything about an invasion? The fall of the Assad regime is something I believe will happen regardless of what we do. The question is how much suffering the Syrian people will need to endure before that happens. The US needs to do everything that it can to aid the rebels and speed up this process before it becomes a bigger catastrophe than it already is. BTW, the possibility of exacerbating a situation has been the rationalization for permitting genocide throughout history. We just need to make sure that doesn't happen.

SI

It's THEIR country, THEIR freedom- let THEM fight and die for it. We're in enough pointless quagmires as it is.

They'll only give us the finger if we "help", anyhow. NO THANKS. PASS.

The road to hell is best paved with good intentions.

How on earth can ten Americans (1000 percent) wax nostalgic for Moammar Gaddafi?!?

What is it you miss, the bombing of commercial airliners with hundreds of innocent American men, women, and children on board, or the pursuit of nuclear weapons by a nut?

@Hotticket - You know we would have had a difficult time winning the Revolution without the support of the French. The Syrian's attitude toward us will be drasitcally better if we can stop their suffering as opposed to just allowing them to be killed. We claim to be about freedom and human rights but sometimes these qualities need more than just lip service from our leaders. I in no way support an invasion but I do think that a few tactical strikes to level the playing field are in order here.

a few tactical strikes to level the playing field are in order here.

STEWGOTTS ;

Leveling the playing field for the Syrian people sounds like a great idea! However, without the backing of the United Nations (whatever that's worth ) and the Arab League it would jeopardize America's standing in the eyes of the World . Until the majority of the world leaders come to an agreement regarding Assad's regime the United States should stay out of this horrendous situation. I fully agree with you that more than lip service is needed to put and end to these atrocities but the World has become a much smaller community than it was in 1776 and as such we must adhere to world protocol.

Things can always be worse, which was my point. If the new leaders of Syria decided to starve their people in order to afford and build nuclear weapons they could do it if they had enough control and they were willing to do it. Case in point North Korea, who now has nuclear weapons (granted not good ones they havent test a truely working one yet [according to the sesmic readings of their weapon test])

So yeah things could get worse. Plus as bad as it sounds some of these leaders killed a lot of innocent people but prevented their countries from decending into civil war. Which almost always results in WAY more deaths than the dictator caused.

I'm not advocating keeping their evil leaders though, I'm just saying im worried for their peopel and i hope the best for them.

When he first took power, there was hope he'd be better than his father.

Opportunity lost.

We need to do nothing. Who made us policeman of the world?

Congratulations, Abdo Hussameldin ... it's refreshing to see a man with "Balls"integrity these days in the ruling Syrian government !

@ Gary - That's not entirely true. Turkey is one of the BRIC nations with a rapidly growing economy and they also have the second largest military in NATO, so they would be more than capable of helping. @100%American- I also agree that we should not be the policeman of the world but we are humans before we are Americans. We have an obligation to stop atrocities when they are clearly visible and we have the ability to stop them. A few sorties by Ameican and Arab League air craft and the playin field can be leveled. Arm and aid the opposition and bring an end to the killing. Allowing Assad to continue with impunity will only result in 1000's of more deaths. A clear message needs to be sent to him and other despots and that message cannot be delievered with words, but with might

Why am I not surprised that it's the "oil" minister the first one quitting...I wonder how much he was paid by the oil companies...

Why is that, that there is no article on the web that some moron's reply will try to drag Israel/aipac into it, even when it is obviously not about Israel?

Idiot, you forgot to mention about the Jews (probably headed by some ancestor of Netanyahu) that they poison our water, drink blood of Christian children and least we forget, killed our Lord and Savior.

Why is it that in every discussion on these boards someone tries to bring up past crimes against Jews,as a pass to excuse Israels actions in the present?

@AM- While I do agree that Israel does get dragged in many times when it should not but that does not mean that they don't play any role in these situations. I agree with the previous post that AIPAC is a fifth column in this country and I am not some Elders of Zion nut, but anyone would be naive to think that they are not the second strongest lobbying group in the US and only represent a portion of 2% of the population. There have been numerous resolutions passed in Congress that were taken verbatim from AIPAC. Why do you think our laws actually state that we must cut funding to the UN or any of its orginazations if they recognize Palestine? It is very clear that they hold diproportionate influnence among our elected officals and represent the interest of a foreign nation, not those of the US. Anyway the larger point I was trying to make is this. Our support for Mubark against the will of the Egyptian people was in large part due to his relationship with Israel which we wanted to maintain. We never pushed for reform or regime change in Syria because Assad was a known quantity to Israel and they prefered him to anyone else. I don't believe that the blame for this situation falls at Israel's feet, but it is very clear that all of our policies in the Middle East are designed to support the interest of Israel before even our own.

