Well, you know the saying - if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then you try to baffle them with your B.S. Only problem for them is, this time around the Americans aren't buying. The people here have started to wise up.

It's easy for you to sniff at these people, you're not fleeing Idlib. Nice play.

So is Obama going to bomb them as well?

Run abdula run

George Bush, Sr made the claim that oil is most important and so he justified 1991 Iraqi war.

Geroge Bush, Jr made the claim that Iraq had WMD. So he went to 2003 Iraqi war.

Now we have only claims on Iran and Syria and oil prices are shooting to $125 by choking Iran's oil supplies.

If many make claims and dance as wanted by Saudis, oil companies and their lobbyists, then we will have loads of ridiculous claims too!

President Obama will be in my prayers as he strives for the political solution to Syra. S/S Hilliary Clinton,

also. Me, I cannot find a solution to Spring housecleaning.

I might buy that fact that the rebels in many of these countries really are looking for some sort of change which does not include the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem is there is just far too few of them to survive without the Brotherhood taking over and making the change into what they have wanted for a very long time. So the Brotherhood has been waiting in the wings a long time to make their move and we will see all these Arab countries become even more extreme to the right instead of finding balance in the global war. The Egyptians said it best. They believe the Brotherhood are exempt from doing wrong because of their religion and will protect the people. So they think of Mubarack as having been the lawless leader without religion and so they are swinging back to the control of the religious leaders. Sad.

How do your know that part of the rebel crowd is not with the Muslim Brotherhood? Why wouldn't they get in on this action. They have in other countries. It's naive of you to think otherwise.

bob1/28: As Syria has not attacked Turkey there is no mandate for NATO to intervene.

Eric

I was referring to helping with sheltering , feeding, and clothing the refugees . Also a good excuse to post our troops their for a possible invasion of Syria from Turkey . The back door in . The military / industrial will leave no stone unturned to get into this fight. Profit at all cost !!!

bob

Where do the US and NATO forces come into picture?

Saudis and their brave Sunni pals of Arab League have some of the finest soldiers. They can fight better in Muslim nations with their seventh century desert robes and mindsets.

They sent their forces to Bahrain. Now, it is their turn in Syria.

Unless I missed something, Syria is not a huge oil exporter. Actually its believed they will be a net importer of oil before too long. If you want oil to level off than Iran is the country you need to worry about.

There is a slight problem on oil prices.

Saudis, oil companies, lobbyists and their puppets are finding WMDs to dangerous levels in Iran. So sanctions by choking oil supplies of Iran are being tried.

If the oil prices don't rise to desired levels, then the NATO forces will have no options but to cut off oil supplies from Iran to eliminate the dangers of WMDs in Iran!

My point was destabilization of that particular region, not exports.

Neither our creation nor our concern.

Just enjoy battles beween Islamic dictators!

We can always afford humanitarian aid. As a taxpayer (fortunately with a good job and a high tax rate), I support humanitarian aid for places like Haiti, Japan, Indonesia for their natural disasters and also places torn by warfare such as Congo or Syria.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Americans should be reluctant to get involved in Syria militarily, since nothing good will come from that venture. But donating MREs, tents, blankets, medical supplies, etc.... that is what this nation does, and that is why I'm always proud to be an American.

Anthony is right. Humanitarian aid is dirt cheap, an almost negligible part of the budget compared to military aid, entitlements, or even subsidies. I wouldn't mind cutting into some big coproration's tax breaks to save a few hundred lives in third-world countries (it's more complicated than that, of course, but those are the kinds of numbers we're talking about).

You don't really read the news, do you? For better or worse Obama hasn't ousted anyone. Gaddafi was finally brought to ground by other Libyans with NATO support, Mubarak stepped down before the Egyptian military removed him from being an incompetent crony capitalist.

Tet - Both with the blessing of the president and his call to step down. Do you read past today or just lose comprehension of the things of the not too distant past??

Larry - The point of the article is the dissemination of news and information. Learn from it and improve your knowledge of the world and current events. It isn't that hard to figure out. Geez man, pull yourself together.

Actually, Syria was hell even before the actual warfare started, but sure, whatever.

If this Muslim Brotherhood wins, the blood of civilians, men, women and children will flow forever.

Get those other Arab countries off their dead bottoms and take care of a problem in your back yard. We got too many problems here to help you with your problems.

I'm from the south and I agree. If the confederacy had actually sustained itself, the united state would be just another divided government like Korea. And the south would have been a third world country.

But back then we had a President who had what it took to get the job done.

Abe, we need you now!

Huh!!

That's the strangest ode to the confederacy that I've ever heard. I can only envision you waving a confederate flag wearing grey battledress uniform from the 1860s while holding aloft a picture of President Lincoln. It's a bizarre image, but created by your words. Thanks for the laugh!

A fallacious argument. The south seceded and we waged a war to re-unite the country. The current "rebels" in Syria started out protesting tyranny and were fired upon, repeatedly. The rebellion is a direct response to the regime killing off its own people needlessly.

