What would be the best outcome regarding the Syrian Civil War?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What would be the best outcome regarding the Syrian Civil War?

With the Syrian Government of President Assad gaining the upper hand over the 'rebel forces' in the Syrian conflict, many are now speculating that unlike in Libya - the Ba'ath regime of Syria will be able to survive and indeed crush the rebel forces if the conflict continues on the current path it is. But what is the best outcome not only for the people of Syria, but also for western nations?

The scenarios that can occur are numerous: the Ba'ath Government of Assad could very well close in on the rebels as is currently happening, survive and hold the very fractured country together by force once again. The rebels could win and a stable democracy could be established(?). The rebels could in and a similar pattern of what has happened in Egypt and Libya could occur where elements of al-Qaeda are now in control of parts of the broken and failed state (country) leading to the disintegration of Syria. So what is best both short term and long term in your view? an Assad victory or a rebel victory?

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[oli]

Okay, let's first say that there is no good outcome. Syria has gone down the ****ter most definitely.

But on the otherhand I think it would be best if neither sides win, and the United Nations take over. I think that would be amazing if the United Nations would be able to take lead of a country until it sorts its mess out, a complete cease-fire would be necessary, the ex-rulers and a figurehead of the rebellion would both come to council, they would discuss issues come to agreements and then nobody could complain. But of course its not a perfect world and if the government wins I think it would be better, there would be less slaughter and that would be the end of it. If the rebels win then someone new will be placed in charge and in a few years people will get unhappy again and rebel once more.

Nobody wins in situations like these.

[FlyingJesus]

The best outcome would be that they all stop killing each other and work on settling their differences

[Eoin247]

I would like to see the Middle East countries sort this thing out themselves. As I pointed out in the current affairs thread about Syria, it's really a Sunni/ Shia war in the background. While an Assad win might look better for stability on the outset, it probably serves western interests better in the long run if the rebels win.

Okay, let's first say that there is no good outcome. Syria has gone down the ****ter most definitely.

But on the otherhand I think it would be best if neither sides win, and the United Nations take over. I think that would be amazing if the United Nations would be able to take lead of a country until it sorts its mess out, a complete cease-fire would be necessary, the ex-rulers and a figurehead of the rebellion would both come to council, they would discuss issues come to agreements and then nobody could complain. But of course its not a perfect world and if the government wins I think it would be better, there would be less slaughter and that would be the end of it. If the rebels win then someone new will be placed in charge and in a few years people will get unhappy again and rebel once more.

Nobody wins in situations like these.

The United Nations is a deeply flawed organization that is unable to take correct and decisive actions (just look at the Yugoslavian and Rwandan genocides) . So while this would theoretically be a great idea, it just wouldn't work, even if the UN decision somehow wasn't vetoed.

But let's say they did get a temporary UN state set up and somehow convinced both sides to let them do this. The Middle East has shown time and time again that its people prefer tyrannical leaders to foreign leaders. If the UN didn't get the job done quick enough, then the ensuing state of the country will be worse than ever!

[oli]

The United Nations is a deeply flawed organization that is unable to take correct and decisive actions (just look at the Yugoslavian and Rwandan genocides) . So while this would theoretically be a great idea, it just wouldn't work, even if the UN decision somehow wasn't vetoed.

But let's say they did get a temporary UN state set up and somehow convinced both sides to let them do this. The Middle East has shown time and time again that its people prefer tyrannical leaders to foreign leaders. If the UN didn't get the job done quick enough, then the ensuing state of the country will be worse than ever!

Yeah I know, it would be hypocritical of the UN to actually reign a country for however short a period of time. But if you were to control it long enough to improve the education system, lower the crime rate, have food and water for all, I think it would greatly improve the entire country, and if someone tries to overthrow the rulers after the UN have left, you will simply let them handle it as you would have left them with the capable means. It is almost certain that some group would try to overthrow the rulers after the UN, and it would be perfect for the government of the country to prove itself that it can control its country and it doesn't need the help of the UN.

I know this is probably a terrible thing to say but if the UN was in charge of the country for a long enough time to force our ideals onto them, I personally believe it will turn out much better for the country.

[JaiHo]

I take the stance that there is no "good outcome" with the Assad goverment using chemical weapons against it's civillian population how can them retaining power be a good outcome? As it currently stands the regime has not been punished for this which in my opinion will only encourage further use... On the other hand if the rebels somehow manage to overthrow the Goverment this will only be after lot's more bloodshed and brutality, and then what? once both sides have lost thousands of lives will the Syrian National Council (rebels) be able to re-build Syria? And with the increasing affiliation of Al qaeda and the Syrian rebels would this be a good outcome not only for the people of Syria but for the rest of the world?

In the short-term I would hope that the UN would get involved even if only in a minimal way as I would hope this would at least discourage Assad from using further chemical weapons. In the long-term I would hope that the Assad regime was removed and that the people of Syria could enjoy living in a democratic society but sadly I think this will be unatainable.

[Eoin247]

if the UN was in charge of the country for a long enough time to force our ideals onto them, I personally believe it will turn out much better for the country.

The probem here is, whose ideals are " our ideals exactly " ? The UN is more than just Europe and America.

I can only begin to imagine how difficult it would be to make any decisions in a UN controlled Syria. It takes a long time for decisions and laws to go through in most democratic countries. Can you imagine the nightmare of getting these decisions through in such a scenario?