(October 12, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A diplomatic solution would seem to be preferable, don't you think? Rather than a military solution, or no solution.
Of course. But that requires both sides to be looking for such a solution. This doesn't seem to be the case here.
(October 12, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Russia has interests, both in syria and outside of syria. People with interests often negotiate, if they feel that they cannot get what they want by the means currently employed, or if they value those interests more than whatever they're doing. They ceased the bombing for awhile before.....what do you think they were waiting for, then? They run out of gas, had to wait for a truck to pull up?
The fact that Assad's opposition is so fractured means that negotiations are much more complex. Is it easier to sign a cease-fire with one opponent, or six or seven? Be realistic here.
And yes -- cease-fires can be and often have been pauses used for resupply.
(October 12, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I have absolutely no qualms with a military solution regarding -assad-. He's a relative non issue, it's his friends that need to be (and can be) bribed.
The problem with this reasoning is that the only bribe that would seem to sate Russia is secure basing, and the folks who stand in the way don't seem amenable to negotiating. The rebels, too, seek a military solution to Assad's regime. Who's going to knock heads here? Us?
What bribe would you offer Russia for that nation to stand down its forces? And how would we obtain the compliance of the many rebel factions which have heretofore disregarded the cease-fire negotiated in September?
I get your angst over Aleppo, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole. It's an unfolding tragedy, people starving, gassed, shelled. But what can we Americans do? Tell Russia to knock it off or else? Or else what? And is that country worth our what else?
I keep searching your posts for suggested policies, and keep drawing blanks. What do you think we ought to do?
Be specific.