Generally speaking, the armaments (small arms and anti-tank/vehicle artillery) ar coming from Syrian military defectors which originated from Syrian ordnance depots.

Some reports indicate a flow (trickle) of arms coming from Lebanon. There may be a flow coming Iraq on the eastern frontier.

If Saudi Arabia decides to supply arms to the rebellion, then that flow would most likely be routed through the Kingdom of Jordan.

I don't comprehend the greater portion of your post and the dystopic prophesies and hypotheticals, but in regards to armaments being used by the Syrian free army.... those are arms that were taken with the soldier defectors from their barracks and bases before joining the rebellion.

Just because they are fighting back against an oppressive regime does not by default make them to be terrorists. You can believe whatever you want, but educated and thinking people will not be on board with your opinions.

Anthony Seta, perhaps you still believe in Santa too or want us to start believing again? You want us to believe that these "soldiers" who defected, walked away and carry with them each 10 rocket launchers and enough ammo to last them a whole year? Please, stop your propaganda, no intelligent American is going to believe your ridiculous assertions. These are terrorists. I suppose since this is your opinion, you find it that it's ok to grab rocket launchers and start bombing govt. buildings. Laws need to be followed. You can't simply start blowing up the country because you disagree with the govt.

I love it how you use the same exact "adjectives" as the media "rebels", "free army", "oppressive regime", LOL. I can see right through you.

If our government were to become as repressive as the Assad regime, I would hope the citizens of the United States would rise up against such tyranny and open a gaping wound in it's side. RPG's are very common all over the middle east. I wouldn't be surprised if they're available through Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.

1000percentamerican - If you remember a year ago those "terrorists" were just thousands of citizens peacefully marching through the streets of Syria asking for more freedom. They have been driven to violence and defending themselves by being attacked and murdered and tortured by their own government. For peacefully protesting. Who are the real terrorists?

1000percentamerican sounds more like 10,0000percentAssad loyalist to me.

In his view, the War of Independence was just an attack by terrorist here in America.

So YOU ARE AN EXPERT in middle eastern affairs?! Obviously NOT!

Cool, you are not a fan of Obama (and all of those childish names that you use to refer to the president). Are you over the age of 14?

The article is about a very serious matter that constitutes a major military, political, geopolitical, diplomatic and humanitarian crisis that could escalate to levels with unknown consequences.

If you can contribute with knowledge and expertise solely in regards to whether or not the US should intervene, it would be most welcome. If you can not, then there must a local bar or some other place full of dysfunctional people that you can simply hurl childish names at people who happen to be in authority.

Anthony Seta wrote: The article is about a very serious matter that constitutes a major military, political, geopolitical, diplomatic and humanitarian crisis that could escalate to levels with unknown consequences.

Wrong on all counts:

a major military, negative, this is one country's problems

political, for whom? you?

geopolitical, negative, this is one country's problems

I love how you want to spin this as the end of the world, but it clearly isn't. 7,500 civilian deaths is nothing. 50,000 kids die in Africa of hunger EACH SINGLE DAY. That's a real crisis. That's real suffering. That's a real geopolitical event. How much money and diplomacy are we putting into that compared to war? NOTHING.

This comment is totally senseless and unrelated to the article. Are you literate or not?

one1000percentAmerican - you are the one who is wrong on all counts. Morons like you claimed that America should not interfere with al qaeda and taliban because it is one country's problem. Then we had 9-11 ...

at one1000percentAmerican:

Apologies, I really cannot figure out what your point is and what it is you are attempting to say.

I'm for non-intervention in Syria with US military resources. I can clearly state why and why not, based upon decades of studying history (of Europe and the mid-east region) and knowlege of world and political affairs. I'm interested in ths stuff and read between 10 -30 hours a week just on news and foreign policy. You may share the same interests and read a similar amount of material. If so, more power to you.

Anyway, I really can not figure out the point you are attempting to make. If you are for non-intervention, then cool - we're on the same page. But being for non-intervention does not mean that one must diminish the plight of the free Syrian Army and their quest for liberation from a brutal regime. This is a major geopolitical event as all other nations in the region (notably Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Israel) are affected. Syria is also an ally of Iran. There is much to be discussed.

My observation is that you have limited knowlege of the region and are pontificating based upon emotion rather than logic or knowledge. Rather than make an honest and unbiased attempt to understand the region and this conflict, you are quick to assign things to defined categories of black-n-white, good-vs-evil, etc... The situation is far more muddled than you seem to grasp. You certainly do not have the benefit of my years of education and experience in regards to this region. I can make that statement based upon the words that you have written so far.

Feel free to render futher insults toward me. It's all you have in your arsenal (lacking real knowlege), and the others on newsvine can clearly see that for themselves. Names and petty accusations do not hurt me.

Well here are my points on Syria and the Middle East.

