Believe it or not, there are a majority of innocent men, women and helpless kids who are killed on a daily basis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Innocents who suffer because of a minority of extreme fundamentalists on one side, and a powerful military on the other.

So easy for you to generalize and pass judgement on a situation from the comfort of your computer seat. Do you even realize what you said? You want Syria to be conquered because they are going through a revolution?

Sickening Mr. Khan.

Was I reading Mr Khan wrong? I read that post as being dripping with sarcasm.

Mistakenly, it seems, i believed people were familiar enough with my reasonably anti-Israeli position to know that i was being facetious if i would advocate an Israeli takeover of Syria. I took the most egregious position i could think of for kicks.

Realistically, i don't know what should happen. For now the situation seems different from Libya, where the relative levels of violence are low (not saying it's low overall, but lower than how it was in Libya), and equally it does not seem as though Assad is willing to go into full-on massacre mode, so the immediate danger of this ballooning into an absolute human rights catastrophe seems to be low.

I recall in debates on this site that I advocated for exactly what ended up happening in Libya (military engagement to eliminate the Libyan Regime's heavy weapons capabilities to allow the rebels to win), but in Syria's case there doesn't seem to be the same kind of active rebellion, so it is harder to take a clear position on what should be done.

Ultimately a wait-and-see position seems to be the only realistic thing for anyone to do right now, with continued diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime to implement further political reforms (like acting on that new constitution they had a referendum on earlier). It does seem like there is an actual possibility that the Baathists could be negotiated with, so long as other powers did not take an extreme position (like "all Baathists must resign from government and military,") there is the possibility for peace, but i really don't know what Assad's endgame is here. Ultimately what needs to be seen is how far Assad is willing to concede, and what concessions the Syrian opposition is willing to accept. If either side has views that are too extreme, this problem could continue for a while

It was. That's just the danger of not putting in any sarcasm indicators (though i admit i was trying to see what reaction i could evoke by taking a position that seemed halfway plausible, rather than saying something like "nuke 'em all," that would easily be spotted).

Also that Roma and Hatmoza normally don't seem to be in the political discussions, so may not be familiar with my previously established positions on Israel

The world will always be like this as this is part of life and also human nature. Everyone wants the best things for themselves even if it means making someone else’s life a living hell.

In stories evil is always stronger but in the end good will defeat evil and that is how life is as well.

your thinking is the problem

USA did not go into debt protecting other people,they created the problem and then pretend to fix it.

protecting from whom,why are there terrorist?did the drop from the skies?

USA presence in middle east was long before 911 happened.

those trillion idn't go to iraq or afganishtan but to america's own weapons manufacturers and policians.

research or stop putting out such naive comments.

No oil. No game.

Syria does have a decent bit, and its relatively undeveloped (they don't have much of any refining capacity, to my knowledge), so there's always hope.

Nope I usually stay out of these discussions as I can’t hold myself from exploding

Well at least I did not call you names or anything Mr Khan

I was trying to write my own unique response but keep coming back to these same points.