|
icantfindaname posted:Considering each of them killed ten times as many people as ISIS, and directly play into the Islamist narrative that secular government is evil, yeah. Basic math is hard when you have a pathological need to justify isolationism and reflexive anti-Americanism, I guess? Just comparing kill-counts is naive, because it ignores displacement. An established dictator has control over the movements of his people, so massacres and purges are comparatively easier. If ISIS controlled its borders, it would be just as brutal as any dictator (especially since it's, you know, a goddamn medieval-style caliphate). Moreover, if the Syrian war was taking place in a shithole like Sudan, we would be seeing six or seven figure casualties among the displaced.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:Yeah I get that, but what I am saying is that practically speaking, with the way the US uses drones - they may as well be inherently illegal because they're being used illegally all the time pretty much. Pretty much what I was saying, of course a legal bombing doesn't become illegal because its a drone. I should have specified that I am specifically talking about drone-only targetted killing operations like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc, which are at best assassinations and at worst state terror. The intercept's peices on the drone campaign looking at a bunch of leaked stuff (almost all info about the drone campaigns are officially secret or from misleading military sources) and is a very pro-read, they tend to be a bit strident but are all legit journalists with unique access to actual sources. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/ This one is especially good for a look at how it doesn't work by the military's own analysis. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/manhunting-in-the-hindu-kush/ quote:THE FREQUENCY WITH which “targeted killing” operations hit unnamed bystanders is among the more striking takeaways from the Haymaker slides. The documents show that during a five-month stretch of the campaign, nearly nine out of 10 people who died in airstrikes were not the Americans’ direct targets. By February 2013, Haymaker airstrikes had resulted in no more than 35 “jackpots,” a term used to signal the neutralization of a specific targeted individual, while more than 200 people were declared EKIA — “enemy killed in action.” quote:In the complex world of remote killing in remote locations, labeling the dead as “enemies” until proven otherwise is commonplace, said an intelligence community source with experience working on high-value targeting missions in Afghanistan, who provided the documents on the Haymaker campaign. The process often depends on assumptions or best guesses in provinces like Kunar or Nuristan, the source said, particularly if the dead include “military-age males,” or MAMs, in military parlance. “If there is no evidence that proves a person killed in a strike was either not a MAM, or was a MAM but not an unlawful enemy combatant, then there is no question,” he said. “They label them EKIA.” In the case of airstrikes in a campaign like Haymaker, the source added, missiles could be fired from a variety of aircraft. “But nine times out of 10 it’s a drone strike.” quote:Despite the rise in civilian casualties and the well-documented failure of drone strikes to achieve the military’s broader objectives, there is every indication that unmanned airstrikes will play an increasing role in U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan, as they have in war zones across the world. Less than two weeks after the U.N. issued its report, Foreign Policy revealed that JSOC has drastically reduced the number of night raids it conducts in Afghanistan, while dramatically increasing its reliance on airstrikes, and is currently “on pace to double the rate at which it kills ‘high-value individuals’ using kinetic strikes, compared to how many it was killing that way five years ago.” e: and as to why drone strike killings are a seperate concern from regular bombardment: quote:While many of the documents provided to The Intercept contain explicit internal recommendations for improving unconventional U.S. warfare, the source said that what’s implicit is even more significant. The mentality reflected in the documents on the assassination programs is: “This process can work. We can work out the kinks. We can excuse the mistakes. And eventually we will get it down to the point where we don’t have to continuously come back … and explain why a bunch of innocent people got killed.” Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
