Though I'd have to read the text of the treaty again to be sure in this instance, cancelling a cease-fire is similar to saying "I'm now capable and willing to fire first if it is the better course for me" rather than saying "I'm going to shoot you so get ready to fight." The cease fire is "You and I both could really use some time to bury bodies or try diplomacy while re-arming."
That said, I wonder if Putin and by affiliation the Russian government figure into this. Now would be a most opportune time for Putin's crew to stir up some minor trouble somewhere for the US outside a foreign state the Russian leadership have tied themselves to most unfortunately. I'd reckon that they can influence chilly North Korea somehow and yet can pass off the problem to Chinese hands. One wonders in this realm of theory what the Chinese leaders would think about this theoretical threat of destabilization both local and global, and whether it would stir them to side with the ones who bring the scheming or the ones schemed upon; for siding with which is the greater threat to peace? An ambitious but arguably weaker neighbor or a strong alliance of mostly distant powers?
I hope the government that I live with will do what it reasonably can to reduce tensions in the Korean Peninsula area and keep attention focused on Syria, where I'm afraid the government of the United States of America simply is not living up to my expectations with it's current efforts. Is it true my government will not fight despite such low human cost to their own forces that they don't even have to send ground troops to stand for freedom? Do they wish the world to think it is because this war does not hold prospects of enriching already bloatedly wealthy soulless entities through occupation? I'd say a no fly zone would be most appropriate and long over due, even if it has to be done outside of the UN, though I recommend asking each individual UN member government in individual communications outside the UN whether or not they support an independant action no fly zone by willing nations to stop the open civil war in Syria.
Many people may say, what would keep them from instability after we leave? To quote one of the best cartoons in a cartoon to help explain the worry fueling American reticience; 'They fight, they fight! And fight and fight and fight! And fight and fight and fight and fight and fight!' Not financial shenanigans like silly people with money think will work; but a promise, should the peace not hold, of an occupation process along the lines of the Iraq war except this time handled by it's willing neighbors in the region who would be obligated to enter and leave Syria only at the request of the Syrian populace, while in a given area should not enter until requested and stay only as long there be post election violence if that violence is not aimed at somehow keeping them there for nefarious reasons. The problem with that seems obvious to even my less than perfect knowledge of all things, not to mention those on the other side of the Earth: so many different sects in this and surrounding countries. Thereupon I perhaps admitably naively explain to you that this long term cross-sect multi-country occupation should never come to pass if the end result seemed worse for the Syrian people who would control that emergency process, barring someone outside with much influence in the world torpedoing it. The trick is that it would be impossible to bluff such a thing and most people would realize it. It's just plain a terrible alternative to a peaceful democracy... which they could have with slightly more effort down an alternate path. Seemingly the West is not terribly concerned that Islamists have won elections and thus it is hard to accuse them of installing puppets. That said I would hope the continuing instability regarding some of the Islamist governments would perhaps be a good reason to vote in a liberal. Then it's just a matter of hoping the Syrian people elect someone who feels that winning elections/obtaining power over others is less important than doing good that all humans can agree upon and setting a good example for other humans in similar situations in other democracies.... which of course is hit and miss it seems like sometimes all over the world but at least you have the option of attempting to influence the results as an individual through discourse (at least until it becomes something less of a democracy). My hope is that a free internet would make it more difficult to pervert the process of democracy while making it easier for people to communicate their issues to those who would be able to take action. This ability is something that was lacking in comparison the previous century and I would hope that upon resolution of the conflicts that stem from that previous age of humanity that in the coming centuries the internet is utilized by governments the world over to ensure that it's populace is both well educated, informed, and hopefully to be able to speak civilian to foreign civilian about their respective lives and thus able to make sensible decisions for the government to act upon.
I freely admit I probably don't have enough information to suggest the idea as it stands; but I figured I'd post a much less detailed skeleton of the idea how I'd go about it if I personally were in a position to influence the situation. I've probably missed or not taken into account something important so feel free to let me know of how this would not work. I simply figure if the options are fair elections or something much worse; that such a populace in a situation in which I feel sadness for them daily would gladly attempt elections even if there are those among them, leaders even, who would not see peace as their route through life.
Also I feel I should note that unless I say otherwise that if I use a term such as Russians or Chinese I solely mean the government of that respective location and not the people themselves as I am well aware the civilian populace, even the leader's supporters, are not to blame for the actions of the leadership once in position, having lived through 2000-2008 in America.
EDIT: Shortly after writing this I stumbled upon this welcome news:
Arab League offers Syria seat to opposition
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/03/201336162346497842.html
Author
Topic: Egypt and the world and Libya - Now without Ukraine! (Read 376616 times)