1. We know Syria is a dictatorship.But so are the majority of the States calling for the fall of the government. And we the US and the West,had no problem in sending prisoners to Syria under Bush to be tortured.So these complains by us are totally hypocritical,to say the least.

2. We don't really know what's going on in Syria,and what started it.Sure we get 2nd and 3rd hand accounts from people with an agenda,but can we really believe them. We see video's of war going on there,but in what civil war would you not see those pictures.The anti-government side,says the people are with them.Yet in only a few areas do you see fighting.In most Revolutions there are uprisings in all areas.The American,the French,the Haitian,the Russian,the Chinese,the Cuban,etc. Now some might say,the government has a lock-down on those other areas,that's why they don't rise .But then does that mean the rebel areas have braver people,or is there more to it than that. The government says these are Sunni extremists,and the areas that we hear about in the fighting,are known as hotbeds of Sunni extremists,so that could be the case.

3.Who are the rebels? There are the exile groups we mostly hear about,and from,very urbane,moderate sounding people.Just like we used to hear from exile Iraqis. But do they represent Syrians other than themselves. The Iraqi exiles,it was proved didn't.So I don't have much faith that they do either. We hear that Al Qaeda and similar groups are supporting the uprising. And we know that the Wahhabi ultra-religious Saudi,and Gulf Arab dictatorships,are supporting the uprising. Neither of those groups care anything about democracy. So their being behind the rebels,is very worrying,to say the least.

4. We know that the Syrian government is a secular dictatorship.Made up and supported by three pillars,the Shia (Alawite),the Christians, and the moderate Sunnis. We know that they have open religious freedom in Syria. And that many Sunni have always supported the government as well,since the government doesn't discriminate against the Sunni faith. Now all the Arab States calling for the overthrow of the Syrian government,are Sunni States.Dictatorships themselves,and hate Assad because he is Shia. Had he been Sunni,you wouldn't have heard anything from them. A perfect example is Bahrain. A Sunni dictatorship,with a vast Shia majority. As part of the Arab Spring,or as I would say instead,the Sunni Arab Spring. The Bahraini people took to the streets demanding reform. Not even asking for the overthrow of the Sunni rulers.And they were met with a brutal crackdown.The Bahraini rulers called in foreign,Saudi troops,who violently crushed the uprising.The very same Saudis who are now calling for "democracy" in Syria.And where was the moral outrage over this from the US and the rest of the West,where were the calls to arm the rebels,where were the calls for intervention,where were the calls for airstrikes,there were none.We turned a blind eye,and still do.Unless we consider it in our interests,we don't care.And to oppose the Saudi oil lords,is not considered in our interests.

4.What might be the real cause of this civil war in Syria. Syria is friendly with Iran (interesting how we consider Iran's government just religious fanatics,yet they have good relations with secular Syria),and is supporting the Lebanese Shia Hezbollah.With the Shia coming to power in Iraq,that means there are 3 Shia dominated governments in the ME,and 1,partly Shia controlled (Lebanon). To the Sunni dictatorships in the region,that is horrible.For centuries they have hated,oppressed,and murdered the Shia,as heretics.And now they feel threatened by them.They see backing Sunni rebels and getting the West on there side to help,as a way to overturn the Shia government. We've seen the results of the Sunni Arab Spring in other countries that have overthrown their secular rulers.I would in some ways,consider Iraq part of this turning,or starting point here. The Sunni secular government was overturned,and to the horror of other Sunni States,the Shia majority gained power. We see even today,Sunni terrorist groups,rebelling,bombing,murdering,throughout many areas of Iraq.Basically making Iraq far more dangerous than it was,even with Saddam in power.More than 10 times the number of Iraqis have been killed there than have died in Syria.Over 1 million Christians have been killed or driven out of their country because of the religious civil war there. The large Christian minority in Syria,can see their fate from that,if the Syrian government falls to Sunni extremists.Infact,the Lebanese Christian leaders (Lebanon is a country over 40% Christian),who have never really favored Assad,but they are now favoring him.All because they know the Christian disaster that would befall Syria,and seep into Lebanon,if the Syrian government falls.Its still uncertain what will be the results in Egypt with their Sunni Arab Spring.But things don't look promising so far. The MB and even more extreme Sunni groups,backed by Saudi and Gulf money,have won the elections in a big way.The 10% Christian population has seen some religious persecution (killings,church attacks),but still only on a small scale as yet. Egypt has a stronger secular tradition than some countries in the ME.But still most of the Al Qaeda leaders,those that weren't Saudi,were Egyptian. So that might be a bad sign for the future. But with Libya,we don't have to wait to see the portent for Syria. The extremist Sunni backed civil war,has torn that rich country to pieces.Sections of the country are claiming semi-independence,violent gunman are on the streets killing,raping,and torturing their opponents.The exiles that were put into power by the West are powerless to influence events.Religious fanaticism is on the rise,and that,though Libya is almost all Sunni,without minority faiths to destroy. Al Qaeda flags are seen flying in areas of Libya. There are reports that 600-800 of these militia extremists have even gone to Syria to fight with the rebels.Hoping to bring their brand of "Liberation" to the Syrians.

