Syrian Internal Conflict

[exPrivate]

Around 10 French Special forces were arested at Homs after the government troops retook the city.
France's secret war against the Syrian people [Voltaire Network]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKsuGB2fNU"]Back Homs Rebels flee, French troops captured by army - RussiaToday - YouTube[/nomedia]
Ð’ ÑирийÑком ХомÑе захвачены деÑÑÑ‚ÑŒ французÑких ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð¼Ð°Ð½Ð´Ð¾Ñ - Военный Обозреватель

 

[lucinator]

looks like several western special forces have been in the area, though this does not surprise me much.

British Special Forces Training Syrian Rebels?

 

[Beatmaster]

Before this topic goes out of hand i want to point out one thing:

I believe that everyone can agree on the fact that Assad and his army have crossed a line in moral values.
Today in 2012 you would assume that such brutalities are a thing of the past however it has been shown that its still possible if the world is looking away.
The news footage show clearly systematic destruction by the Syrian army.

And personally i do not care much about what Russia or China thinks and believe, also i am not a fan of NATO/US either but in this particular case someone has to go there and say stop.

The reason Russia did VETO the resolution is mainly because Syria is one of the last "Russia" puppets dating back from the cold war.
Allowing NATO to take action would mean that Russia would lose its last bit of real influence in the region, So a VETO from Russia was to be expected, From China on the other hand its more a symbolic gesture towards Russia and a little "Middle finger" towards NATO and the US.

However i do not believe that a VETO should stop the international community to go into Syria and stop this slaughter. Afterall there are ways beyond the UN Council to achieve a military consensus to go into Syria and doing so leaves Russia & China on the side line.

Anyway anno 2012 its save to say that such horrible acts should not happen specially with the rich history (That the EU for example has) where we all did see up-close and personal what genocide means and still we allow it to happen in our backyard.

Sorry guys but i personally find that unacceptable, this has to stop one way or another.
Because yes it might be a diplomatic problem to take actions against Syria however letting this thing go out of hand (More then it already has) will eventually create even a bigger problem.

Just my few cents here.

 

[Beatmaster]

looks like several western special forces have been in the area, though this does not surprise me much.

British Special Forces Training Syrian Rebels?

I am not sure if that would do Syria any good.
Keep in mind Syria is not Libya.
For example Libya did have thousands of rebels who where fighting a much weaker Gaddafi. So supporting rebels there with training and weapons would make a huge difference.

However in Syria there are only a few hundred rebels who fight Assad elite forces.
So by training rebels to fight the Army you give Assad a good reason to come down even harder upon his people.
And for that the rebel group is not big enough.
Also it should be noted that Assad has a much larger and better equipped army then Libya ever did have so practical speaking
If the rebels in Syria would have been in bigger numbers then the training and weapons delivery (If happened) would or could make a small difference, however due the small size of the rebel force Assad will and can crush them with ease and there is nothing much the rebels can do about it.
And thats the big difference between Assad and Gadaffi.

 

[exPrivate]

Sorry guys but i personally find that unacceptable, this has to stop one way or another.

Sorry to ask, but does that mean at any cost? And what about international law? Or they are such untermenschen, that our rules do not apply to them? I hope, your answers to all these questions are "no" as are my answers to them...

 

[Beatmaster]

Sorry to ask, but does that mean at any cost? And what about international law? Or they are such untermenschen, that our rules do not apply to them? I hope, your answers to all these questions are "no" as are my answers to them...

Who said at all cost? I said something has to be done one way or another.
If this means force or if this means action in any shape or form then so be it as long its within lines of international law and within acceptable rules.

The thing is not about actions itself, the thing is that someone who calls himself Assad is killing his own Civilians in a way that cannot be accepted by any standard.
And that has to stop period.

However in regards to your first question i would like to add that international law kinda failed the moment we allowed Assad to kill his people in the first place, the second time it failed was when the international community failed to see the reports from the Syria and the third time it failed was when Russia and China Vetoed the actions.
So any positive step towards stopping Assad from killing his civilians is already one step in the right direction i believe.