That's putting aside the greater argument regarding justice and slavery, etc.

What's so scary about the Muslim Brotherhood? The factions in Egypt and Tunisia seem entirely reasonable, and if people democratically elect an Islamic government, so what? Better than the current nutcase.

I dunno, the Nazis in WWII and the British and French colonial empires were pretty good at mass murder to carry out political goals.

Yes! Politics and religion are the catalyst that ripens the worst of human nature, and war is their bastard child.

It happened in the U.S.. The discovery age, the French and Indian war, the Revolutionary War, the Civil war, etc. Most of the victims were native Americans and slaves in the earlier wars. During the civil war, captured confederates were subject to horrific treatment.

Mike-1842539 says -

During the civil war, captured confederates were subject to horrific treatment.

Yes, this is true. But captured Union soldiers fared much worse at camps like Andersonville. I believe the only confederate officer during the entire Civil War that was convicted of war crimes and hung for his actions was the commandant of the Andersonville camp. Someone can verify the accuracy of this since I probably read this in a book years ago or saw it on a History Channel documentary, but I believe that this is the case.

Anyway, what is the point of bringing up the the treatment of civil war era prisoners in the current context of refugees fleeing Syria? That just makes no sense what-so-ever and just populates this vine with nonsensical threads.

So what you're saying is that conservatives are better than liberals.

Alex -

What is your point?

I suspect that many folks on the vine read books of all sorts. What qualifications and skills do you supposedly have that allows the ability to determine the morality and self-centeredness of various posters (i.e. 'idiots' in your words)?

Everyone has opinions. Just because you find someone's contrary opinion to be disagreeable does not by default mean that the other person is an idiot.

The person that can most successfully articulate their perspectives, arguments and positions based upon knowledge and historical precedence (regardless of ideology) are the most respected posters on this vine and throughout society at large.

Sadly, based upon my daily visits here, I see a lot of name calling and bashing of party affiliation, etc... rather than staying on topic of whatever the article is and bringing forth sound conversation that stands to yield tangible educational value.

I rather doubt that Assad is 'fighting for Syria'. More like he is fighting to preserve his source of funds and economic well-being for himself and his family. The Assads have had very little regard for Syria or its people, except as to how they can help keep him in power.

And, let's see, but those 'thugs' in LIbya were the vast majority of it's people. First off, they have enough trouble on their hands without getting involved in Syria's woes. Second, I really can't believe that you count yourself as a support of Qaddafi. Really? Did you think that Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot wre good ol' dudes just trying their best to fight for their country?

@ yallareabunchofsheeple -

Well, by definition WTF are you by uttering such nonsense as posted in your piece of wasted words? Seriously, do view yourself as some sort of liberated mind that is all-knowing and capable of seeing things clearly that the rest of us can not in regards to these fascinating events that are happening at this moment in time?

My view is that you're a redneck, with a closed mind and limited education, probably from a rural area where inbreeding amongst both kin and sheep is the norm.

Exactly. Too many turned away the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda were deep into the Egypt and Libya thing and more than likely, were the ones who started the "uprisings" to begin with. I said it from the start of all of the "movements" and was poo-pooed as not knowing what I was talking about.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a centralized, international agency. The Muslim brothers that have gained power in Egypt and Tunisia are peaceful, rational, and have followed democratic procedure flawlessly, with the apparent intention of bringing about legitimate change in their wretched nations.

I, for one, do not see what there is to fear from them. If it's the Sharia law thing, just because I wouldn't want to live under it doesn't mean I should cringe when another country wants it.

Yep but we rushed into Libya

Libya was not a rushed affair. The revolution began on the 2/17/2012. UN action via Security Council approval was granted on 3/19/2011. It took one month, but the key element to allow SC approval were Russian and Chinese abstentions as opposed to vetoes.

UN SC approval (10 votes for, 5 abstentions) was the critical legal validation that made a successful intervention in Libya possible. Libya was a successful mission. In my opinion, the most successful military and diplomatic venture by the US and allies since Gulf War I (1990-1991).

Syria is not Libya though, and Russia and China have drawn lines in the sand. But so have other non-permanent SC members such as Brazil, India and Germany.

I favor non-intervention by the US military in Syria at this time. The situation is too messy and there won't be any successful conclusion to that hypothetical affair. Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy can all clearly see this.

Yep - just a big game of risk - We have 3 players - Russia, China, and US/UK - China seems to be the smartest of the bunch in these neo imperialistic adventures and make no bones about it - nothing the US has done in the last 50 years has to do with democracy and human rights that is just our rallying cry

Syria is divided along ethnic lines (Arab, Kurd, Druze) and religious lines (Shia-Allawite, Sunni, Christian). These are firm distinctions that lend well for brutal internecine warfare.

Please give a similar example of similar division in our own nation (please refrain from the tired examples of white-black-latino).

