response--both Western Nations and influential Arab Nations.

Beyond that, none of us has the essential information to assess, but I surely hope someone is listening to those who DO. But, Trump has screwed us up so badly with his side deals and abuse of long alliances, who knows what is possible. His ignorance and arrogance is going to take us all down.

Link to tweet

...

...

Anything that is agreeable to the conflicting parties might be good. At least the parties have sat down together in recent times.

The war is thankfully wrapping up in much of the country.

Sadly there is not much choice in the matter. I think that is why the Russians, his Generals and the army are sticking with him.

Taking out strongmen leaves a power vacuum that, in the ME, is quite often filled by radical Islamists

Whatever Obama wanted to do, the Russia/GOP coalition was against.

All we have done there is prolong the death and destruction. Oh and we accidentally enabled the ISIS caliphate for a while. Oh and we accidentally armed them.

Our interventions in the region, and I know this may be a shock to some here, have been disastrous.

Perhaps we should stop.

are the ones making headway with ISIS working hand in hand with u.s troops. If we leave, the kurds will be extinguished by Assad, russia or turkey. If we want to see mass genocide, it will happen when we leave.

Someone on CNN or msnbc today said we should sanction the hell out of Assad, and Russian (banks). Serious sanctions. I tend to agree with that. And russia should be told to get out of syria. Chemical attacks are either assad, russia or both.

repeatedly in the past.

to continue?

Assad and his faction are not going away. They have nowhere to go. There is no resolution while we insist that is not the reality. Russia is not giving up their last ally in the region and we can’t force them to do so.

You can create any sort of appalling scenario you want, what you can’t come up with is a plausible scenario where our continued military intervention in Syria accomplishes any good.

Is there anything he can do that would change your mind?

"No, there isn't" is certainly a legitimate answer.

So how many more years do you want to prolong the slaughter?

It’s just a question.

0 more years is a legitimate answer.

I just have no idea what the means would be to do so. That's why I am asking for insights from the DU community.

You seem to find that unacceptable, although you also seem to not want to make that explicit.

I don't find that unacceptable at all.

What Assad is doing right now, though, is absolutely horrifying to me, and I certainly hope there is a means by which he can be prevented from continuing in that vein.

Or just more visible?

What do you think would have happened to Assad’s faction if they were losing instead?

We should never have gotten involved.

The reality is, none.

We barely had a dog in this fight to begin with.

Whatever happens at the UNSC is going to get vetoed at minimum by Russia and abstain from China, or a veto from both.

Ultimately, when Assad finally re-asserts control of the country...we'll treat like North Korea.

would a diplomatic approach having China, Russia and the United States joined do any good? Sanctions from all three perhaps?

Is such a thing possible or does each country have reasons for allowing Assad to remain in power.

As I said, this is a learning curve for me. Thank you.

..a once independent country and wants to re-assert control over Taiwan. They are not going to signal something in opposition of their own goals.

Russia has a couple of bases in Syria, the removal of Assad means the days are numbered on them. Backing Assad means they pretty much have a lease on their times for however long they want it. And thus a foothold on the Mid-East and Mediterranean.

The USA, again, removing Assad means...aside from a moral victory, not a whole lot. We could be actually allowing a more radical and oppressive government take control. Yes awful things have happened and will happen, brought about by environmental changes from global warming and political/economic motives such as Saudi Arabia wanting a pipeline through Syria to compete with Russia on the energy market, but when denied, helped create unrest.

Side note, atrocities are happening in Yemen's civil war, but we don't see, hear, etc. much about it. Because that would draw the curtain back on what our "ally", Saudi Arabia is doing. Not to say the side being supported by Iran is any better, but putting things in perspective.

it's appreciated.

I'm just trying to understand why the killing is going on. What is the driving force.

Is it power/oil/religion? What is motivating Assad and the other factions.

Syria in relation to Taiwan is lost on me presently.

Thank you.

Yes. All of the above.

Taiwan is essentially the Chinese Government prior to the communist takeover in exile. Granted that isn't touted much, but you can bet the farm if there was a popular uprising in China, they would come knocking. Probably why they haven't pursued in enough significance to be recognized as a separate nation. So a partition of Syria between Kurds, Shia/Alawite and Sunni is to say China should let Tibet go as well as recognize Taiwan as a nation, instead of a state in rebellion. It could even cause friction where Manchuria declares independence. China is going to hold territorial integrity and not allow what happened to the Soviet Union in the 90's.

Also terrible.

...what other option is there?

Turd sandwich vs. a turd feast. There was never a significant viable option otherwise.

Taking out Saddam, was a noble task...however, doing so, created an even worse crisis. So, damned it you do, or damned if you don't. It's ultimately the question, what's worse?