So to speak i personally fear that if the international community cannot come to some sort of agreement that things will heat up in Syria and that the slaughter will continue which means that normal civilians pay the prize and that CANNOT be accepted in any case.

I do not know how much the cost would be or what it would take to stop this but i personally believe that every hour we wait and sit here while doing nothing is one hour to much.

Simple fact this is some sort of genocide and that has to stop.
Obviously history did not teach us as much as it should have otherwise this would have stopped already imo.

 

[Sampanviking]

Maybe it would be more credible to overthrow "the butcher Dictator of Bahrain" and installing a modern 21st Century working multi party democracy there before moving on to Syria?

Of course you may have to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia before Syria as well, seeing as how it was Saudi forces that invaded Bahrain and did a fair share of the butchering.

 

[Beatmaster]

Maybe it would be more credible to overthrow "the butcher Dictator of Bahrain" and installing a modern 21st Century working multi party democracy there before moving on to Syria?

Of course you may have to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia before Syria as well, seeing as how it was Saudi forces that invaded Bahrain and did a fair share of the butchering.

Yeah i see your point, and yes i realize this.

However i got a point.

 

[Feanor]

Yeah i see your point, and yes i realize this.

However i got a point.

If your position is one of principal then we would be involved in overthrowing and managing dozens of third world counties. That's just not realistic. If it's one of convenience, then I would say that you can't just disregard Russian and Chinese objections, because their cooperation is needed on other issues. Note how Russian didn't veto the resolution on Libya? There's a good chance that this was done with the expectation that NATO would not similarly interfere in Syria. If you start disregarding their position entirely, they will not cooperate on a number of other issues. It could easily end up not being worth it.

 

[My2Cents]

And personally i do not care much about what Russia or China thinks and believe, also i am not a fan of NATO/US either but in this particular case someone has to go there and say stop.

The reason Russia did VETO the resolution is mainly because Syria is one of the last "Russia" puppets dating back from the cold war.

Allowing NATO to take action would mean that Russia would lose its last bit of real influence in the region, So a VETO from Russia was to be expected, From China on the other hand its more a symbolic gesture towards Russia and a little "Middle finger" towards NATO and the US.

However i do not believe that a VETO should stop the international community to go into Syria and stop this slaughter. Afterall there are ways beyond the UN Council to achieve a military consensus to go into Syria and doing so leaves Russia & China on the side line.

The key to the situation is the Arab League. If they decide on intervention then Turkey, which is the only practical location to base aircraft out of, will be available. At that point Russia and China will drop their opposition in the UN Security Council (If they don’t they will not be able to influence subsequent events, as well as losing most of their influence with the Arab League) so that the UN will be available to negotiate a settlement. Faced with the certainty of NATO action Syria will move quickly to resolve the situation with the UN.

This is purely speculation on my part, but the big sticking point is probably behind the scenes negotiations between the Arab League and NATO. The Arab League does not want a repeat of the Libyan intervention, and will demand restrictions on the air campaign that NATO is unwilling to comply with. NATO does not want a repeat of the chaos in Libya after the government falls, and will want ground forces from the Arab League to maintain peace until a new Syrian government is in place, which the league will be unwilling to commit to.

 

[Beatmaster]

If your position is one of principal then we would be involved in overthrowing and managing dozens of third world counties. That's just not realistic. If it's one of convenience, then I would say that you can't just disregard Russian and Chinese objections, because their cooperation is needed on other issues. Note how Russian didn't veto the resolution on Libya? There's a good chance that this was done with the expectation that NATO would not similarly interfere in Syria. If you start disregarding their position entirely, they will not cooperate on a number of other issues. It could easily end up not being worth it.