He was probably speaking about the partisian division, which, while pointlessly vitriolic, rarely lends itself to violence. Simple hyperbole.

Either that, or the whole class warfare thing. Dividing people based on their income percentile. That was kind of weird, but still, no warfar involved.

Anthony Seta and SF accountant

I tip my hat to you both for good solid points and constructive debate on these world topics.

if more people posted on newsvine like you both, I would read it more and interact allot more.

with that said... I believe this is a world stage and not a Syrian stage with the major players playing global chess. The pawns are getting wiped out at this stage of the global chess game.

First, thank you for the compliment. I do try to take the "debates" around here to a more mature, intellectual level.

Secondly, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Syria is being controlled or manipulated. The nations that have the most influence within the Syrian power structure (largely Russia and Iran) have nothing to gain with this conflict. I'm sure they'd like to see the protest/rebellion silently pushed aside, or, as a distant second, see Assad replaced by a similar figure still sympathetic to their interests but capable of reform to improve the lives of the people and head off further unrest.

The West has plenty to gain by Assad's overthrow, but given what I've seen I geniuinely believe our governments were blindsided by the Arab Spring and are still struggling to get a handle on all its implications and possible repercussions rather than manipulating it. So I tend to take our government's statements at face value on this matter. Things are not always so simple as they seem, of course, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to trust the government line.

Anthony & SF,

Excellent points. To further prove your point, the same violence is occurring at different intensity between the same religious lines (Shia-Allawite, Sunni, Christian) in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen.

Yep - With Syrians its a flood and with Mexicans or those from our neighboring countries south of us a 1000 a day constitutes a slow drip and way below quota

lol - so what, you think that wars are fought for the 'public good,' whatever that may be? Wars are always fought over scarce resources. Even WWII was not much fought on behalf of the Jews or any other of the peoples the Nazis oppressed. It was fought because Germany got greedy and tried taking valuable land and resources from its neighbors.

Key words for any nation considering military action: is there a threat to our national interest. And just what did you think that may mean. lmao.

wtfwwus -

Syria is very complicated. Not easy at all. The risks of intervention promise to be great with few if any rewards. There was a great discussion on the subject on Morning Joe this morning. NPR will be having a great discussion and panel this Friday at 11AM EST.

If you are interested in truly learning more, I recommend reading articles from various sources (RealClearWorld.com always has great articles with various viewpoints) and listening to the regional experts (not just the talking heads with political agendas).

Syria's terrain doesn't lend itself to airstrikes. It will be extremely hard for NATO warplanes to attack Syria's military without extensive collateral damage.

It's a tactical issue. It's unlikely to work, and we don't currently have the UN/Arab League blessing that we had for Libya. That's the political issue.

Brisaber,

Not sure why you think what you write is so funny. You sound like a sad miserable person if you think that "good" shouldn't be the only reason to fight a war. My point is exactly that there was no political or economic benefit to helping the Syrian people, so Obama chose not to do anything. That makes Obama just another one of those people, like Bush, who are bad. Get it? Really isn't so funny, is it?

Enough of you.

Anthony and SF, you make very interesting points. However, there are still things that can be done to help people at least defend themselves from such obvious crimial attacks that Assad is performing against them, like smuggling them arms and funding. There are things that we can do to at least help them not be massacured. Human suffering should come before political "issues".

wtfwwus -

The Syrian Free Army is not a homogenous organization. Providing arms to such disparate groups is opening a pandora's box of potential calamity. Notably, some arms could and most likely would fall into the hands of AQ affiliates now operating in Syria and Hezbollah factions that are fighting in the nation.

Our nation would look pretty foolish by handing weaponry (even inadvertently) over to those who are our sworn enemies. Such weapons would likely be turned against us in future theatres of conflict in the mid-east or against the on-going conflict with Israel.

I share your concerns, but I favor caution and prudence rather than a gut emotional response to save the fleeing masses. It's a somewhat cold-hearted calculation on my part I'll admit, but a decision based upon skepticism and ten years+ of conflict in the region that has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives (killed and the wounded walking dead).

I don't necessarily oppose arming the Free Syrian Army, but I don't think it's a great idea; less because they might be used against us at some indeterminate point in the future, and more because we still have no idea how this civil war will play out, with or without our help. I do not wish for the United States to move in weaponry and be (plausibly) accused of stoking civil warfare and trying to overthrow governments it doesn't like... unless we can be sure it works. Ugly solutions are still solutions, but when they fail they're simply catastrophes. I don't want to see news about our weapons being used against civilians in sectarian warfare (quite common in the region) or being captured if Assad manages to roll over the opposition with overwhelming force.

I believe the best option for now is to offer all the non-military aid we can, to try and build the legitamacy and institutions of the SFA and help the individual people suffering from the conflict. The more affection and support we can pull from Assad, the easier it will be to sweep him away if the opposition manages to sufficiently unify.

Hit the nail on the head - Join the IMF or die

Globalization has what to do with refugees and civil war?