I thought this was a very good article and I don't think any Presidential candidate can come across as being as thoughtful as President Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There were a lot more moderates back in 2011/2012/2013 before Assad killed them all. But the problem with the bolded, like I said in my reply to Helsing yesterday, is that we're talking about Obama's presidency here. Yes, neocons have been loving up the middle east since at least the early 80s, this is true. But Obama had a chance to do something productive and he chose not to take it. It's baffling to me to see people doubling down on what was in hindsight obviously the wrong choice. You say "Obama made the wrong choice" and the response is "but but so did everyone else!" That's not an defense of Obama or his policies, it's attempt to deflect blame. I oppose taking out Assad but 90% of my opposition comes not from the actual taking out Assad part but about what would happen afterwards. The US military is great as destroying clear targets but we cannot create stability out of nothing in a catastrophically unstable region. If Assad were killed there would be a power vacuum for which the US would obviously blamed, and I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to somehow fix the problem. Why would we be any more successful here than in Iraq or Afghanistan? Even if we were successful we could get no credit and everyone in the region would still hate us and blame us for everything bad that happened because of our ugly history in the region. It's a lose/lose/lose/lose situation and really the only thing the US can do at this point is pull back from this clusterfuck. I'm confused as to why you keep calling this position "anti-American." I don't hold this position because I think America is evil, I hold this position because I don't think any good whatsoever comes from the US trying to micromanage affairs in a ridiculously unstable region with dozens of different groups fighting eachother. I don't think any other country would be particularly successful at this either which is why they all sit back and expect us to do it every time. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I oppose taking out Assad but 90% of my opposition comes not from the actual taking out Assad part but about what would happen afterwards. The US military is great as destroying clear targets but we cannot create stability out of nothing in a catastrophically unstable region. If Assad were killed there would be a power vacuum for which the US would obviously blamed, and I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to somehow fix the problem. Why would we be any more successful here than in Iraq or Afghanistan? Even if we were successful we could get no credit and everyone in the region would still hate us and blame us for everything bad that happened because of our ugly history in the region. It's a lose/lose/lose/lose situation and really the only thing the US can do at this point is pull back from this clusterfuck. Agreed. I think the best outcome we can hope for in Syria is for Assad to remain in power, but with only enough power to keep the country relatively stable, while at the same time having his ability to commit atrocities against his own citizens minimized. Obviously that's an insanely difficult balance to achieve, and realistically we'll probably never bullseye it, but we can at least try to aim for something close to where Saddam was between 1992 and 2003. (when, of course, we totally upended that balance and hosed everything up, because yaaaay neoconservatism) Doctor Butts posted:I thought this was a very good article and I don't think any Presidential candidate can come across as being as thoughtful as President Obama. It's a low bar to clear, but I think that's a valid thing to keep in mind. Whatever criticisms people may have of Obama's foreign policy, there can be no question that he's been more thoughtful about it than any of his likely successors probably will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Agreed. I think the best outcome we can hope for in Syria is for Assad to remain in power, but with only enough power to keep the country relatively stable, while at the same time having his ability to commit atrocities against his own citizens minimized. Obviously that's an insanely difficult balance to achieve, and realistically we'll probably never bullseye it, but we can at least try to aim for something close to where Saddam was between 1992 and 2003. (when, of course, we totally upended that balance and hosed everything up, because yaaaay neoconservatism) I too think that a period in which 500,000 children starved to death is the best case scenario in Syria, because the Iraq War was the worst atrocity that has ever been seen on the face of the earth, and we must learn those lessons and use them wherever possible. Especially where they don't apply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
It would be a price worth paying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I oppose taking out Assad but 90% of my opposition comes not from the actual taking out Assad part but about what would happen afterwards. The US military is great as destroying clear targets but we cannot create stability out of nothing in a catastrophically unstable region. If Assad were killed there would be a power vacuum for which the US would obviously blamed, and I'm extremely skeptical of our ability to somehow fix the problem. Why would we be any more successful here than in Iraq or Afghanistan? Iraq, at least the non-ISIS parts of it, and even Afghanistan, are sterling successes compared to Syria. Literally 65% of that country's population is dead or homeless, dude. This argument simply doesn't work. JFairfax posted:It would be a price worth paying. Half a million dead Arab civilians so isolationist liberals in the USA can have peace of mind? You're a literal monster, just FYI