Alright here we go....
I am not suggesting that a government should be overthrown and i am not suggesting that we should manage third world countries, and yes i wrote me reply on both principal and common sense.
But what i say is that the world should make a serious effort to stop genocides.
And the only thing we do is talk about diplomatics, economics and national/international interests...so my question what about the interests of those poor people that are being slaughtered? Does that not count?
Or do you say it might end up not being worth it?
So what you are saying, killing a few thousand people is a small prize to pay for diplomatic favors? what interest that Russia and China might have is bigger then the cost of thousands of civilians in a foreign nation?
This is not Russia's or China's territory so imo and forgive me for saying but to hell with those interests.
We are talking about human lives here....that should be a international interest.

Some said in the multiple replies upon my post that the world does not want the same mess as happened in Libya but my question is: Is that a call the world can make?
Is it justified to have thousands of people being slaughtered to avoid a "mess"?
Not trying to be rude here but thats just BS and double standards.
Virtually every government did sign a agreement that states that genocides are forbidden, NATO, EU, UN, SCO and all those other organizations, agreements, pacts and Unions (And so on...) they all have multiple chapters about human rights and all state explicit that Genocide or any form of it is strictly forbidden.

So i might be wrong here but i do understand the interests that Russia and China has and i do understand that the Arab league is not keen on a intervention i get all that ok?
However based upon what i said where are the rights of the people that are being slaughtered and what does it take before "International Interests" Are being put aside to help those people as we have should done months ago?

I do understand that everything is a bit more complicated so please do not get me wrong.
But we live in 2012 where values and morals do count.
If history did teach us anything then it is that we should not allow any dictator or leader to systematic killing his people.

So forgive me saying this but i honestly do not care much about "international interests"
Imo saving those people should be a international interest everything else can wait.

Btw

Maybe it would be more credible to overthrow "the butcher Dictator of Bahrain" and installing a modern 21st Century working multi party democracy there before moving on to Syria?

Of course you may have to do the same thing in Saudi Arabia before Syria as well, seeing as how it was Saudi forces that invaded Bahrain and did a fair share of the butchering.

Does this justify butchering?
So if my neighborer grabs a gun and kills a person does it give me the right to get my fair share of killing?

Sorry for me getting carried away but it just pisses me off.
I hope you see what i am trying to point out.

 

[Beatmaster]

The key to the situation is the Arab League. If they decide on intervention then Turkey, which is the only practical location to base aircraft out of, will be available. At that point Russia and China will drop their opposition in the UN Security Council (If they don’t they will not be able to influence subsequent events, as well as losing most of their influence with the Arab League) so that the UN will be available to negotiate a settlement. Faced with the certainty of NATO action Syria will move quickly to resolve the situation with the UN.

This is purely speculation on my part, but the big sticking point is probably behind the scenes negotiations between the Arab League and NATO. The Arab League does not want a repeat of the Libyan intervention, and will demand restrictions on the air campaign that NATO is unwilling to comply with. NATO does not want a repeat of the chaos in Libya after the government falls, and will want ground forces from the Arab League to maintain peace until a new Syrian government is in place, which the league will be unwilling to commit to.

I think your speculation might be more true then you think.
But fact remains its a genocide wide open to see for the whole world everyone with a television can see it in detail, youtube is flooded with little movies.
My point here is both the Arab League and NATO as well the whole international community cannot deny that.
So if the UN cannot act because Russia and China VETO the whole thing, and the Arab League does to step in themself while they also do not want the west to act, then my question is who is going to step in?

Or is it going to be close the eyes and walk away and pray it never happened?
See my point?

 

[Equinox]

Alright here we go....
I am not suggesting that a government should be overthrown and i am not suggesting that we should manage third world countries, and yes i wrote me reply on both principal and common sense.
But what i say is that the world should make a serious effort to stop genocides.
And the only thing we do is talk about diplomatics, economics and national/international interests...so my question what about the interests of those poor people that are being slaughtered? Does that not count?
Or do you say it might end up not being worth it?
So what you are saying, killing a few thousand people is a small prize to pay for diplomatic favors? what interest that Russia and China might have is bigger then the cost of thousands of civilians in a foreign nation?
This is not Russia's or China's territory so imo and forgive me for saying but to hell with those interests.
We are talking about human lives here....that should be a international interest.

