US no longer making pro-Russian Assad an enemy

[laughing dog]

What? Our interests align with Russia in Syria.

Not really.

I hate to break it to you, but the USA and Russia prop up dictatorships all the time. It's sort of the theme of the last 60 years.

That does not justify propping up any particular bloodthirsty tyrant.

Also, again, I hate to break it to you, but by *not* supporting Assad, you are saying "Fuck you" to all the secular and religious minorities in Syria, which enjoy relative tolerance under the Assad regime, and whatever would realistically replace it would be a fucking disaster for their rights.

Basically you are making the same argument for Assad that people made for Tito in Yugoslavia - he is better than whatever we can imagine. However, eventually, everyone of this despots is overthrown and chaos ensues. There is no a priori reason to believe that chaos later is better than chaos now.

 

[J842P]

Not really.

Yes, really, if our interests include making sure Al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist groups don't gain control of Syria, and preventing the ensuing ethno-religious cleansing.

However, eventually, everyone of this despots is overthrown and chaos ensues. There is no a priori reason to believe that chaos later is better than chaos now.

So, what course of action do you support? Because supporting the toppling of Assad will almost certainly lead to the above. Unless you support the US invading and occupying Syria with the hundreds of thousands of troops required to keep the peace. Indefinitely.

I support funding/arming/training/supporting secular (slightly socialist) Kurdish groups, but everyone else can fuck off. Especially Turkey.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes, really, if our interests include making sure Al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist groups don't gain control of Syria, and preventing the ensuing ethno-religious cleansing.

However, eventually, everyone of this despots is overthrown and chaos ensues. There is no a priori reason to believe that chaos later is better than chaos now.

So, what course of action do you support? Because supporting the toppling of Assad will almost certainly lead to the above. Unless you support the US invading and occupying Syria with the hundreds of thousands of troops required to keep the peace. Indefinitely.

I support funding/arming/training/supporting secular (slightly socialist) Kurdish groups, but everyone else can fuck off. Especially Turkey.

The US has already armed certain factions a few year ago and what a mess that turned out to be.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, really, if our interests include making sure Al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist groups don't gain control of Syria, and preventing the ensuing ethno-religious cleansing.

The only way to insure that is to nuke the entire region.

So, what course of action do you support? Because supporting the toppling of Assad will almost certainly lead to the above.

Myopic scare mongering. Propping Assad up is what got this all started in the first place. Are you under the delusion that continued assistance to Assad reduces the longer-run changes of your worst fears being realized?

The US is in no position to do anything of value there in the short run or the long run. But that does not mean our interests coincide with Russia's.

Unless you support the US invading and occupying Syria with the hundreds of thousands of troops required to keep the peace. Indefinitely.

Ah, the old excluded middle fallacy.

I support funding/arming/training/supporting secular (slightly socialist) Kurdish groups, but everyone else can fuck off. Especially Turkey.

And that is not going to happen any time soon.
.

 

[blastula]

They changed their mind, Assad is a bad hombre again.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They changed their mind, Assad is a bad hombre again.

Well, that's kind of Assad's own damn fault. The US said he's not an enemy anymore, so he immediately breaks out the chemical weapons and bombs civilians with them. No lead up to that or anything. It's like someone who brings up a Nazi comparison in the third post of a thread - everyone's just immediately against him.

If Assad had slowly worked his way up to this and started out with some minor atrocities which Trump could find a reason to ignore or rationalize, then they're already in the position of defending the actions of a monster by the time he gets around to hitting innocents with chemical weapons and they may have found themselves stuck "defending their guy" or something.

 

[tupac chopra]

They changed their mind, Assad is a bad hombre again.

Well, that's kind of Assad's own damn fault. The US said he's not an enemy anymore, so he immediately breaks out the chemical weapons and bombs civilians with them.

What is the evidence that Assad actually did this? I know it's been all over the headlines, but do we know that he did it and not the rebels? The only ones who benefit from this are the rebels.

The Australian Prime Minister is not apportioning blame yet, although the US President is.
Syria chemical weapons attack: removing dictator Bashar al-Assad 'not an option'

Mr Turnbull said further international sanctions could be required, and called on Moscow to intervene.

"While the full facts are still to be determined, if the Assad regime is responsible for this attack those who approved and deployed these weapons must be held accountable," he said.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The US shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place in trying to destroy a country after inciting genocide while implementing regime change.

Assad is the best out of a bad lot. Who should take his place; ISIS leaders or a rag tag bunch of splinter groups some of which have been aligned to Al Nusra at times.
Not much of a choice.

I've been arguing for years that helping to destabilize Assad, or to cooperate with ME dictatorships trying to do so is a bad idea. It is especially bad, when there is absolutely no post dictatorship game plan or commitment for stabilizing a country.

It's a good idea for the US to work with Russia to resolve global terrorism.

Yeah, sure...when it is convenient for El Cheato. Tell that to the Yemeni people or the people in the horn of Africa...as proudly made in America weapons continue on killing at large.

The best contribution of the USA and its allies tends to be as useful as pouring gasoline onto a fire.

 

[Elixir]

To be honest, the policy of seeking regime change was, for all practical purposes, abandoned when Obama reneged on his "red line" and went along with Putin's plan on chemical weapons.

Be honest, Derec:

"Obama's red line at the time was a threat of US military action against Syria should it continue to use chemical weapons. When Obama asked the GOP-led Congress to authorize the potential use of force against Syria, the Republicans, not wanting to take a firm stance, declined to hold a vote."

 

[arkirk]

I am afraid ANYTHING this administration says means exactly nothing. Trump may already have a squad dispatched to assassinate Assad. These people are totally corporate, totally greedy, and totally corrupt beyond most peoples' imaginations. I don't think you can ever be sure they are through trying to eliminate Assad. We have a duplicitous CIA and NSA and there is always that flippant orange thing that visits the white house between golf games.