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I too think that a period in which 500,000 children starved to death You know that's not what I'm talking about, Volkerball. I didn't say anything about crippling sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Iraq, at least the non-ISIS parts of it, and even Afghanistan, are sterling successes compared to Syria. Literally 65% of that country's population is dead or homeless, dude. This argument simply doesn't work. I was making a joke. I was referencing what Madeline Albright said when asked if 500,000 dead children as a result of US sanctions on Iraq was acceptable. and for the record I don't think America should be isolationist, I think it should be an international player that does not use militarism, death, destruction and violence as it's major foreign policy tool. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You know that's not what I'm talking about, Volkerball. I didn't say anything about crippling sanctions. From the day he took office until August 2nd, 1990, Saddam spent basically every day of his Presidency wrapped up fighting an offensive war he started. From August 6th 1990, the day sanctions started, to the beginning of the Iraq invasion, he didn't start one. Totally unrelated, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
America backed, armed and provided intelligence including satellite information to Saddam that he used to deploy chemical weapons in his war against Iran.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:From the day he took office until August 2nd, 1990, Saddam spent basically every day of his Presidency wrapped up fighting an offensive war he started. From August 6th 1990, the day sanctions started, to the beginning of the Iraq invasion, he didn't start one. Totally unrelated, I'm sure. I would say the far greater impact was made by the absolute destruction of the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I was making a joke. Obama's already using sternly-worded letters as his major foreign policy tool in the ME, and it hasn't worked very well
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Obama's already using sternly-worded letters as his major foreign policy tool in the ME, and it hasn't worked very well Are you forgetting the military action against Libya that overthrew their dictator?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Are you forgetting the military action against Libya that overthrew their dictator? No, that was a successful policy, compared with Syria anyways. ~5,000 dead vs ~500,000 dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I would say the far greater impact was made by the absolute destruction of the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War. The crushing losses they took during the Iran-Iraq war didn't stop them from invading Kuwait like a year after the war ended. It was clearly the sanctions after the Persian Gulf war that forced Saddam to press the pause button for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Obama's already using sternly-worded letters as his major foreign policy tool in the ME, and it hasn't worked very well Keeping an air power coalition together to bomb ISIS and support anti-ISIS insurgent groups, while at the same time doing everything possible to keep Saudi Arabia and Iran from turning it into a proxy war = "sternly-worded letters"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:At this point sure. In 2012 there might have been. The stridency which which people are arguing that nothing could be done is very strange to me, especially in light how how awful things got without American involvement. Not intervening was an enormous mistake and people are desperate to justify that mistake 2012 was already far too late to meaningfully change the outcome. Even if Assad and all of his loyalists died in a mysterious explosion back in 2012, the civil war would only have become even more chaotic as various groups fought to be the one to rule Syria in the end, with the Islamist groups ultimately coming out on top after a shitton of sectarian violence, plenty of ethnic cleansing, and a total breakdown of the distinction between civilians and soldiers. Creating a power vacuum at the top by suppressing the government army or killing the evil dictator doesn't magically bring peace to a country in civil war - it just renders the situation safe for the various opposition groups to commence slaughtering each other without worrying about government troops or international intervention getting in the way, just like in Libya. There's a huge political difference between allowing something to happen through inaction and actively working to make something happen. Whether Assad or ISIS wins in Syria, at least we didn't give them the guns they won the fight with. Politically, it's better to be seen as someone who sat back and allowed the eventual Syrian winner to win through weak and ineffective policy than it is to openly sponsor either an enemy of America or a team that loses in spite of American assistance (and ends up handing that assistance over to the victors). JFairfax posted:Also the point is that American involvement in the middle east over the last 30 years has been a history of supporting awful people for a while and then disposing of them when they have outlived their usefulness. There is no reason to believe that any American action in the region now is for any other reason than self-interest. Goes back a lot farther than just 30 years. JFairfax posted:Yeah I get that, but what I am saying is that practically speaking, with the way the US uses drones - they may as well be inherently illegal because they're being used illegally all the time pretty much. This