Some said in the multiple replies upon my post that the world does not want the same mess as happened in Libya but my question is: Is that a call the world can make?
Is it justified to have thousands of people being slaughtered to avoid a "mess"?
Not trying to be rude here but thats just BS and double standards.
Virtually every government did sign a agreement that states that genocides are forbidden, NATO, EU, UN, SCO and all those other organizations, agreements, pacts and Unions (And so on...) they all have multiple chapters about human rights and all state explicit that Genocide or any form of it is strictly forbidden.

So i might be wrong here but i do understand the interests that Russia and China has and i do understand that the Arab league is not keen on a intervention i get all that ok?
However based upon what i said where are the rights of the people that are being slaughtered and what does it take before "International Interests" Are being put aside to help those people as we have should done months ago?

I do understand that everything is a bit more complicated so please do not get me wrong.
But we live in 2012 where values and morals do count.
If history did teach us anything then it is that we should not allow any dictator or leader to systematic killing his people.

So forgive me saying this but i honestly do not care much about "international interests"
Imo saving those people should be a international interest everything else can wait.

A serious effort to stop genocides? The world makes the effort, as it can, but things aren't so clear cut. Stopping genocides, is not nearly so simple as saying so. And to do so, then you are probably going to need to put troops on the ground long term, which pretty much necessitates knocking off the old leadership. Which is where all that "talk about diplomatics, economics and national/international interests" comes into it.

Not many nations, especially Western, are going to have much interest in doing so after the last decade... Even the smaller of the interventions in recent history have required long term commitments, ala East Timor.

I am a little confused about your statement on the Chinese and Russians though. You say it's not their territory, so they shouldn't have any say etc, but then what about the rest of us? It's not our territory either, but you are saying everyone else should do something, that we should all have a say? I doubt that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese...

As for whether it's justified to do nothing to avoid a 'mess'... it just might be. The consequences of intervention could be far in excess of those of doing nothing. Also, I am not entirely sure you can say this is genocide. While the Syrian methods are indeed rather... brutal and excessive, it can be argued they are putting down a rebellion against the Syrian Government.

It's a bad situation, but the international community can't go around intervening everywhere, just because people are being killed, as callous as that may be or sound. It would probably be nice to be able to act on purely moral terms, but the world doesn't work like that and you can't just ignore the other considerations that need to be taken into account.

 

[Feanor]

Alright here we go....
I am not suggesting that a government should be overthrown and i am not suggesting that we should manage third world countries, and yes i wrote me reply on both principal and common sense.
But what i say is that the world should make a serious effort to stop genocides.

The actions of the Syrian government don't amount to genocide.

And the only thing we do is talk about diplomatics, economics and national/international interests...so my question what about the interests of those poor people that are being slaughtered? Does that not count?
Or do you say it might end up not being worth it?

That's exactly what I'm saying. That it might end up being more trouble down the road.

So what you are saying, killing a few thousand people is a small prize to pay for diplomatic favors? what interest that Russia and China might have is bigger then the cost of thousands of civilians in a foreign nation?

Would a few thousand Syrian civilians be too high a price to pay for (purely hypothetically) preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon? What about Russian support for Afghanistan?

This is not Russia's or China's territory so imo and forgive me for saying but to hell with those interests.

It's Syrian territory. To hell with the interests of the Syrian government?

We are talking about human lives here....that should be a international interest.

So any time there are human lives at stake, the international community should be able to intervene at will? Sorry, but state sovereignty over-rules that.

Some said in the multiple replies upon my post that the world does not want the same mess as happened in Libya but my question is: Is that a call the world can make?

If the world can't make that call then the world has no right to intervene in the first place, because an intervention is also making a call.

Is it justified to have thousands of people being slaughtered to avoid a "mess"?

What if more die from intervening? That's the real issue.

