I meant in the West. It's horrible that it's used in a warzone, but would be even scarier elsewhere.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Thread starter Suli
- Start date
I meant in the West. It's horrible that it's used in a warzone, but would be even scarier elsewhere.
Haley's Executive Assistant/Special Envoy to Russia
Danny has a bad case of whataboutism. Whenever his hero Assad is implicated in gassing his own citizens, he quickly scampers off to google to list other examples as if they're relevant in the present.
How can his position change? He's a Russian agent, the Russians are controlling him (with "Golden Showers...etc. etc.").
"Whataboutism"?! I think the term is easy to understand and my post was easy to follow, so I don't know what you're talking about here. There is no "what about" in this. If Assad did this he must pay the price.
You're just annoyed because you don't like people mentioning facts that don't fit in the propaganda you're siding with, and of course you don't like people bringing up or questioning statements you made in the past (not so long ago).
Oh and by the way, I don't want anybody here to think I'm neutral in this conflict, and I never said I am, because I'm not. I have a very strong opinion about this conflict which I repeated and explained multiple times. However Assad is never my hero, and I really hate him and his regime. So you're flat out ....... 'wrong' there.
You've been pro-Assad since the beginning.
I'm not pro-Assad. I'm anti-Al-Qaeda (or its derivatives) which I knew would take over if his regime collapses (and I said this from the very beginning). And time has proven I was right.
You can be anti AQ/IS/Assad at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Only if there is a third viable option. Unfortunately the reality in Syria (in my opinion) is that a real third option doesn't exist in this conflict.
Early reports now indicate that the victims were exposed to at least two different chemical substances:
http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria...ptoms-consistent-exposure-chemical-substances
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chemical-attack-kills-22-members-220438765.html
http://www.msf.org/en/article/syria...ptoms-consistent-exposure-chemical-substances
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chemical-attack-kills-22-members-220438765.html
I am surprised to agree with @Danny1982 on something...but, in pragmatic terms, those agendas are mutually exclusive in regards to Syria.
This is precisely what Obama got wrong on this issue.
No, but in pragmatic terms you have to have to go with a lesser evil.
The 10 or so moderate rebels arent going to win this war, nor are they the ones to lead Syria into a golden dawn if the regime collapses. Something far more sinister will take its place. Recent history is testament to that.
What's the real third option in your opinion?
The third option is clearly the most effective. Raoul and his army of caftards are parachuted into Raqqa and Idlib and begin lecturing the jihadists on the benefits of life under western style democracy. Before you know it, the bearded radicals from ISIS and Al Qaeda will renounce their old ways, stop cutting off people's heads, change into khaki shorts and end up working at the local McDonalds.
That's what Americans got wrong about Middle East all along, not just Syria. They're looking (or claim to be looking) for something that isn't there.
Last edited:
Alternatively we can get rid of all of them, get in a UN peacekeeping force to take the geopolitics out of it, and start a roadmap towards proper inclusive elections so the people can decide their future.
We do hate the Russians. We fought a war with the Russians in Afghanistan remember.
Balderdash
Let's get ready to rumble....
Great....just what the Syrian people need...more bombings.
If we target Assad and take him out - fine. But, that's not what we're going to do
If we target Assad and take him out - fine. But, that's not what we're going to do
Great....just what the Syrian people need...more bombings.
If we target Assad and take him out - fine. But, that's not what we're going to do
Hopefully its a decapitation strike.
No chance, Trump won't be allowed to do anything to Assad without Putin's blessing.
Putin is just using Syria for international leverage. If he thinks he can use Trump's good will in other areas (sanctions relief etc) , I'm sure he will just keep his planes on the base while Assad gets pummeled.
Great, now the US will come and "set things straight" with astounding success like they always have around those parts.
As if supporting the "rebels" wasn't enough.
Yeee-haaaw!
As if supporting the "rebels" wasn't enough.
Yeee-haaaw!
As opposed to Sarin gas attacks, countless barrel bombs, Russians indiscriminately carpet bombing civilians, 5 million refugees, and half the country run by ISIS without a US intervention.
Yeee-haaaw!
I hope Jill Stein has her tinned goods stashed ready for the inevitable.
Yeah, arming and supporting jihadists will often lead to such.
I am sure this will be another resounding success like Afghanistan, Iraq and to some extent Libya.
But hey, atleast we got rid of the Taliban and the WMD's.
(And you got the pipeline through Afghanistan and Halliburton got all those shiny contracts in Iraq.)
We're not talking about arming jihadists here. Trump would probably resort to airstrikes on something valuable to Assad.
Let's get this back on track.
So in response to chemical weapons that killed innocent children the West is going to bomb Syria killing innocent children. This makes sense how?
Let's hope its directed towards Assad or his facilities or assets, and not areas where people live. But we are talking about Trump here, so who knows.
At best: Assad suffers millitary losses, this way strengthening ISIS and prolonging the war.
At worst: civillians get struck, like they usually do.
No gain to be had. Probably more of a PR and face saving mission after the extreme fail that was Western meddling in Syria.
At worst: civillians get struck, like they usually do.
No gain to be had. Probably more of a PR and face saving mission after the extreme fail that was Western meddling in Syria.
Those don't have much of a history of success. Usually can't pinpoint the target's place and time. They tried to do Saddam in 2003 a day before the invasion, hit the target but he wasn't there.
Yeah, I went to believer's palace in Baghdad a couple of years after the attempted decapitation strike on Saddam.
You take out Assad and then what? Who replaces him?
We all know the US is good at uprooting tyrants, just not at what follows after.
Your peacekeeping suggestion isn't going to work either since you have thousands of jihadists, many allied with the rebellion to contend with after.
I don't have all the answers, but for starters, there will need to be broad international buy in for something like this.
It would require a massive international effort to simultaneously deal with ISIS and Assad and neutralize other violent factions, but that's the only way this will end. Allowing ISIS to operate obviously has to be addressed, but then that doesn't deal with Assad and his chemical weapons. That's why the international community needs a holistic approach to deal with this once and for all.
If you're going to war against Assad that means you're going to war against Russia and Iran. Even Obama wasn't that stupid.
Nobody cares about Iran here. As for Russia, Putin can just sit in his two bases while the US does its work.
Like them or hate them you can't dismiss them from the process. They're both an ally of Syria and Russia and have plenty of military assets on the ground.
I don't think Trump would include them since he's generally anti-Iran by way of his Iran nuke deal position and closeness to Netenyahoo.