Syria: What President Obama could have done:

[cali]

Over the past few months the splintered anti-Assad factions in Syria have been losing. They've been outgunned and outmaneuvered by government forces, most recently losing Qusair.
http://world.time.com/2013/05/20/how-syrias-rebels-arent-winning-the-war-the-anatomy-of-a-battle/

There is little doubt that Assad's regime is a brutal one. At the same time, there's little doubt that should the rebels succeed, the future of Syria is at least as grim, and this war, which is already a regional one, will spread further into Iraq, Lebanon and possibly Turkey and Jordan.

Providing small arms to various rebel factions may prolong a bloody war that's already resulted in the deaths of 90,000 people and created over a million refugees, but it won't end it anytime soon. That is not a positive development.

President Obama has been deeply reluctant to get involved in Syria despite the pressure to do so. Now, he's committed further CIA training on the ground and small arms. This involvement may have more to do with H'zbollah's recent entry in the war than the purported use of chemical weapons. After all, chemical weapons, if used have killed a tiny fraction of those killed in this war; an estimated 150.

The American people are firmly against this step or any U.S. involvement in Syria. President Obama had the opportunity to address the public and explain why U.S. involvement would not be in U.S. interests or provide humane intervention.

I don't know why he chose not to do so, but in committing the U.S. to aid the rebels, I fear he's prolonging a civil/regional war and inexorably bringing more players onto this already bloody field.

[graham4anything]

1. actually, this article loses me when it CLAIMS AS FACT that Americans don't want anything done

There has been NO major polling on this (except for those polls with ulterior and badly worded motives).

But then, this is a very long article, the above are five paragraphs so maybe that wasn't the intent of the writer as I don't know this writer so don't know their angle of things.

BTW, even if poll says that, FDR should have gone into WW2 many years earlier, but polls told him there was no stomach for another war so he sat on the sidelines, and its a damn shame considering how many millions died.

But then, there is another oddity here-
those against this, aren't they the same people in the media that say there are no bad people? Here they are saying there is bad people on all sides.

I for one believe in ONE world, ONE people. Therefore, I don't believe in walls and bridges, but in no borders.

BTW, I saw there is a plan being formulated to bring many refugees into America...humane would be allowing all the refuges to live in a climate in America that is similar to the climate of their homeland.
While I gladly would welcome any and all in NYC, NJ, Chicago, etc., with the climate of the Mid East, that means the warm climate of the southwest as opposed to the bitter cold winters in the North.
It is a major adjustment for people to move to a different country, and as everyone who has relatives in Florida knows,
and the Floridians who have relatives in NYC know, it always seems like someone in every family gets pneumonia or the flu
or something in the quick climate change.

One of the cruelest things after Katrina, was the massive movement (and that was in the middle of the night at gun point) of the citizens of New Orleans being moved to Chicago and St. Louis and the cold cold winters, from the beautiful weather year round in the New Orleans (hot and humid as opposed to cold and icy). Takes the body a long time to accept the new climate.

And it goes without saying we should provide free healthcare for the refugees, and if they want, citizenship.

[cali]

3. not that your word salad is worth responding to, but.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589693/most-americans-oppose-arming-syrian-rebels-poll-shows/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/americans-are-reluctant-to-aid-syrian-rebels-polls-show/

[graham4anything]

4. Bill was damned if he did and didn't in Rwanda...and

polls told FDR there was no appetite to go into WW2 after WW1, so millions died, while America(much to FDR's sorrow, as he did care) ignored what happened until Pearl Harbor allowed the atrocity to stop in Nazi Germany.

(though of course, FDR had his own foibles, and Truman and Eisenhower later on had much worse foibles.)

Bill Clinton was damned if he did and didn't in Rwanda.

JFK almost ended the world if not for a quirk and a damn lucky break.

However, 99% of everyone said go into Afghanastan including Ron Paul.

It is a dilemma, and thank God Barack Obama is here and is President at this important gateway to the future time in America.

Just imagine if it were President Romney or McCain (and no, just because they have opinions here, doesn't mean it is comparitable to an entire Romney/MCCain/Palin presidency (though some might try to say it is).

[redgreenandblue]

2. IMO the possibility for a peaceful resolution of Syria went bye-bye with the intervention in Libya.

To have solved Syria peacefully would have required a coalition with China and Russia and would have likely lead into a form of partitioning, where each side would have had to have lived with a partial victory. With Libya it became clear that the model was "regime change or nothing" after which China and Russia stonewalled.

[WovenGems]

5. Empire Building

That is what you describe and the world frowns on that. So the big players need to tread lightly, and they are.

[redgreenandblue]

6. Whether we like it or not, the big players have interests in the region and will act accordingly.

The USA took the whole pie in Libya. Thus, China and Russia make sure the same doesn't happen in Syria. I'm not judging the ethics of it, I am describing what I think happened.