Not trying to be rude here but thats just BS and double standards.
Virtually every government did sign a agreement that states that genocides are forbidden, NATO, EU, UN, SCO and all those other organizations, agreements, pacts and Unions (And so on...) they all have multiple chapters about human rights and all state explicit that Genocide or any form of it is strictly forbidden.

Again. Syrian actions don't amount to genocide.

So i might be wrong here but i do understand the interests that Russia and China has and i do understand that the Arab league is not keen on a intervention i get all that ok?
However based upon what i said where are the rights of the people that are being slaughtered and what does it take before "International Interests" Are being put aside to help those people as we have should done months ago?

Individuals have next to no rights, in terms of international law. People are being slaughtered all over the world. Should we intervene in every case?

I do understand that everything is a bit more complicated so please do not get me wrong.
But we live in 2012 where values and morals do count.
If history did teach us anything then it is that we should not allow any dictator or leader to systematic killing his people.

But we do. On a regular basis. If we intervened every time, we'd be stuck in endless third world quagmires.

So forgive me saying this but i honestly do not care much about "international interests"
Imo saving those people should be a international interest everything else can wait.

It just doesn't work that way. First of all governments are fundamentally self interested. They exist to further the interests of their own population, the world be damned. That's why we're divided into nation states.

Does this justify butchering?
So if my neighborer grabs a gun and kills a person does it give me the right to get my fair share of killing?

Sorry for me getting carried away but it just pisses me off.
I hope you see what i am trying to point out.

What you're trying to point out is irrelevant. International politics aren't governed by feelings. Nor are they governed by morals. Nor can they be judged in moral terms. Each government has a first responsibility to its own constituents. Not to the world at large, certainly not to the people of another nation.

 

[Beatmaster]

The actions of the Syrian government don't amount to genocide.



That's exactly what I'm saying. That it might end up being more trouble down the road.



Would a few thousand Syrian civilians be too high a price to pay for (purely hypothetically) preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon? What about Russian support for Afghanistan?



It's Syrian territory. To hell with the interests of the Syrian government?



So any time there are human lives at stake, the international community should be able to intervene at will? Sorry, but state sovereignty over-rules that.



If the world can't make that call then the world has no right to intervene in the first place, because an intervention is also making a call.



What if more die from intervening? That's the real issue.



Again. Syrian actions don't amount to genocide.



Individuals have next to no rights, in terms of international law. People are being slaughtered all over the world. Should we intervene in every case?



But we do. On a regular basis. If we intervened every time, we'd be stuck in endless third world quagmires.



It just doesn't work that way. First of all governments are fundamentally self interested. They exist to further the interests of their own population, the world be damned. That's why we're divided into nation states.



What you're trying to point out is irrelevant. International politics aren't governed by feelings. Nor are they governed by morals. Nor can they be judged in moral terms. Each government has a first responsibility to its own constituents. Not to the world at large, certainly not to the people of another nation.

Feanor those are fair points ok?

The actions of the Syrian government don't amount to genocide.
The media is calling it mass murder, genocide and systematic killing personally i would call it insane ok?

That's exactly what I'm saying. That it might end up being more trouble down the road.
True nothing we can do about that there are no good outcomes in such situation.

Would a few thousand Syrian civilians be too high a price to pay for (purely hypothetically) preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon? What about Russian support for Afghanistan?
Thats not the point here, its not a trade off, there is no greater good here.
Its not like kill 1000 and save a million.

It's Syrian territory. To hell with the interests of the Syrian government?
Very valid point, however feeling or no feeling moral or no moral if a government is resorting to actions like the Syrian government then they walk on very thin ice agree?
Another thing to consider is that international agreements made by virtually every nation in the world states that mass murder, geno and forms of it are forbidden.
And it could lead to intervention according to international law.

So any time there are human lives at stake, the international community should be able to intervene at will? Sorry, but state sovereignty over-rules that.
Valid point but this is not some human lives this is much bigger then that so in exceptional cases like Libya and Syria actions would be possible.

