U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:22:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria  (Read 4779 times)
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2014, 02:30:27 AM »

People always say Islamist this, Islamist that, but Starwatcher is right, Assad's killed far more than ISIS. The latest estimates for the death toll of the Syrian civil war is 191,000.


"Who killed more people" is beside the point, frankly. It's like saying Stalin was worse then Hitler because he had a higher raw body count. You're completely handwaving the fact that IS would probably kill even more if they had the capability.

It all started when Assad ordered his police forces to open fire on peaceful demonstrations. Ironic, considering what the left is screaming about in Ferguson now, demonstrations over one guy who robbed a convenience store and physically assaulted a police officer. But in Syria they're on the other side.

Because the situation in Syria is much, much more complicated. The two don't even compare. It's not like people were supporting the Assad Regime during the initial uprisings, just more recently as the only plausible alternative to the Islamic State.

It's always "but oh no the Islamists." But as I said last year, if you look at Middle Eastern history, it's the secularists who have killed the most:

Again, this is ultimately beside the point.

It's funny you mention the Afghan communists, considering what happened after they lost. The communists losing that war was probably the worst thing that's happened to Afghanistan in a long time.

The West always think secular = Western-style liberal democracy, but that's no so.

Except that's not what anybody said. Pure strawman.

The Middle East is a difference place, if you give people democracy, they will vote in one form of Islamist government or other. That's why "secularists" always end up supporting the military thugs with the guns. And that's why they'll continue to lose support in the Middle East, because that will not win any hearts and minds.

Well, sometimes that's just the way it goes. The Arab world needs an Ataturk.

ISIS is not a threat for one reason: no one likes them. Not even the people who live under them like them. It's sort of like communism: they may retain power for a long time through the barrels of their guns, but if they are too oppressive, eventually the people will rise up and demand change.
 

I don't think the concept of just crossing our fingers, hoping for this outcome while launching military strikes against Assad that will directly correlate to an increase in IS power and influence is a good foreign policy.

Sorry, but the idea of launching strikes against Assad at this time is just beyond absurd. I can't think of a bigger free lunch we could possibly give the Islamic State.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2014, 03:08:42 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2014, 03:15:06 AM by Starwatcher »

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.
I'd rather have another Iraq than see Assad stay in power.

At least with him gone, there is hope for the Syrian people to choose their own destiny, and we can support the Free Syrian Army.

It's a false choice to say we must support one of these evils. Best to do what we can to destroy both.

Supporting Assad now would be admitting that the Middle East needs a bloodthirsty dictator to keep it in order. Admitting that some people are better off without democracy and human rights, that white Christians can handle democracy but brown Muslims can't, would be inhumane and disastrous. If that's the course the United States chooses, we deserve to lose.

We need to back the IS out of Iraq and back into Syria, then crush Assad, then help the FSA secure Syria.

(And let's not forget... letting Assad stay in a stalemate with the rebels for so long is what caused the IS to rise, and get pushed into Iraq once Assad was able to turn the tide.)
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2014, 03:14:02 AM »


Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2014, 03:16:01 AM »


Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.
?

Opposing both Assad and the IS makes me pro-genocide?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2014, 03:44:05 AM »

No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

So we'd arm the "moderates" that McCain met who became ISIS members? Yeah, that would work real well for stopping ISIS.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2014, 03:54:04 AM »


Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.
?

Opposing both Assad and the IS makes me pro-genocide?

Seeing as the result of those bombings would be that ISIS would be able to get their way with the minority enclaves and borderland in and close to their territories, yes so are the bombing of their defenders (the regime) pro-genocide.

But I guess it easier to base ones foreign policy views on feelings, rather than reading up on things.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2014, 04:35:09 AM »

Hillary in 2002:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://themoderatevoice.com/197833/clintons-hawkish-statements-on-syria-remind-left-that-clinton-does-not-share-our-views-on-foreign-policy/

Lets not nominate a female Joe Lieberman as President.
Logged
swl
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 581
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2014, 11:36:00 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2014, 02:26:31 PM by swl »

Well it's these guys job to weigh in all options, so that means they're just doing their job. But it would be a great humiliation for the US or any European country (France and the UK were also very vocal about Assad) to suddenly change its mind, start helping Assad and to line up behind Russia and Iran. Anyone doing that could shut up about the Middle East for the next 50 years, so I think it's extremely unlikely.

Don't forget that Assad released islamists from his jails when the civil war started in order to present it as a war of Assad vs terrorists. I find it very worrying that many are ready to fall into his trap, and equally worrying that many start running around like headless chickens as soon as they hear "islamists".

Also the real threat for the West are people who go to Syria to fight, go back to their country, stay under the radar for 10 years and suddenly blow up a bomb somewhere. But this is very likely to happen, whatever happens in Syria.

Edit:
According to the British newspaper The Independent there is already going on some cooperation of American and Syrian intelligence, involving also the German secret service BND.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/west-poised-to-join-forces-with-president-assad-in-face-of-islamic-state-9686666.html
I just read this article and I agree with the conclusion:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
MalaspinaGold
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 987


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2014, 01:05:11 PM »

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/01/assad-accused-boosting-al-qaeda-syria-201412111174791389.html

Assad seems to be one of the main indirect backers of ISIS, through buying their oil.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2014, 01:27:42 PM »

The "realism" on display in this thread is not only entirely vapid but utterly boring.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2014, 02:24:16 PM »

No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

Who were these "moderate" rebels? Do you seriously think you can build a sustainable political base of support from a handful of "moderates"?

Once elections were held, the Islamists would end up winning anyway.

