That was a long post.
I dont think I can keep my answers short, so here goes:
1) Why would you disagree with my my AL-Assad comment? The man is a mad man used as a puppet by another madman, who in turn is a front figure for a demented a crazy regime, who just happens to be best friends with the worst people in this world.
The world would clearly be a better place by any definition if he was dead. And as he is a hereditary dictator then everybody would have a much smoother transition into the future if his family joined him - just stating a fact.
Leaving that aside then I fail to grasp what you mean by "radical groups". According to whoms definition exactly?
To kill a rabid dog is a rational and sensible thing to do in my book. Its just too bad that the coward is hiding behind thousands of soldiers and policeman thus hindering a smooth facilitation of his existence into a better place (for the rest of the world in general and the middleeastern populations including the syrian in particular).
2) The rebels have received moderate amounts of LIGHT AND handheld WEAPons WHICH OBVIOUSLY MEANS THEY ARE NO MATCH AT ALL FOR TANKS (ooops ... caps lock), artillery, rockets and fighter-bombers. Thus they are not a real threath to anyone except themselves. Which Assad obviously knows. Thus all this have done combined with the inept and impotent lack of actions from the rest of the world, is to cement Assads and Ahmadinejads impression that they can do anything they please because the UN and the world only talk Ad Nauseam while the syrians are slaughtered like cattle.
Just like the ones who opposed the farce and sham that the iranian "election" was.
3) I would really REALLY like to know EXACTLY what FACTS you base this rather outlandish claim on: "right now that there are a number foreign armed organizations that are competing with each other and the Free Syrian Army only being an alias"
Eh... what ?
The whole point is that Assad have slaughtered domestically and internationally anything approaching unified opposition. Thus I rather see the opposition as a ragtag assembly of very different people. Some of which have no military training at all. Hardly a foreign military group.
4) "It would be very destabilizing to the country and potentially to surrounding countries if the Assad gov suddenly fell apart and left militias, organizations classified as terrorist organizations, independent FSA militias, potential army generals(becoming warlords) etc competing for the power."
And that would be worse than the present situation in what way exactly?
5) "In other words, a sudden fall of al-assad regime would create an dangerous power vacuum."
Why and how? All they are is a bufferstate for Iran to facilitate strife in Lebanon, Israel and any other areas which Iran needs destabalized. Thus it would only be dangerous by proxy or indirectly as it would force the iranians to crack down even harder or anyone opposing their anti-humanitarian, anti-democratic, anti-feministic and anti-western regime.
As China needs Irans oil they would - as they have with Syria - protect them no matter what crimes they perpetrate domestically and internationally. And russia from a geopolitical standpoint would do the same to make sure that the gulf region did not align with the west.
That threat is the only real one...
6) "Syria cannot be compared to Libya since the rebels are more splintered than those in Libya. The situation has escalated too far now, now we need a transition process, which actually Syria has started, with their recent referendum."
More splintered ? Not really: they all want to kill Assad, which seems reasonable enough all things considered. In that way they actually are similar to much of the opposition to Ghadaffi.
That by no means that they are coherent or aligned - merely that they are not MORE incoherent and unaligned than the libyan rebels were and are.
Actually I agree completely in your statement that the situation has gone too far. However your conclusion from that statement is completely irrational given the fact that this is the middleeast:
Too much blood have flown, and only the the blood of the dictator can wash away that. No amount of academic discourse or attempts of a consensus will change that. It will never ever happen: just take the example of Lebanon ...
And what referendum are you refering to exactly ?
7) "Btw, who are you to judge the if Iran is ruled by a "god-demented priest" or an "loved Ayatollah"
Ayatollah Khomeini was completely crazy and a menace not only to the world but to his own population as well. Period.
A man who believed that a girl becomes a women when she has her first period and thus could be married is by no definition normal or rational. Combined with his antics in the war with Iraq including using children as human bombs just cemented that fact!
I could state countless other facts: but they are there for anyone to read.
Thus I claim the right to state those facts by the fact that I am a living human being.
Cogito Ergo Sum.
The Shah was no better of course, but at least he did not use religion to claim infallability in the face of irrefutable facts.
I have NO issue with Islam as a religion in any way shape or form ! So I have to stress very strongly that this is NOT some religious war or similar for me.
However it IS for Ahmadinejad and his peers !
QED
" AND that the Lebanese people don't support Hezbollah, if the locals of these countries don't like their political leaders, then they should step up and take action"
With all due respect: Dont be childish and naive.
They tried just that and their leader was assasinated for his efforts - If you have a family then you will think twice about doing the same as he did when the consequence was so obvious. As was the lack of punishment for his murderers!
The world is not always black and white and not everything can be solved academically...
9) "Btw, did you know that Hezbollah has significant support amongst the population and populate ~10% of their parliament seats?"
Thus roughly 90 % of the lebanese population does NOT support them per se - and yet Hezbollah are one of the if not the most powerful factor in Lebon. I rest my case.
10) "Just because they may be a minority dosen't mean their not entitled to their opinions."
Actually when that very loud and aggressive minority uses terror, murders etc. to facilitate their political agenda then thats
EXACTLY what it means - just like it would be in any other civilized democracy! By the rule of law, organizations who live to destabalize the state and its democratically elected politicians, are illegal in every democratic nation. But its fortunately rare that they are actively pursued as that by its very nature would be to give in to the anti-democratic forces.
11) Teaparty
Im neither conservative nor american - what has that got to do with anything? I dont agree with what the teaparty movement is doing. Amongst other things because it doesnt seem like they actually know what they want to do exactly as a coherent movement.
12) "If Hezbollah do something violent, then their internal security should deal with it, the West could of course, sell equipment, training etc. But I don't support an Invasion unless Hezbollah does something radical like an coup and kills foreigners etc."
IF ?
The internal security of Lebanon is in fact no match for hezbollah as Hezbollah have the full support of the syrians and thus Iranians and thus indirectly the chinese and russians...
And they have kílled foreigners AND staged coups ... so what is your point?
Again we are at an impasse:
I deeply respect your right to say and feel what you will, but it seems that the gap between what you and I think are too wide to be bridge.
Nevertheless its fun to try - and I will be looking forward to your counterpoint.
Have a nice day