Again. Syrian actions don't amount to genocide.
Systematic killing of a group in this case so called rebels/ freedom warriors is pretty much a genocide.

Individuals have next to no rights, in terms of international law. People are being slaughtered all over the world. Should we intervene in every case?
No not every case i agree with you.
However that does not make it any less wrong.

But we do. On a regular basis. If we intervened every time, we'd be stuck in endless third world quagmires.
Jup very true however sitting back and doing nothing is not helping either.

It just doesn't work that way. First of all governments are fundamentally self interested. They exist to further the interests of their own population, the world be damned. That's why we're divided into nation states.
True and every nation states should have the right to do so as they please within limits obviously.

What you're trying to point out is irrelevant. International politics aren't governed by feelings. Nor are they governed by morals. Nor can they be judged in moral terms. Each government has a first responsibility to its own constituents. Not to the world at large, certainly not to the people of another nation.

Irrelevant? tell that to those who are being murdered ill bet they could point out a thing or two.
Irrelevant? what about international agreements made by the same government to protect and serve their nation their people? where does it say kill them all or where does it say kill a part?
Sure international politics are not ruled by feelings or morals, however agreements made by the same governments should prevent them from resorting to mass killing in the first place.

Lets get this right here all the point you addressed and the points other addressed are true i will not challenge that.
But anyone thinking a government should get away with this and anyone thinking that if you close your eyes walk away ...that it did not exist needs to wake up...

Personally i realize that setting foot on Syrian soil is one action we should prevent because of the obvious backlash.
However you cannot tell me that there is not a single international law that can effective stop this (By any proper means necessary)

 

[Beatmaster]

A serious effort to stop genocides? The world makes the effort, as it can, but things aren't so clear cut. Stopping genocides, is not nearly so simple as saying so. And to do so, then you are probably going to need to put troops on the ground long term, which pretty much necessitates knocking off the old leadership. Which is where all that "talk about diplomatics, economics and national/international interests" comes into it.

Not many nations, especially Western, are going to have much interest in doing so after the last decade... Even the smaller of the interventions in recent history have required long term commitments, ala East Timor.

I am a little confused about your statement on the Chinese and Russians though. You say it's not their territory, so they shouldn't have any say etc, but then what about the rest of us? It's not our territory either, but you are saying everyone else should do something, that we should all have a say? I doubt that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese...

As for whether it's justified to do nothing to avoid a 'mess'... it just might be. The consequences of intervention could be far in excess of those of doing nothing. Also, I am not entirely sure you can say this is genocide. While the Syrian methods are indeed rather... brutal and excessive, it can be argued they are putting down a rebellion against the Syrian Government.

It's a bad situation, but the international community can't go around intervening everywhere, just because people are being killed, as callous as that may be or sound. It would probably be nice to be able to act on purely moral terms, but the world doesn't work like that and you can't just ignore the other considerations that need to be taken into account.

Yes so true and so right.
Question anno 2012 would it be possible to get a international law to effective stop geno, mass or any form of grand scale systematic murder? and what would be needed to get this law active?

Because as you said it just does not work that way however i think that every member on this great forum would agree that anno 2012 with all the smart heads on this world we must be able to come to some sort of HARD agreements to prevent this in the future.

Anyway guys sorry for the hassle i put up on this topic.
But it gets to me alright? I just find it really hard to swallow that this can happen and probably will happen in 2012 and beyond that.
With all the efforts made world wide to provide people with freedom and so on this would be a issue that has priority and should be solved.

 

[Beatmaster]

oeps i forgot

I am a little confused about your statement on the Chinese and Russians though. You say it's not their territory, so they shouldn't have any say etc, but then what about the rest of us? It's not our territory either, but you are saying everyone else should do something, that we should all have a say? I doubt that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese...

