I don't think anyone is calling them unstoppable. There is just, as you point out, an unwillingness to do so. Internally to each warlord's zone, there is the inability to do so. Across the African Union, well, the majority dislike the precedent of unseating dictators for war crimes, so they are unwilling to help. The rest of the world is sitting far away, and comfortable. Our war hawks out here refuse to go in because there is nothing in it for them. Our peacniks refuse to go in because war is bad, end of conversation.

The sad truth is there are very few people in the world who both care about the plight of such people AND are willing to endorse intervention.

Look no further than Somalia. The world powers decide to use military escorts to distribute aid to the country fairly. A few US marines get killed, and immediately EVERY world power pulls out and leaves things alone. To this day standard warlord manuals clearly state that in the case of UN peacekeepers or foreign intervention, shoot 2-3 of them and wait a week for them all to go home.

Hate to break it to you bub, but you're wanted for war crimes on no less than seven star systems.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

I've never found him all that funny, but he's right it's a comedy club and it's a bit. Granted I didn't even get to hear the bit so I have no idea what it was about so there's that. I don't agree with his example of the person sitting through rape and fist-fucking references because those are theoretical whereas Syria is a war crime waiting to happen.

I would really like to hear what set the person off, maybe they're justified in their anger but again it's a comedy club you're going to hear some shit you don't like. That doesn't mean much it's not like we put Doug in charge.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

@enoch,

I think were we differ is the context from which we are looking at the conflict. You state a desire to see a political solution. Virtually every human on the planet would share that desire. You state a fear and desire to avoid military conflict, once again virtually all of us are agreed with you.

The trouble is I look at Syria, and the political solution was approached the most honestly, and productively while the opposition was mounting peaceful protests across the country. That effort towards a political resolution was ended alas by Assad's soldiers with military action. Pretty much exactly like his Father had before him. This time though it didn't end with a quick massacre pacifying the opposition but instead has escalated and progressed into the ongoing civil war.

From that context, I hear your call for a political resolution, and I feel it is at best wishful thinking and at worst cynical front to prevent any foreign protection of Assad's citizens from his armed forces. I hear your fears of military actions and the consequences they bring, but I see an existing and ongoing civil war already, and one which has in all probability seen the deployment of chemical weapons on civilian targets.

I can understand the fear of making things worse by getting involved, but just how many war crimes are you comfortable watching occur with NO reaction by the global community but talk? If we want to consider the expected actions of any world leader, from Obama through Putin through Assad, we can rest assured they will act in their own and/or their nations self interests. In Obama's case, he has an empowered public that can make his life difficult if he ignores them. That is not the position Assad is in. If Assad believes that chemical weapons will help him gain the edge in his conflict it is guaranteed he will use them. I deem it highly probable this recent attack was a test of what the world is willing to do in response, and if he doesn't think anyone will step up I fully expect him to continue.

@bcglorf
there are a few things i dont understand about your position.i hope you can clear them up for me.

1.you state that there is conclusive evidence that it was the assad regime that executed the use of chemical weapons and that only russia and the syrian government are stating otherwise.
could you supply this evidence for us?
because as far as i can tell the only entity providing evidence is isreal and i have to admit being skeptical of their claims.they have been wrong before and often.

2.now lets address the hypothetical that it IS assads regime that is responsible for the chemical attacks.
how does this give the united states the right to unilaterally use military force?
where is the diplomatic option?
why are we not even attempting to bring the players on the ground in syria to the negotiating table?
sanctions?embargoes?
why are we jumping right over steps 3 and 4 and diving into bombings?
how is killing innocent civilians considered "humanitarian"?

3.if the reasoning that we are being given is that a syrian intervention is based on "humanitarian" grounds and that the assad regime has perpetrated "crimes against humanity" (which is possible).where is the united states deriving this moral authority?
when we consider that the united states itself used:phosphorous and depleted uranium in iraq,which IS indeed considered a war crime.
in fact the united states has pretty much broken international law in every conflict since 1950 in regards to war crimes.
so where is our supposed moral authority?

4.if we dismiss the questionable intelligence in regards to chemical weapons in syria AND we ignore the utter hypocrisy in using banned weaponry and we focus on JUST the crimes against humanity defense for intervention.that somehow the united states is doing all this for "humanitarian" reasons.
then we must ask the question:
"if the united states is such a beacon of moral purity and is the defender of the weak and helpless that it will strike at any sovereign nation that dares to kill its own citizens.why is it that the united states turned a blind eye in other countries that perpetrated almost mass genocide against its own people"?

what makes syria more special than the millions of human beings who were allowed to be murdered and slaughtered by its own government while the united states sat back and did nothing,and many times supplied the very weaponry USED to murder those people?

the hypocrisy is staggering.

the implication is that the united states is NOT interested in a stable syria but exactly the opposite.
maybe this thought is troubling for americans but i submit that if that is the case then they have not been paying attention.

*edit-as for your "iraq is the way it is due to saddam hussein" assertion.
really?reeeaaaally?
you do realize the united states armed saddam.we didnt pull the trigger when he went after the iranians and the kurds but we supplied the gun.
you do realize that we never left iraq after the first gulf war.
are you aware that even as reprehensible and venal saddam was,iraq had running water,hospitals,schools.even with the continued bombings and sanctions iraq had a functioning government?

are we to believe ,by your assertion,that iraq is in the state it is right now due to saddam hussein and america bears ZERO responsibility?
we have occupied iraq for TEN YEARS.saddam was executed 7 yrs ago.
the united states has failed on an epic scale in regards to iraq.

remember that whole "we will be greeted as liberators"
"the oil we confiscate will pay for the war"
maybe i am reading your commentary wrong but i cant wrap my head around your assertion.
it just does not hold up under the simplest of scrutiny.