That's what none of you get about the Middle East. If you want a government in power that's not going to either be hostile to the US or impose a backward-ass version of Islam, you pretty much have to either find a penniless royal dynasty to prop up (such as the Hashemites in Jordan) or find an ambitious field marshal and write him a check to stage a coup (Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr in Iraq in the 1960s; Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Egypt last year).
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2014, 02:27:13 PM »


Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.
?

Opposing both Assad and the IS makes me pro-genocide?

Fine, Starwatcher. We'll let the Syrians be killed by a wide variety of armed thugs instead of be killed by one set of government-backed armed thugs. And we'll spend a bunch of American money to make that happen.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2014, 02:28:51 PM »

Look at what is happening to Christians and Yazidis in Iraq.

That's the fate you're asking for for the Alawites, Christians and Druze in Syria if you support removing Assad.

Give yourselves a pat on the back for supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2014, 03:00:25 PM »

Well it's these guys job to weigh in all options, so that means they're just doing their job. But it would be a great humiliation for the US or any European country (France and the UK were also very vocal about Assad) to suddenly change its mind, start helping Assad and to line up behind Russia and Iran. Anyone doing that could shut up about the Middle East for the next 50 years, so I think it's extremely unlikely.

Don't forget that Assad released islamists from his jails when the civil war started in order to present it as a war of Assad vs terrorists. I find it very worrying that many are ready to fall into his trap, and equally worrying that many start running around like headless chickens as soon as they hear "islamists".

Exactly.

The guys saying we must ally with Assad to defeat ISIS are falling into Assad's trap, and it would also destroy all of our moral credibility.




No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

Who were these "moderate" rebels? Do you seriously think you can build a sustainable political base of support from a handful of "moderates"?

Once elections were held, the Islamists would end up winning anyway.

That's what none of you get about the Middle East. If you want a government in power that's not going to either be hostile to the US or impose a backward-ass version of Islam, you pretty much have to either find a penniless royal dynasty to prop up (such as the Hashemites in Jordan) or find an ambitious field marshal and write him a check to stage a coup (Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr in Iraq in the 1960s; Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Egypt last year).
And your amorality is what's wrong with the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. You're basically saying "those brown Muslims can't handle democracy."

Also, not all Islamists are like ISIS. So what if they win elections, as long as they respect human rights? Christian conservatives win elections here all the time.

The moderate rebels are the Free Syrian Army.


Fine, Starwatcher. We'll let the Syrians be killed by a wide variety of armed thugs instead of be killed by one set of government-backed armed thugs. And we'll spend a bunch of American money to make that happen.
Somebody didn't understand anything I've posted.


Look at what is happening to Christians and Yazidis in Iraq.

That's the fate you're asking for for the Alawites, Christians and Druze in Syria if you support removing Assad.

Give yourselves a pat on the back for supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Again, way to misunderstand me.

Also, if you go back a year or two, you'll see my position hasn't changed. Back in 2012, I was calling for the United States to bomb both Assad and any extremist rebels. If that had happened, the IS wouldn't be the threat it is today.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2014, 06:37:10 PM »

They can handle democracy - albeit probably an illiberal, ersatz version that's vulnerable to identity politics and tyranny of the majority. But they'll never produce the kind of governments that make the US happy and that we are willing to work with.

Palestine had elections once. Hamas won in a landslide. How'd that turn out? We had to thwart the will of the people and prop up the "moderate" Fatah government and elections haven't happened there in nearly a decade.

Egypt had elections. They voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. How'd that turn out? They're back to their old ways of having a military strongman in power.

Lebanon, arguably the most functionally democratic of the Arabic-speaking countries, is more or less ungovernable.

Some of this is our fault. And the British and the French. But I'm curious to know what is so different about Syria that you think "but this time it's going to be different."
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2014, 06:42:35 PM »

snip
Some of this is our fault. And the British and the French. But I'm curious to know what is so different about Syria that you think "but this time it's going to be different."
The economy is better in Syria and, after the inevitable Ataturk/Rhee dictatorial era that the FSA would give Syria, they would be ready for limited democracy.
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2014, 06:30:22 PM »

Syria publicly states it will help the US fight terrorism


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28927246


Good to see the US and Syria are buddies again.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2014, 06:39:08 PM »

It would be a deal with the devil, which we would regret in the future.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2014, 09:49:13 PM »

It would be a deal with the devil, which we would regret in the future.

Better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don't, which is what we'd get teaming up with your allegedly freedom-loving moderates.
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2014, 01:03:17 AM »

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2014, 02:09:13 AM »
« Edited: August 26, 2014, 02:11:10 AM by Starwatcher »

It would be a deal with the devil, which we would regret in the future.

Better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don't, which is what we'd get teaming up with your allegedly freedom-loving moderates.
I believe the opposite. The region is broken. Better to have a real change, than keep the awful status quo. You know keeping things the same will keep them awful, if there's change then there's hope.


In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.
1. The chemical weapons could have fallen into the IS's hands.
2. You would justify using chemical weapons against anyone? That's barbaric.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2014, 03:48:12 AM »
« Edited: August 26, 2014, 03:50:14 AM by ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/obama-syria-ISIS.html


Maybe we'll mainly go after ISIS forces who are fighting the Kurds.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2014, 08:14:42 AM »

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

No way was it a mistake to take those chemical weapons from a madman.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2014, 10:32:54 AM »

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

The hell?
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2014, 11:58:18 AM »

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

No way was it a mistake to take those chemical weapons from a madman.
Assad is not a madman though; he is simply a brutal dictator who would rather slaughter his country than give up power. While I agree that it is a good idea to take away his stockpile, the proliferation of WMDs amoung non-great powers is inherently destabilizing, we could perhaps let him lob a few at ISIS before he is totally disarmed.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 11 queries.