Lol is there anything that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese?
I personally see economic interests as a lesser thing then standing up for human rights specially inn a case like Libya and Syria.
And yes if it comes to Economic considerations from a Russian or Chinese pov then they just can take a back seat.
However on a general way each nation IMO should have a say IF and only if there is a serious need for it.
Obviously you are not going to go around and dictate what a nation should do.
We need to respect sovereignty however in clear cases like Libya and Syria international law should overrule that and NO other nation should be able to VETO the right of protecting the people against its own government.
Now note i am not saying that this is a tool like heey i do not like the way you handle your people lets step in as in that case it would justify anything and could be miss used.
But perhaps some grand council or some big law agreements like the war court should be able to force a government into submission to stop mass killing.
Simple said: If i kill a person on the street i will go to court and jail this should be the same for a nation leader.....

 

[My2Cents]

Lol is there anything that would go down well with the Russians or Chinese?
I personally see economic interests as a lesser thing then standing up for human rights specially inn a case like Libya and Syria.
And yes if it comes to Economic considerations from a Russian or Chinese pov then they just can take a back seat.

Economic considerations are secondary, the primary reason is to get firm language in any resolution at the UN that does not allow the resolution to be used as a precedent for intervening in other countries, especially Russia and China.

However on a general way each nation IMO should have a say IF and only if there is a serious need for it.
Obviously you are not going to go around and dictate what a nation should do
We need to respect sovereignty however in clear cases like Libya and Syria international law should overrule that and NO other nation should be able to VETO the right of protecting the people against its own government.
Now note i am not saying that this is a tool like heey i do not like the way you handle your people lets step in as in that case it would justify anything and could be miss used. .

These statements produce a series of obvious oxymorons. But that is inherent to the approach to the subject you are taking.

But perhaps some grand council or some big law agreements like the war court should be able to force a government into submission to stop mass killing.
Simple said: If i kill a person on the street i will go to court and jail this should be the same for a nation leader.....

We already have your ideas in place.

• The grand council is the UN Security Council. They have already passed a number of resolutions condemning the actions in Syria. But critical members are not convinced that military force is the only solution, and that includes more members than the Russians and Chinese, they are just the ones with veto power.
• The war court is the ICC. Since its inception it has caused more human suffering with its universal jurisdiction and supporting states willingness to punish any state giving refuge to former tyrants than any organization since Stalin’s post-WWII purges. The problem simply is that in the current ill-defined state any head of state can be accused of genocide, just from the normal execution of police powers.
  Faced with no place safe to flee to and the probability of spending the rest of their life in prison awaiting multiple trials (to date the ICC has taken over a decade to bring a case to trial) every tyrant has elected to go down fighting, adding thousands to the eventual death toll.

The problems are as follows:

1. You have to come up with a definition of genocide that everyone can live with that does not preclude the states duty to protect its citizens. The problem is that, like pornography, everyone ‘knows’ it when they see it, but no one can come up with a legal definition that can be agree on.
   
2. You need a way to enforce the enforcement of compliance. The UN resolutions are almost always ignored because they lack an enforcement mechanism other than that volunteered by its members. In general that means the USA and/or NATO, if they are interested.
   
3. A mechanism for dealing with 3rd party actors on both sides of a conflict. The forces on the side(s) fighting a government (or each other, or both) are frequently as bad, or worse, than the government. Then there are groups like al-Qaeda which are fighting for a “higher cause” where the ends justify any means. Finally you have groups that engage strictly in ‘lawfare’, the non-violent version of the former, that will seek to exploit this for their “higher cause”, and destroy any support for whatever system you can design.

 

[Feanor]

The media is calling it mass murder, genocide and systematic killing personally i would call it insane ok?

Genocide is a very specific case under international law. If it's not genocide, the grounds for intervention become much flimsier.

True nothing we can do about that there are no good outcomes in such situation.

We can avoid making it worse by not interfering. There are no good outcomes, but there are better and worse ones. Before advocating intervention you nee to think through what kind of intervention, what the costs and risks are.

Thats not the point here, its not a trade off, there is no greater good here.
Its not like kill 1000 and save a million.