is not how law works - nor, for that matter, should it be. That same argument can be used to justify some pretty awful things! The legality of an airstrike should have nothing to do with where the pilot is sitting - an illegal airstrike is illegal regardless of whether it's a drone or a regular plane. Volkerball posted:I too think that a period in which 500,000 children starved to death is the best case scenario in Syria, because the Iraq War was the worst atrocity that has ever been seen on the face of the earth, and we must learn those lessons and use them wherever possible. Especially where they don't apply. What makes you think "taking out" Assad would somehow prevent this? All those countless disorganized anti-government rebels with radically different philosophies, values, and aims aren't just going to shake hands and make up as soon as Assad is out of the picture. Destabilizing a country is a big deal, and once order has broken down like this it's not easy to stabilize things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Keeping an air power coalition together to bomb ISIS and support anti-ISIS insurgent groups, while at the same time doing everything possible to keep Saudi Arabia and Iran from turning it into a proxy war = "sternly-worded letters"? In dealing with Assad. Those issues are sideshows compared to the Assad vs Rebels fight, which Obama has refused to intervene in
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Kuwait is not really comparable to Iran. It's like invading Philadelphia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's a huge political difference between allowing something to happen through inaction and actively working to make something happen. Whether Assad or ISIS wins in Syria, at least we didn't give them the guns they won the fight with. Politically, it's better to be seen as someone who sat back and allowed the eventual Syrian winner to win through weak and ineffective policy than it is to openly sponsor either an enemy of America or a team that loses in spite of American assistance (and ends up handing that assistance over to the victors). So basically we should let millions of Arab civilians get murdered because it's good PR for Obama and the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In dealing with Assad. Those issues are sideshows compared to the Assad vs Rebels fight, which Obama has refused to intervene in Okay, so who will run Syria once Assad is out of the frame?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In dealing with Assad. Those issues are sideshows compared to the Assad vs Rebels fight, which Obama has refused to intervene in Getting Assad to turn over the vast majority of his chemical weapons arsenal doesn't strike me as a refusal to intervene. icantfindaname posted:So basically we should let millions of Arab civilians get murdered because it's good PR for Obama and the Democrats? No, we shouldn't directly intervene because we don't have a very good record of actually making things better in the region through full-on military intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Getting Assad to turn over the vast majority of his chemical weapons arsenal doesn't strike me as a refusal to intervene. Look there are brown people that America could be killing that it isn't killing. This needs to be rectified asap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What makes you think "taking out" Assad would somehow prevent this? All those countless disorganized anti-government rebels with radically different philosophies, values, and aims aren't just going to shake hands and make up as soon as Assad is out of the picture. Destabilizing a country is a big deal, and once order has broken down like this it's not easy to stabilize things. They were infinitely more united then than they are now. The one obstacle to the peace process was Assad. That was all the political opposition was demanding, and at the time, they still had connections to command assets in the revolution. It's hard to explain how on the edge Assad was in early 2012. People were defecting en masse, and the rebels were growing and making major gains. I think US airstrikes and a no fly zone at the time might've been the difference maker that would've pushed along a solution. Yes the opposition was fractured, but it was essentially fractured into two pieces. The FSA, and JaN, and the two groups were together for the most part. The situation is a lot worse now, but again, this result of destabilization is what you advocated for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, that was a successful policy, compared with Syria anyways. ~5,000 dead vs ~500,000 dead It's still ongoing. They still need to unite and free the country of various rebel groups including ISIL. Ghaddafi dying didn't end it just like Assad dying wouldn't end the conflict in Syria. In Syria you also have Iran and Russia shoveling money into the fire to counteract the goals of US-backed rebels so if the SAA cease to exist all you'd get is Alawite militias fighting Sunni militias + Al Qaeda + ISIL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:They were infinitely more united then than they are now. The one obstacle to the peace process was Assad. That was all the political opposition was demanding, and at the time, they still had connections to command assets in the revolution. It's hard to explain how on the edge Assad was in early 2012. People