By whom? We should just bomb whoever? Maybe Canada! Someone used chemical weapons in Syria, so let's bomb Canada!
2. Both Russia and the U.S. should agree to freeze any arms shipments to any factions in Syria. A lack of arms shipments would, over time, make negotiations the more attractive option as the arms supplies become depleted.
3. The EU should renew its arms embargo regarding Syria when it expires on June 1..
:lol:
While Canada will eventually be taken over, no, Israel, Britain and the US could easily locate where the various stockpiles of chemical weapons are, and then destroy them. The anti-air defenses that Syria has can be neutralized. Pretty much anything that they have (offensive/defensive) can be neutralized by our combined offensive/defensive capabilities.
Besides, once Assad is out, and the heavy military infrastructure is destroyed, the CIA or another Western intelligence agency will probably start picking off the rebels one-by-one via drone strike or airstrike. I mean, its not like the West looks at the rebels like 'good guys'. They've been co-opted by extremist elements and need to be eliminated. The War on Terrorism continues. A Clean Break continues.
But unless you can get an embargo from Iran, the rebels will be outgunned. We can't even get the Iraqis to agree to stop overflights from Iran. And the Saudis have no incentive to see the Assad Regime retain power, so them and the various Gulf States will keep sending weapons.
At this point as proven by the Israelis, the Syrian Defense Net isn't as strong as we once thought. A few surgical B-2 strikes could severely weaken the Assad Regime.
All the while the people that suffer the most as usual on a 21st century battlefield are the innocents.
So just like Iraq?
No, everyone knows Saddam used chemical weapons to commit genocide against the Kurds, killing towns of 10k... women and children dead in the streets.
I am talking about the build up of Iraq 2003.
You were talking about the use of chemical weapons.
If you are referring to intelligence agencies, then your statement is even more ignorant than I imagined. Intel from all over the world believed Saddam had weapons and a program. Why? Because, as everyone now knows, he was actively attempting to fake such a stock and program in order to fend of the Iranians.
Do you actually know anything about this?
I was not talking about the US of Chemical Weapons.
Innocents suffer a lot less than past centuries.
I'm sure that's comforting to the parents of dead children.
It is a good thing we don't have dimwitted cowboy in charge here in the US or else we would have glassed the place based on whatever evidence he wanted to use to justify his war. I swear that boys dogs were talking to him and telling him some crazy things. We must stop the muslims from killing all the muslim targets in the country. Seriously, how are we going to go to war if all the muslims are dead already?
Several points:
1. I agree that an arms embargo should include all outside states. To garner Iran's cooperation, Iran almost certainly will need to have a seat at the proverbial table in the international conference.
2. Currently the parties to the conflict are in a situation that approaches stalemate, though I think the government's hold is slowly eroding, so it isn't quite a stalemate. With neither party really having a qualitative edge and neither party expecting imminent victory, a carefully-designed diplomatic framework that includes an arms embargo, might have the potential to shift the calculus to diplomacy and away from force. If so, civilians who have suffered enormously as the parties have fought ever more viciously with little regard for civilians, could finally gain a measure of respite.
3. To have any chance at reaching a legitimate path forward, all the parties to the conflict will need to have a role at the conference. Although I personally believe the Assad regime has lost legitimacy, it still commands allegiance of the minority Alawite and minority Shia populations, hence it cannot be excluded without the risk that a post-Assad transition would unravel in a fresh insurgency.
4. Aside from an agreed political path forward, which might require general forgiveness/reconciliation for the parties to the conflict, an important element of a viable transition would include robust protections for Syria's various ethnic and religious groups.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?