Actually it is. Alienate Russia and China to save a few thousand Syrian civilians, and next time they'll veto an arms embargo on a country like Sudan, which is killing on a bigger scale, with no international intervention in sight. Russia has sacrificed some of their own interests to allow the intervention in Libya. They are not willing to let the same happen to Syria. When you combine this point with my previous one, you end up with a very questionable situation. Is it really worth it?

Very valid point, however feeling or no feeling moral or no moral if a government is resorting to actions like the Syrian government then they walk on very thin ice agree?
Another thing to consider is that international agreements made by virtually every nation in the world states that mass murder, geno and forms of it are forbidden.
And it could lead to intervention according to international law.

Disagreed. Russian actions in Chechnya were often far worse then the current situation in Syria. After the assault on Grozny in winter of 1999-2000, the city was virtually flattened. And yet the international community certainly wasn't about to try and put troops on the ground to stop the Russians. Russia caught some flak in the media, and had to listen to some fairly harsh criticism, but that's about it. I understand that the situation was radically different then the one in Syria, but if it's simply the scale of death and destruction that you seem to consider ample justification, then there are far worse examples where the international community is doing nothing. If Syria warrants intervention on those grounds then Sudan in Darfur warrants it even more.

Valid point but this is not some human lives this is much bigger then that so in exceptional cases like Libya and Syria actions would be possible.

So it's a question of scale? Then how many people have to die before it's acceptable? 999 is still ok, but when they kill the 1000th person we have to intervene? And do we really have enough information to even make the judgement call? The media is usually lost when it comes to objectively reporting the situation on the ground. What if the Syrian government is correct, the rebels don't represent the general population, civilian casualties are relatively minor, and they Syrian actions justified? Do we as citizens of another country, a world away, have the right to be making decisions like that on behalf of the Syrian people? Do our opinions even matter?

Systematic killing of a group in this case so called rebels/ freedom warriors is pretty much a genocide.

Bullshit. NATO is systematically killing the Taliban in Afghanistan. That certainly isn't genocide. Russia was systematically killing German soldiers in WWII. Also not genocide. Killing an armed and organized force, based on their membership in said armed organized force is not genocide, it's a conflict or a war.

No not every case i agree with you.
However that does not make it any less wrong.

If your whole sentiment is that it's too bad people die in wars, then I agree. It's a tragedy. However that's a rather pointless statement. I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't implicitly and automatically agree that people dying is sad.

Jup very true however sitting back and doing nothing is not helping either.

You see two people rolling around on the ground, each with a knife, each trying to slit the others throat. You have a gun, and can safely kill either one of them. One is wearing a government uniform, the other looks like an insurgent. Why is killing one better then killing the other? Why is intervening on the rebels side somehow a good thing?

Irrelevant? tell that to those who are being murdered ill bet they could point out a thing or two.
Irrelevant? what about international agreements made by the same government to protect and serve their nation their people? where does it say kill them all or where does it say kill a part?
Sure international politics are not ruled by feelings or morals, however agreements made by the same governments should prevent them from resorting to mass killing in the first place.

They SHOULD but they DON'T. Not really anyways.

Lets get this right here all the point you addressed and the points other addressed are true i will not challenge that.
But anyone thinking a government should get away with this and anyone thinking that if you close your eyes walk away ...that it did not exist needs to wake up...

It's not that the government should get away with it, it's that perhaps the cost of "making them pay" isn't worth it. If more people die in the process of a NATO intervention bringing a disorganized group of rebels to power, how will you justify those additional deaths?

Personally i realize that setting foot on Syrian soil is one action we should prevent because of the obvious backlash.
However you cannot tell me that there is not a single international law that can effective stop this (By any proper means necessary)

International law isn't really a law in the regular sense. It's a gentlemanly diplomatic agreement. International law functions because the powerful nations in the world provide some resources for their enforcement. Consequently those same powerful nations take efforts to make sure that the laws they help enforce can't/aren't used against their own interests.

 

[exPrivate]

I totally agree with your last posts, Feanor. You put it down better than I could have done.