Granted Assad staying in power means Iran has more access to Israel....but then, it was only a matter of time.

Where they currently have veto power over investigations into their own war crimes and those of their client state.

It may be impossible since Russia is one of the five permanent members. I don't know if the General Assembly could somehow vote to change the permanent members like they do with the non-permanent members or change the rules to allow for that or something. You'd think a supermajority of the General Assembly should be enough to change things, but I suppose that, too, could lead to some bad outcomes.

Everything you said applies to us as well in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Dominican Republic, etc.

It's time to disband the UNSC altogether.

The 5 members of the council are a balancing force between East and West, Democratic and Communism. If you take them out, the whole UN falls apart. The eastern and communist countries will drop out of the UN and the UN won't be of much use after that.

to represent Asian countries. These days China seems to be more "morally responsible" than Russia which seems to be using their UNSC veto power as a license for them and their client state to use chemical weapons. You could always replace Russia with another "eastern" country like Japan or Australia.

Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, etc would not accept any notion of being "represented" by China. These nations are already working together to counter China.

It is a nonsense suggestion.

We're only at #2 since Trump became President (#3 since they did this, possibly #4 since the start of the war). Give it a dozen or so more before people say that's enough.

What happens then? I dunno, boots on the ground, regime change, partitioning up Syria into 3 countries, etc.

Three parts, put the Islamists next to Turkey, then the Kurds, then Assad. Give each a coastline of some type.

Partition is nearly impossible because if you give the Kurds a partition in Syria then they will want their swath in Turkey (which is much "larger" by territory but smaller by population). Kurdistan probably should exist but not by the geographical region they think.

It's just sad that this will go on for many many years until we have souls brave enough and strong enough to sit down and discuss it. Trump, Putin, Assad, and Erdogan are not that person.

that gives the Kurds anything that looks like a state, and we will concede on that. Also there is the minor problem that Russia and Syria won’t agree to any partition either. Otherwise it is a fine suggestion.

Should never have been there in the first place. Same with Iraq, Libya, Yemen etc., etc.

that W lied about?

Simplistic I know, but the US will never solve their problems.
Only exacerbate them.

We should let that area solve its own problems. Putin antagonizes trying to get us involved to further divide us any way he can. Like Vietnam we did the best could, time to come home and take care of our own people. It's just been too long. I'm all played out on the Middle East . Our soldiers are worn out from all the tours of duty. We cannot win with air power or it would be settled by now. When the rest of the world stays out of it that should tell you something. It's their fight, leave them to it as awful as it is. We tried and tried and tried. Enough !!! Let it be.

I would agree that more sanctions against Russia would be a good idea, for a multitude of reasons.

with the internal affairs of nearly every country in the world?

The list of countries where the US "did something" is long, and the results of that "doing" were and are generally bad.

Perhaps there is nothing the US could or should do with respect to Syria.

It's just all so depressing to watch what is unfolding and to feel so helpless to stop it.

But the US and Europe have been interfering in the Middle East since before the Turks stopped interfering there. When great powers fight for dominance, it is the small countries that suffer.

that passed in December 2015. That resolution outlined a process where there would be elections that included the Syrians who left during the conflict. https://www.rferl.org/a/un-syria-draft-resolution/27436373.html

Obviously, at this point Syria is full of factions that hate each other. That might lead some to suggest that the country needs to be split into separate countries or at least autonomous areas - which might be needed. It might be that only when all factions see that the alternative to agreeing to some sort of normalization of relations is continued strife would they settle their differences.

It might be far less likely now than it was in 2015 because Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, is near to complete victory. It is not clear that the international community that has documented that he is a war criminal can force Syria to change its own leader, much less the government itself. (The distinction there is the regime with and without Assad)

Lord knows what yesterday's actions will mean moving forward.

Assad gets to live but has a massive historic loss of the Golan heights cause he's a monster chemical death dealer. Israel agrees to the Iran deal and gains the Golan heights

We should bring all our troops home from the Middle East and stop selling weapons. We should use diplomacy and money to try to heal the area. Guns and war have made it worse. Wars are unwinnable unless you kill everyone.

And what is to stop dictators, then, from acting against civilians with impunity?

we prop up dictators
We should use economic measures to promote good behavior and deny economic stuff to those that do bad things.
If we are the great economic power we say we are, they should want to join us for the benefits
but we are following supply side economics and austerity that is complete crap and have slipped from being a creditor economy to a debtor economy. So we have no leg to stand on there either.
Killing people only leads to more killing someone must stop.
We should use our money to take care of our people not push our military power around the world.
We need to be the example not a terrorist.

Plan A is to have the CIA take him out. You know it's been done before. Nothing will work in Syria until Assad is gone.

jurisdiction of the ICC first. We have quite a few war criminals of our own.

Your plan A is illegal.