The rebels aren't that much better. It's just because there multiple brigades, that you don't get a total view of the amounts of people killed.
-Usage of Nerve gas (Not the big gas attack, but previous gas attacks have been attributed to rebel forces)
-Attack of civilians, and cruel treatment of those, as well as execution of war prisoners
-Using civilian populations as meat shields (Hence the large amounts of civilian casualties by the government)
-Putting them in charge is likely to cause large revenge attacks against Assad supporters.
-Putting them in charge is quite unlikely to result in a stable society.
On a side note. The American intervention is not for humanitarian reasons. It's just the need to fulfill a threat. Sending a few cruise missiles into a firefight rarely improves a situation.
If you want a stable society in Syria, supporting the existing regime is the easiest way to do it. Otherwise you're likely to get a situation similar to Afghanistan, with an ineffective government and radical armed militia.
The fact that there are many brigades give a good reason to determine which are culpable for any chemical attacks attributed to that particular alliance of convenience.
As for their possible use of gas, I covered that already. I'd guess if it's true, it was likely a plot by a faction the US wouldn't want to be affiliated with anyways. One way to look at it is they win both ways if that were the case; if Assad retaliates the US will likely intervene AND has a good chance of looking bad for doing it if they don't explain themselves very well (such as important people saying they support intervention to back up a 'threat' to protect our credibility. You have to remember though that older folks unfortunately remember the Cold War and some even still believe in all of the ideas in vogue at the time to varying degrees and thus might sympathize with an argument that I think sounds counter productive to me.) Thus a faction that would like an intervention to clear the way to a takeover but that doesn't want the US to look very good doing it would stand the most to benefit. I think Putin made a similar case, but it used the black and white blanket term 'rebels' instead of the acknowledgement of different factions.
I won't refute the second. It will keep happening for an indefinable period barring intervention. Are they allowed to move POWs out of country to a UN and humanitarian organization inspected camp in say Turkey? I don't know if they are. If they are, it should definitely be encouraged rather than executions. If not that would be a good thing to set up.
According to wikipedia and video testimony aired previously on television: Opposition forces, mainly composed of defected soldiers and
civilian volunteers, remain without central leadership. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
I also never once suggested putting them in charge. I think I mentioned elections. As for the revenge killings, that is a very valid point. Would you rather people on both sides be charged with war crimes if they earned the charges? I would agree with that.
On a side note. The American intervention is not for humanitarian reasons. It's just the need to fulfill a threat. Sending a few cruise missiles into a firefight rarely improves a situation.
It is for humanitarian reasons for some of us. I've paid attention to the matter the whole time. If it was simply to fulfill a threat I most certainly would be against it.
As for supporting the regime being the way to a stable society in Syria, why is there civil war in Syria?
I can't tell the future, but I don't think that with the application of previous knowledge by people there it will turn into another Afghanistan. They are two different countries with a common religious majority. I assume groups that oppose elections will oppose them and there will probably be tragedies committed by some of the more radical, but the war would be over and the refugees might be able to go home.
Author
Topic: Egypt and the world and Libya - Now without Ukraine! (Read 377508 times)