If Assad didn't have Russia and Iran behind him, I don't see a problem with regime change where he is deposed and replaced with his top general who keeps the job as long as he stops the killing. Rinse lather repeat until you find someone who can play ball.

"Rinse lather repeat until you find someone who doesn't kill his own citizens mercilessly"

Sounds like a plan, Stan.

American foreign policy just got a lot more clear to me

@Hauta who can play ball with whom or what? With Western interests (i.e. US+NATO interests)? In this case, with all due respect, you don't see a problem because you're not of theirs. Ask those, like myself, in Latin America, whose democratically-elected governments were sistematically toppled by the US and replaced by ruthless US-backed dictatorships because their elected leaders would not play ball with american interests what they'd think of your philosophy.

Play ball with the United States, which would unilaterally replace the leader who would commit war crimes against his own citizens. For example, if we toppled Saddam Hussein and replaced him with his general (and had not disbanded the Baath Party), then the new general might have been able to keep a lid on the place instead of the chaos that ensued.

Latin America is a great example of the problem when USA topples governments for much less noble reasons.

We overthrew Saddam for "noble reasons?" I was under the impression that he had WMDs (which, of course, he didn't, but that was the reason that everyone espoused around me). Besides, he had been committing those crimes against his people for decades. What changed in those final few years?

So, in other words you're saying that the United States should topple governments unwilling to work towards American interests, regardless of whether or not this is acceptable by any standard (what above the UN Charter, for instance?) or in the interests of the said country?

Or, a more friendly reading of your words, that the United States should topple governments who do not abide to American standards of what's good or not, threatening to world peace or not, regardless of what other countries and/international organizations think and what international law says, like, well, Iraq?

Bo, Iran was just an example of how it could have worked (given that so many recognized that putting the Baath Party out of business was a big mistake). The example was NOT to demonstrate that toppling Saddam was justified.

Stefan, the friendly reading is close, but you make it seem that lots of countries would qualify for toppling for human rights. It would be the rare exception...at America's discretion.

So with all that you are suggesting, hauta, we should not be surprised by Russian interference in our election?

@Brad, unless you can think of war crimes being perpetrated on the American people that rival Sarin gas, I don't see the moral equivalency you suggest.

I thought you guys were anti-military and stuff. Now you want to call in the marines.

Ideally, diplomacy and engagement would have prevented such a situation requiring use of the military, but if that doesn't work, then military is a last resort. Speaking softly doesn't work if you don't also carry a big stick.

It does if the purpose of speaking softly is to cut down the size of the military to fund things in-house such as, oh, I don't know, healthcare and college tuition. He's right, Hauta; people love to be anti-military but when something like this happens, all of a sudden the military is your saving grace. Clearly, Obama's diplomacy didn't work, so let's bomb them and drop in soldiers! No, let's not go all guns blazing without a plan, a budget, and a hell of a lot of discourse.

I told you only of the goal, not the means. How best to achieve regime change militarily is a different discussion.

Ok. Not considering the sheer absurdity of this ethnocentric perspective taken to this level, what, considering there are dozens of other Western liberal democracies around and the UN, gives the United States the right to decide which foreign governements should be toppled or not?

Also, you're only considering Human Rights violations against one's own population, right? Otherwise I'd be anxious to see you suggesting Washington should have invaded Israel after white phosphorous was used against civilians in 2009, or after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, in 1982, or, instead, defending the widespread use of Agent Orange by American forces in Vietnam as morally justifiable.

Lastly, do you consider racial segregation a serious Human Rights violation? If not, I'd be delighted to know why. If you do, however, I'm interested in knowing why you think a country which supported the South African apartheid regime until its last breath should be the moral judge. Alternatively, wouldn't American racial segregation until the 60s be, by your own logic, cause enough to justify a foreign intervention in the US?

Doesn't it seem strange that less than 3 days after the White House starts saying that Assad's fate will be decided by the Syrian people in elections, Assad decides to gas his own people? Come on. You don't have to like the guy, but you can't honestly believe he's that stupid.

@stefano that's American exceptionalism for ya.

@Hannibal I'm afraid I had never seen it in action like this!

@stefano, Anyone with the military might and desire to stop war crimes is welcome to stop them wherever they occur. War crimes are more severe than human rights violations so no need to get your panties in a twist. America doesn't use agent orange anymore. We are better now. Weren't sabra and shatilla in Lebanon? Not sure about phosphorus use. You sure that ain't just a Pallywood production (Palestinian propaganda)?

Hauta, what's the matter with you? I mean, seriously. Do you have a hidden agenda or something? Are you on the payroll of a warmongering party? If you are, they're paying you too much. BTW even the Israelis have accepted responsibility for Sabra and Shatilla.

If phosphorus use is Palestinian propaganda, they must have plants in the Israeli military.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22310544

"If Assad didn't have Russia and Iran behind him, I don't see a problem with regime change where he is deposed and replaced with his top general who keeps the job as long as he stops the killing. Rinse lather repeat until you find someone who can play ball."

Moral arguments aside, surely you see that this very sentiment is a pressing reason for Russia and Iran to be behind Assad.

@Zmaj, responsibility for what, looking the other way while Christian Phalangists massacred people? Aren't the Phalangists responsible? Ariel Sharon was morally bankrupt by letting it happen but that doesn't make him responsible. btw, I'm on no payroll for a warmongering party. I'd just don't mind military action to stop war crimes. Didn't know that made ME the bad guy!

@Leth, I do see why they back Assad. Makes sense. Realpolitick! btw, BBC is notoriously pro-Palestinian. As for phosphorus, Wikipedia says that there is a legit use as an *instant* smokescreen for phosphorus in munitions. The question is when such a smokescreen is used for the phosphorus effect (evil, crime) more than the instant smokescreen effect (legit). Regardless, if someone wanted to take the risk and stop Isreal from using those munitions, according to my logic, they were free to do so at their own peril, and I'm sure Hamas invited everyone to do so.

@Hauta, to use your favourite word, they were morally responsible :P

@Zmaj, and your views on Srebrenica?

Please, PLEASE don't have an argument about Srebrenica. If there's an argument with more than one side about Srebrenica, I might seriously maim someone.

Lol Clownie. Don't worry, I think we all agree that a genocide was committed there. I suppose Hauta is asking about the moral responsibility of the Dutch. Yes, Hauta, I believe those Dutch peacekeepers were morally responsible for what happened.

My blood is boiling. I'm going to go spray it at a passer-by.

Why? Are you Dutch by any chance?

Anyway, I don't want anyone to think that this has anything to do with the Dutch people as such. (Which are great, by the way.) The actions (or rather a lack of action) of those peacekeepers in Srebrenica were the exclusive responsibility of a few officers and nobody else. They showed human weakness and chickened out. It's still inexcusable.