were defecting en masse, and the rebels were growing and making major gains. I think US airstrikes and a no fly zone at the time might've been the difference maker that would've pushed along a solution. Yes the opposition was fractured, but it was essentially fractured into two pieces. The FSA, and JaN, and the two groups were together for the most part. The situation is a lot worse now, but again, this result of destabilization is what you advocated for. How do you know that Syria wouldn't descend into civil war + be more vulnerable to ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Okay, so who will run Syria once Assad is out of the frame? If Obama had intervened in 2012 and the rebels had won, my guess would be that the FSA would hold elections that the Islamists would win, and then the Alawite areas of the country / probably the remnants of the SAA would immediately secede and you would get a Libya-esque situation with an FSA government in Damascus and an Alawite/SAA remnant government along the coast. It would probably end up similar to today one way or another, just with a few hundred thousand fewer dead civilians, millions fewer refugees and a much lower-intensity conflict. ISIS might not even exist as the FSA Damascus faction would be able to assert better control over the Sunni interior Majorian posted:Getting Assad to turn over the vast majority of his chemical weapons arsenal doesn't strike me as a refusal to intervene. So as Volkerball said Assad didn't actually turn over the majority of his chemical weapons. But I'm forgetting that PR for Obama is all that matters here quote:No, we shouldn't directly intervene because we don't have a very good record of actually making things better in the region through full-on military intervention. The results of our interventions have actually been dramatically better than the result of our non-intervention in Syria. And I agree that our previous interventions have generally been disastrous. These are the facts, and watching people twist themselves into knots trying to make them go away is very depressing JFairfax posted:How do you know that Syria wouldn't descend into civil war + be more vulnerable to ISIS? Like I said, it's just as likely it would be less vulnerable to ISIS, as the victorious Sunni rebels would cut ISIS' support base out from under them
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Look there are brown people that America could be killing that it isn't killing. This needs to be rectified asap. Your side has already established that it prefers millions of dead Arabs to the moral stain of intervention
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So as Volkerball said Assad didn't actually turn over the majority of his chemical weapons. That's a ridiculous assertion. There's no evidence that he held onto "the majority" of his chemical weapons. He's held onto some, but you're seriously overestimating the amount. quote:The results of our interventions have actually been dramatically better than the result of our non-intervention in Syria. Really? Because I'm pretty sure that our intervention in Iraq was a major direct cause of this civil war in Syria, particularly its worst aspects like ISIS. icantfindaname posted:Your side has already established that it prefers millions of dead Arabs to the moral stain of intervention Millions of dead Arabs is the direct result of our intervention, Jesus dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If Obama had intervened in 2012 and the rebels had won, my guess would be that the FSA would hold elections that the Islamists would win, and then the Alawite areas of the country / probably the remnants of the SAA would immediately secede and you would get a Libya-esque situation with an FSA government in Damascus and an Alawite/SAA remnant government along the coast. It would probably end up similar to today one way or another, just with a few hundred thousand fewer dead civilians, millions fewer refugees and a much lower-intensity conflict. ISIS might not even exist as the FSA Damascus faction would be able to assert better control over the Sunni interior Right so from a secular country you would end up with a 'moderate' Islamic state which would likely disintegrate and fall apart into civil war... Okay and you think that this would have resulted in less death and destruction? ISIS has been around in one form or another since 2006 and getting rid of Assad would make it easier for them to make gains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So basically we should let millions of Arab civilians get murdered because it's good PR for Obama and the Democrats? Replace "Obama" with "the current President" and "Democrats" with "the party in power" and you've got basically the dictionary definition of "American foreign policy" since, what, 1916? From the standpoint of effective foreign policy, it's just more of the same. From a moral standpoint, Obama has pursued US policies that have directly led to the torture or death of Arab civilians for the sake of US interests, so the only surprise in Syria is that he isn't in there actively making it worse somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So as Volkerball said Assad didn't actually turn over the majority of his chemical weapons. But I'm forgetting that PR for Obama is all that matters here So he has WMDs just like Saddam did... We're CERTAIN Saddam didn't turn over all of his...