You do recall that those "reports" calling this a CIA induced uprising were written by Assad? Are you aware that the ONLY ones claiming uncertainty who was behind the attack are Assad and the Russians? Assad being the one who actively blocked the UN from investigating the site he claimed would prove his innocence?

You are advocating we do nothing as a dictator uses chemical weapons against his own people. How is it humanly possible to have any more certainty than we already do about what is happening within a war zone? This isn't the first time Assad's family annihilated a people. His father put down a rebellion in his time by taking an entire city and simply turning it into a parking lot and mass grave of the residents. Assad has been deliberately targeting civilians and unarmed protesters from the very beginning. This latest attack isn't some lonely isolated charge, it's the icing on a very horrific cake of war crimes.

None of that is to say anything positive about the rebel forces, disparate and varied as they are. Yes, they include people I would declare our allies in the region who from the start were protesting and advocating for a Syria free of dictatorship and the Assad crime family. Unfortunately, the rebels most effective/powerful fighting forces largely seem to be jihadi fighters back by Saudi money, or even worse, Al Qaida and like minded foreigners coming over from Iraq to take on a hated Shia led military in Assads forces. Al Qaida sees a chance to win hearts and minds among Syria rebels, and we play right into that by doing nothing.

More over, with all that Assad is doing, you need to stop and think before apologizing for him. You need to at least admit that when advocating that we do nothing you are up front and honest with the horrific crimes you are demanding we ignore.

Since when are good tactics a war crime? War is War.

I agree 100% with you on that. I personally take the position that ALL nations that are signatories to the international convention on genocide were obligated to intervene in Rwanda and the universal failure of all of them to do so is as frightening to me as the war crimes nation states commit to advance themselves.

Guaranteed though that if Clinton, or any other national leader, had sent boots into Rwanda during the genocide the crowd of folks like Greenwald and Chomsky would be here today explaining how intervention caused the Rwandan genocide...

@skinnydaddy1
seriously dude?

redirect? are you even aware of the meaning of that term?
i have been very clear on my position.
i was just addressing your apparent cognitive dissonance which you just solidified in your last comment.

so i gather you are going to stick with your SECOND position and have decided to abandon your FIRST position.

ok..fine.
this is starting to bore me anyways.

1.what war crimes did he show?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes

http://pakistan.shafaqna.com/shafaq/item/10102-bradley-manning-exposed-us-%E2%80%98war-crimes%E2%80%99.html

2.what corruption did he show?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

3.what did he do that made him your hero?
already answered.multiple times.

4.For there to be whistleblower should there not be something wrong that he has knowledge of?
see:links above

5.He stated he did not like what was being done in the United States citizens names. What exactly? And what gave him the right to claim anything in my name? anyone's name?

again,see:links above.
your consequent follow up questions deal with a subjective morality.the answer will be different for everyone and manning has already explained quite clearly his reasons.

i presume those reasons are not adequate for you and you would have chosen a different path and hold manning in contempt.
it appears you put your oath above all else.
even at the detriment of others.

on this we fundamentally disagree.

6.You and the rest of your little group keep saying the same thing and yet never manager to answer a single question. What makes him a hero?

me and my little group like to "read".

i suggest you do the same.

i am now done with this.i can already see where this is going.your desire to be "right" will over-power your ability to listen to dissenting voices contradicting your internal narrative.

any and all new information with be dealt with as somehow being inherently "wrong" for the simple fact of being in conflict with your opinion.
which will devolve any productive discussion into a quagmire of red herrings and straw man arguments.

and all of it predicated on the assumption that i wish to change your mind in regards to this particular incident.

which of course i dont.
because i dont really care what you think.

your ignorance is obvious.
your arguments are flimsy and disjointed and in direct conflict with each other.
but most of all....
you are boring.

Wow so much and nothing answered. Not one thing you said answered a single question. Nice attempt at redirect. Lets try again.

What Corruption did he show?

What war crime did he show?

What did he do that made him your hero?

For there to be whistleblower should there not be something wrong that he has knowledge of?

He stated he did not like what was being done in the United States citizens names. What exactly? And what gave him the right to claim anything in my name? anyone's name?

You and the rest of your little group keep saying the same thing and yet never manager to answer a single question. What makes him a hero?

He has shown no war crimes, No corruption. Nothing.

Your not worshiping him as a hero your worshiping the IDEA of him.

So can someone answer the questions with out the dogma?

What war crimes? Name them. What secrets did he reveal that show corruption in the government? Really? Nothing? Wait, So no war crimes, No corruption. So what did he do that makes him a hero? He broke his oath.... right....

So keeping a promise is more important than preventing war crimes; preventing the corruption of a government; upholding the freedom and morality of an entire civilisation; habeus corpus; magna carta (which is now been successfully rendered obselete in the US and many other countries); the bill of rights; and the US constitution?

More important than preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people; allowing you to avoid an ignorant election of despots; preventing one government from unjustly interfering with the political process of another; more important than allowing a man to speak the truth?

And so I'm going to push this button; even when I have learned that it will destroy the Earth and everything on it, for I made a promise.