Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

What to do about Syria?

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Three options:

Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.
Tsar of DDO
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:21:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Three options:



Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.

I'm Vladimir Putin, I kill myself. I am not missed.

Although actually, Putin probably has the most scope to act, as he could sell it to his friends as a distractionary measure, and it might appease his public a little. However, I'd be constrained by the fact that it's a former ally, etc., which sets a poor tone for Russia's other relationships, were I to volte face and do what needed to be done. So, I'm not going to be a falling-on-my-own-sword Putin, that's too ridiculous, especially as he strikes me as the silenced handgun sort.

I'll be President. Threaten & cajole, as I'm doing that, ostensibly as part of that, have the apparatus of government planning for and briefing me on actions. When that doesn't work, claim that Syria's waters need to be controlled to allow for fleeing refugees, and to monitor the region. Overwhelmingly send in the US Navy, with token NATO logistics vessels, once Syrian waters are, ideally peacefully, ours, continue to threaten and cajole. If this doesn't work, launch aerial attacks from the sea, broadly rule the air over Syria (destroy their airforce and anti-airfoce capability, also drop supplies for rebels if needs be), and symbolically take a small, but useful, part of the coast.

I'm guessing this brings everyone to the bargaining table.

oh, and having warned them beforehand, threaten Iran with giving Israel the green light to invade if it intervenes in any meaningful way.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:27:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Three options:


Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.

I'll go with all three...

1) As Kofi Annan, I reflect on how little I did as UN Sec. Gen. and hope that Ban Ki-Moon might do a better job, knowing that the UN is mostly just symbolic anyway. The UN has no ability to do anything in this, or nearly any other conflict. I believe they have already done what they can, which involved writing a strongly worded letter.

2) As Prez of the US I arm the 'less anti-US side' and hope that Assad is eventually removed and an election is eventually held. This is currently what is happening, and while the outcome doesn't seem to be likely to be too beneficial, it's preferable than allowing a perpetual civil war that will conclude with Assad still being in power, which is against US interests for the most part.

3) Arm Assad. Maintain the Iran-Syria-Russia allegiances and keep proxy battles going on with the US for as long as possible.

Ultimately if the Syrian people are interested in a more democratic society free of Assad, they will and should have to do it themselves. While the Anti-Assad side is doing what they can, it will be decided in the end by the will of those people and not the US fighting on their behalf for US interests.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:31:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:21:21 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Three options:


Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.

I'm Vladimir Putin, I kill myself. I am not missed.

When I read this, I burst out laughing. Not for a second or so, but for a full ten seconds or so. The fellow in the flat next to me I'm sure is wondering what on earth I found to be so funny.

Although actually, Putin probably has the most scope to act, as he could sell it to his friends as a distractionary measure, and it might appease his public a little. However, I'd be constrained by the fact that it's a former ally, etc., which sets a poor tone for Russia's other relationships, were I to volte face and do what needed to be done. So, I'm not going to be a falling-on-my-own-sword Putin, that's too ridiculous, especially as he strikes me as the silenced handgun sort.

My general theory is that Putin could -and should- take quiet, swift action to effectuate a shift of power. That may be interpreted as anyone should please. He should (but wouldn't) get the US on board, and notify the Chinese to keep them in the loop.

I'll be President. Threaten & cajole, as I'm doing that, ostensibly as part of that, have the apparatus of government planning for and briefing me on actions. When that doesn't work, claim that Syria's waters need to be controlled to allow for fleeing refugees, and to monitor the region. Overwhelmingly send in the US Navy, with token NATO logistics vessels, once Syrian waters are, ideally peacefully, ours, continue to threaten and cajole. If this doesn't work, launch aerial attacks from the sea, broadly rule the air over Syria (destroy their airforce and anti-airfoce capability, also drop supplies for rebels if needs be), and symbolically take a small, but useful, part of the coast.

I'm guessing this brings everyone to the bargaining table.

oh, and having warned them beforehand, threaten Iran with giving Israel the green light to invade if it intervenes in any meaningful way.

Yeah.... I would prefer that oil remain under 1k USD/b.... so I would continue to keep the attack dog on the leash.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:27:44 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Three options:


Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.


I'll go with all three...

1) As Kofi Annan, I reflect on how little I did as UN Sec. Gen. and hope that Ban Ki-Moon might do a better job, knowing that the UN is mostly just symbolic anyway. The UN has no ability to do anything in this, or nearly any other conflict. I believe they have already done what they can, which involved writing a strongly worded letter.

2) As Prez of the US I arm the 'less anti-US side' and hope that Assad is eventually removed and an election is eventually held. This is currently what is happening, and while the outcome doesn't seem to be likely to be too beneficial, it's preferable than allowing a perpetual civil war that will conclude with Assad still being in power, which is against US interests for the most part.

3) Arm Assad. Maintain the Iran-Syria-Russia allegiances and keep proxy battles going on with the US for as long as possible.

Ultimately if the Syrian people are interested in a more democratic society free of Assad, they will and should have to do it themselves. While the Anti-Assad side is doing what they can, it will be decided in the end by the will of those people and not the US fighting on their behalf for US interests.

Do you think that the US should try to work with Russia at all, or do you think that is a strategic impossibility?
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:55:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 6:37:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:27:44 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 8/19/2012 6:02:26 PM, YYW wrote:
Three options:


Pick one role

1) You are Kofi Annan
2) You are the president of the United States
3) You are Vladimir Putin

And tell us your solution.


I'll go with all three...

1) As Kofi Annan, I reflect on how little I did as UN Sec. Gen. and hope that Ban Ki-Moon might do a better job, knowing that the UN is mostly just symbolic anyway. The UN has no ability to do anything in this, or nearly any other conflict. I believe they have already done what they can, which involved writing a strongly worded letter.

2) As Prez of the US I arm the 'less anti-US side' and hope that Assad is eventually removed and an election is eventually held. This is currently what is happening, and while the outcome doesn't seem to be likely to be too beneficial, it's preferable than allowing a perpetual civil war that will conclude with Assad still being in power, which is against US interests for the most part.

3) Arm Assad. Maintain the Iran-Syria-Russia allegiances and keep proxy battles going on with the US for as long as possible.

Ultimately if the Syrian people are interested in a more democratic society free of Assad, they will and should have to do it themselves. While the Anti-Assad side is doing what they can, it will be decided in the end by the will of those people and not the US fighting on their behalf for US interests.

Do you think that the US should try to work with Russia at all, or do you think that is a strategic impossibility?

Ideally it'd be nice... But strategically I do not believe it is possible... It doesn't benefit Russia much not to sell weapons to Syria.
Debate.org Moderator