[quote]Regarding Syria, How do you see it ending?[/quote]What's the most likely outcome, that I've seen and read, is a fractured Syria. You'll have your Shia, regime, and supporters of the regime in western Syria, Sunni's in the north, and the Kurds in the east. Stating the obvious, but this doesn't necessarily mean this will happen. The country could somehow remain united in the event of a regime victory or in the event of a victory for the rebels and a organized interim government is established. [quote]How would you like to see it ending? Or which group would do the least damage if they won?[/quote]I would like to see Assad fall and the SNC subsequently come into power. Do the least damage? I don't really know, but I do know that having an "Islamic state" of that of the jihadists would be detrimental to security concerns. [quote]Should the west intervene?[/quote]Most definitely, or at the very least a more active role in supporting the moderate elements of the opposition. Failure of doing so has already produced some less-than-acceptable realities on the ground, such as the rise of jihadist organizations and the more radical opposition groups carrying the most sway and military leverage. Not only that, but it's allowed for an influx of foreign fighters to come into Syria, which as further destabilized the region. Speaking of foreign fighters, those Westerners who have gone to Syria for jihad pose a very real threat to their home countries upon their return. They are gaining some very serious battlefield expertise, knowledge, and advice on how to conduct terrorist attacks in their country of origin. Almost every Western state sees these individuals as a threat and the UK and the US are no exception. We also know that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's main group inside Syria, does have aspirations for attacking the West. People might cast this aside, but not too long ago, several Nusra fighters were arrested in Turkey for plotting a chemical weapons attack in the West. Failure to have an active role in Syria has also led it to become one of the worst humanitarian disasters in a very long time. I could go on and on, but for the sake of time, I will just say that I, as a Westerner, am disappointed at the inaction and doing nothing about the situation in Syria. I am pissed at Russia for vetoing any UNSC resolution for Syria. [quote]How should the west intervene? (Theoretical)[/quote]Short of getting militarily involved akin to Kosovo or Libya, a no-fly zone in the southern part of Syria (where most moderate groups are) would be the most advantageous thing, in my opinion. Supplying more non-lethal, as well as some better weapons, training more moderate groups, and upping our funding to moderates would also suffice as a more active role. Not to mention encouraging these moderate groups, like the FSA, to get better organized and eventually stop cooperating with groups like al-Nusra. This would make them look like they're worth funding to those people in Congress, for example, who are iffy about continued funding to them. That's really my short answer. Like you, I don't really have time to make a giant wall, but I can add more to it tomorrow hopefully.

[quote][quote]Regarding Syria, How do you see it ending?[/quote]What's the most likely outcome, that I've seen and read, is a fractured Syria. You'll have your Shia, regime, and supporters of the regime in western Syria, Sunni's in the north, and the Kurds in the east. Stating the obvious, but this doesn't necessarily mean this will happen. The country could somehow remain united in the event of a regime victory or in the event of a victory for the rebels and a organized interim government is established. [/quote] Hmm, that does seem more likely than not. I don't see it ending any time soon though, would that be a fair guess? [quote][quote]How would you like to see it ending? Or which group would do the least damage if they won?[/quote]I would like to see Assad fall and the SNC subsequently come into power. Do the least damage? I don't really know, but I do know that having an "Islamic state" of that of the jihadists would be detrimental to security concerns. [/quote] Yeah, another radical islamic state would not do the region any favours... [quote][quote]Should the west intervene?[/quote]Most definitely, or at the very least a more active role in supporting the moderate elements of the opposition. Failure of doing so has already produced some less-than-acceptable realities on the ground, such as the rise of jihadist organizations and the more radical opposition groups carrying the most sway and military leverage. Not only that, but it's allowed for an influx of foreign fighters to come into Syria, which as further destabilized the region. Speaking of foreign fighters, those Westerners who have gone to Syria for jihad pose a very real threat to their home countries upon their return. They are gaining some very serious battlefield expertise, knowledge, and advice on how to conduct terrorist attacks in their country of origin. Almost every Western state sees these individuals as a threat and the UK and the US are no exception. We also know that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's main group inside Syria, does have aspirations for attacking the West. People might cast this aside, but not too long ago, several Nusra fighters were arrested in Turkey for plotting a chemical weapons attack in the West. Failure to have an active role in Syria has also led it to become one of the worst humanitarian disasters in a very long time. I could go on and on, but for the sake of time, I will just say that I, as a Westerner, am disappointed at the inaction and doing nothing about the situation in Syria. I am pissed at Russia for vetoing any UNSC resolution for Syria. [/quote] Do you think targeted assassination of those identified to be fighting in Syria (Foreign nationals heading there for Jihad) would ease some of the risks when they return? Or would that simply make matters worse? [quote][quote]How should the west intervene? (Theoretical)[/quote]Short of getting militarily involved akin to Kosovo or Libya, a no-fly zone in the southern part of Syria (where most moderate groups are) would be the most advantageous thing, in my opinion. Supplying more non-lethal, as well as some better weapons, training more moderate groups, and upping our funding to moderates would also suffice as a more active role. Not to mention encouraging these moderate groups, like the FSA, to get better organized and eventually stop cooperating with groups like al-Nusra. This would make them look like they're worth funding to those people in Congress, for example, who are iffy about continued funding to them. [/quote] It's not likely to happen without the west giving them support, which as you say is unlikely to come without them breaking off with radicalists. A real catch-22. [quote]That's really my short answer. Like you, I don't really have time to make a giant wall, but I can add more to it tomorrow hopefully.[/quote]Yeah, it's not always the easiest to find time for detailed discussions. It'll be worth having though, over however long it takes :P

[quote] I don't see it ending any time soon though, would that be a fair guess?[/quote]More than fair. Assuming either side doesn't suffer a catastrophic loss and begin to falter very quickly (which could theoretically happen), I've seen some estimates saying that the war could drag on for a decade if left unchecked. [quote]Do you think targeted assassination of those identified to be fighting in Syria (Foreign nationals heading there for Jihad) would ease some of the risks when they return? Or would that simply make matters worse?[/quote]It might make matters worse, but I don't really know. Something does need to happen in regards to all those foreign fighters in Syria.