5.Why if the Sunni Arab States,and their Western blind supporter governments,want to end the violence and killing,do they not call for a ceasefire from both sides.Could it be,that they can't control their rebel proxies to actually stop the fighting.Are they afraid that if there is a ceasefire the government will be seen to really control the country.Thus defeating their plans to overthrow the government. A ceasefire from both sides would stop the fighting,allow relief efforts to be effective.And since the Syrian governments outside supporters ,Russia and China,have both called for a ceasefire.Getting the government to agree should not be a problem.Then it would be possible to promote mediation between the two sides.But it would be foolish for the government to declare a unilateral ceasefire.Making it possible for the rebels to continue to attack,and resupply themselves with impunity.

As long as all other leaders, partlimentary bodies, etc... of the entire planet are simultaneoulsy charged with crimes in the Hague for non-intervention in Syria... then OK, I'll go with that.

But until then...

Thanks for sharing such brilliant thoughts. You must have scratched your head really hard to come up with that rant.

Then you are definitively for intervention, regardless of consequences (intended or otherwise)? I advise that you review the testimony from yesterday from Panetta and Dempsey to congress. This is not a conflict that the US can benefit from.

Attempting to put the president and his advisors (i.e. entire miltary establishment) with a massive guilt trip for not bombing in Syria will not work. There seems to be bi-partisan consensus on the Right and Left to not intervene. Election year or not, there is no gain for the US to involve itself in Syria in a unilateral manner. Without the approval of the UN, or even resolute stiff backbones by the regional Arab players... a military intervention will be a doomed affair for the US. Even with UN approval (a hypothetical that does not appear to be on the horizon any time soon), the gains for the US would be questionable, thought the expenses in regards to munitions, fuel and lost capital equipment and lives would be very expensive.

You can vote for Donald Duck. That is your right and choice if you desire to exercise it as such. I'm voting for the president. I like the cautious approach to these major geopolitical events that are happening with ever greater frequency during these perilous times.

YEAH BABY!!!

OBAMA 2012 / DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS 2012

AMERICA IS NOT THE WORLDS POLICE!!! Since the Iraqis became "free" from Saddam they can now chant in the streets "Death to America" free from fear they'll be stopped. Same goes for Egypt and Lybia all or most will become Islamic states that will "hate" America, no thanks let the people of those states fight their own battles. If President Obama acted you and your ilk would be crying for impeachment but since he hasn't you go the other way, NICE TRY!!!

The world would be such a nice place today if FDR followed the same reasoning in 1940 and instead of giving "lend and lease" assistance to United Kingdom and then introducing "Atlantic patrol" (which place USA on a collision course with the Axis) he decided "that America is not the world's police"...

The world would be such a nice place today if the same president didn't introduce crippling economic sanctions against Japan in 1941, placing USA on the way towards an unavoidable war with Japan...

Both moves against a majoritary hostile public opinion

maciej -

You win the best post of the day for most innovative historical revisionism.

Thankfully, FDR was the man he was, and you were nothing more than spawn in the testicles of your young father or grandfather and could not have an impact on those events.

"The world community is finally standing together on this ad I hope and trust the Assad regime is on the brink of collapse,"

What do you mean by the world community.I see the Sunni Arab dictatorships,the US, Britain and France pushing this. The vast majority of the world community either is silent or opposes intervention.They've seen the stellar job intervention brought to Iraq,Afghanistan,and Libya and want no part of repeating those disasters. Non-intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations is an almost sacred principle between nation states.

Your flock awaits you.

Yeah OK, tell that to Momahar Ghadafi, Osama Bin Laden, the Somalian pirates and all those Islamic militants killed by drones ordered by President Obama. Get your facts right will ya before making such stupid comments. This "weak" president ordered an attack inside Pakistan to kill Americas most wanted who killed 3000 Americans, more than bush ever did.

OBAMA 2012 / DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS 2012

How does that go: Take the money and run!

With only light weapons, it is more probable that Syrian rebels will be defeated - and a bloodthirsty tyrant will stay in power. Is that a desirable outcome for you?

As for the future of Iraq and Lybia, it is not decided yet and whatever their future is, at least their citizens will have the right and possibility to decide about it freely - which is in itself a great and good thing.

Sounds fine to me. If it's a big problem, Syria's neighbors can surely handle it.

Why should he go on trial? What evidence do you have to prosecute him?