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
We'll find them any day now..
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:How do you know that Syria wouldn't descend into civil war + be more vulnerable to ISIS? ISIS didn't begin to thrive again until late 2013. Nobody was paying attention to them in Iraq, and JaN was the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. It was the re-alignment after the US refused to intervene after Ghouta that really shattered everything, and opened the window for ISIS to exploit the vacuum. Syria was already in civil war. But with Assad out of the picture, you actually had a chance of reaching a political solution. They may have agreed upon partition or some sort of federalization to create enclaves that could defend themselves while the security situation was an issue, but the door would've been open for that. With Assad, the negotiation starting point was "Assad or we burn the country," and that has never changed. I don't have to prove that Syria wouldn't have descended into civil war or been more vulnerable to ISIS. I just have to prove that it would've been more likely we could've avoided that outcome. I argued that then, and it's even easier now with the benefit of hindsight showing us exactly how "hands off Syria" turned out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:ISIS didn't begin to thrive again until late 2013. Nobody was paying attention to them in Iraq, and JaN was the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. It was the re-alignment after the US refused to intervene after Ghouta that really shattered everything, and opened the window for ISIS to exploit the vacuum. Syria was already in civil war. But with Assad out of the picture, you actually had a chance of reaching a political solution. They may have agreed upon partition or some sort of federalization to create enclaves that could defend themselves while the security situation was an issue, but the door would've been open for that. With Assad, the negotiation starting point was "Assad or we burn the country," and that has never changed. I don't have to prove that Syria wouldn't have descended into civil war or been more vulnerable to ISIS. I just have to prove that it would've been more likely we could've avoided that outcome. I argued that then, and it's even easier now with the benefit of hindsight showing us exactly how "hands off Syria" turned out in practice. so you wanted the US to negotiate with ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Getting Assad to turn over the vast majority of his chemical weapons arsenal doesn't strike me as a refusal to intervene. Except Obama did nothing to get Assad to turn over the chemical weapons, that was all Russia done for the sake of making the US look like a bunch of tools. Do you realize what you're saying? You are trumpeting the fact that Obama drew a red line on WMD use, failed to hold the line, and then relied on Syrian promises to give all their chemical weapons to Russia (verified by Russian inspectors) all on the "honor" system. The only reason Syria gave up what we think are all of their chemical weapons is because it benefited Putin for them to do so. As for not intervening in Syria, I would agree with that simply because I don't think we can solve the problem that is the Middle East. Call it a stunning lack of faith in humanity, but I think that part of the world is a lost cause for now. At the very least, it is not worth the US going it alone. If the EU wanted our help in taking care of it to prevent the migrant crisis, sure, we'd help our allies. One of the few things Obama got right was his realization that we can't solve every problem all the time - we have to choose our fights carefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:So he has WMDs just like Saddam did... We're CERTAIN Saddam didn't turn over all of his... You know we found chemical weapons, right? ISIS looted his old stockpiles and are currently using them on the Kurds. I don't think anyone would argue Syria has nukes hidden somewhere. Majorian posted:Really? Because I'm pretty sure that our intervention in Iraq was a major direct cause of this civil war in Syria, particularly its worst aspects like ISIS. Well, you're pretty wrong. Syria's revolution was entirely domestic, and ISIS was nothing in Iraq in 2012 after the US left. Something changed and it wasn't "the US invaded a place."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:so you wanted the US to negotiate with ISIS? what
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:17
|
|