The UN has apparently woken up that something is happening in Syria. Forgive me for being cynical but this call for action from the UN is six months overdue and happens to coincide with victory in Libya and the release of other forces from disposition there.
U.N. rights chief urges 'immediate' international steps to protect Syrians - CNN.com

Why should anything be done now? If it wasn't good enough to intervene six months ago, why now? I wonder, is the US anymore disposed to be involved than it was in Libya? It was made abundantly clear that that was someoneelse's problem. Syria is a vastly different proposition than Libya

It was a good time to intervene in Syria years ago.
Not because the UN said so ,but because they are a state sponsor of terrorism ,a proliferator of WMD ,and have been responsible for attacks on US civilians and military .

The UN has established “The Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine for situations like Syria.

Funny that they did not think it necessary in Saddam's Iraq or today in Kim's North Korea .

The philosophy of R2P : A national government is responsible for preventing large-scale loss of life and ethnic cleansing within its borders, but if that government is either unwilling ;unable to do so ,or is doing the slaughter ,the international community, acting under approval of the United Nations, has a responsibility to act for the protection of the population.


This became a doctrine in principle after Rwanda and Srebrenica slaughters. Canada was tasked by Kofi Annan to develop principles for when and under what conditions such an intervention would be justified. Canada formed the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to “foster a global political consensus” for preventing and responding to future incidents of mass killing and ethnic cleansing.
This Commission in turn developede R2P.

To be clear though.. I think it dangerous that an International Organization can direct the nations of the world to attack another . I have made the case above that it would be justifed for the US to attack Syria . It is dishonest to say that the justification for doing so is some directive by the UN .

I think it has become clear that the UN is an instrument of US foreign policy. The big mistake was allowing Russia and China to have veto power

I take the opposite view . The UN has been an impediment to worldwide freedom .

I dislike having my tax dollars supporting the corrupt organization that caters to (until recently in some limited ways ) despotic jackboots.

I favor US withdrawal from it and the creation of an organization of liberty minded democratic nations .

.
How could you say that, it has freely tried to redistribute the worlds wealth by population transfer and wealth transfer

And this is different... HOW!

And who do you expect to join? Australia? Canada? I think there would be a short list of applicants otherwise you would have just reinvented the whole sorry mess.

I'm counting on the Anglophiles . But there are other nations that fit that category too .

Other nations that fit the category of anglophiles? Few and far between these days, and what other category is there, Frankophiles? Yankophiles? Reemerging Soviets? The Caliphate? I seriously think you are on your own

Ok I think I get it now, we don't think it is a good idea for Libyans to be oppressed by a dictator, even Iraqi should not be oppressed by a dictator, but it is okay for Syrians and Yemeni's. I am struggling to find the difference unless it is what lies under the ground. There is oil in Libya, there is oil in Iraq, but...

You know my position. If I had my druthers there would've been regime change in Syria in the
1980s.

And that helps us now... how? We are not talking about some thirty year dictator

We were to busy running out of Lebanon to be worried about Syria. But better late than never.

Agree... that was a low point. Poor Lebanon... what might have been.

Or what was before arab nationalism and radical Islam took over. Ah, for the simple days of the colonalist past

This Arab spring is tricky, but I think people are really tired of being told what to do, and messing up the party with rules they don't like.

The trouble is that when the dictators fall, they have to replace them with something... there is always a something to think about when the dust settles.

Before we abandoned the Druze

Like who's going to be the next dictator

Or next president. Its up to them to regroup, and rebuild.

If you look at Egypt as an examples ,it is becoming clear that they are replacing the Pharaoh with a military junta until the next Pharaoh emerges.
Syria is an artificial construct . When the Assad regime goes down Turkey and Iran will compete to pick the best pieces of the carcass.

There are best pieces in that carcass? I can't imagine it since the US hasn't rushed to get its share

Then we should leave it in rubble. The jihadists we fought in Iraq got there via Syria's ratline .

And yes ;both countries are vying for empirical control over the region. The Turks want to reconstitute the Ottoman ;and the Mahdi-hatter has visions of a greater Persian empire.
Syria is a land route to Israel for both ;so yes the nation that controls the land Syria occupies holds the high ground (Golan Heights)