|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you.
There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines.
Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone.
|
On October 08 2016 02:38 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. Well in fairness that was always going to be a problem. The thing you have to realise about dictators is that as miserable as it is countries have to organically evolve themselves out of it. Yes it can be brutal and miserable but if its organic what needs to happen will happen. Thats what history will tell you for where the west finds itself today. Being world police is fine if countries are damaging each other.. But with all the power vacuums that intervention creates and the amount of weapons that start flowing around you now have set back that organic progression decades if not hundreds of years. The US has been doing it since Iran in the 50's and they just never learn. I guess the blinders from being so powerful can do that. You just gotta get your tentacles in there. Its a failed standard of FP that the US has been following and I dont know where the political will for it comes from but its helped refuck everyone who was already pretty fucked so the world isn't exactly going to thank you for pretending to help and then making things worse. The people who suffered under Assad weren't going to blame the US.. They will now. As someone who was born under a martial dictator that secreted Wahabism from every pore I can assure you that, it is still preferred to being in a perpetual state of civil war that power vacuums create.
I agree it problematic and there is no good solution. I think the "let Assad win" is just overly simplistic and doesn't address all the ramifications of letting him win. Its not like we can just stop being involved and the pre-civil war status quo will snap back into place.
|
On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone.
Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic 
I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government.
|
My inclination is to have assad leave power, but have the syrian regime (which I assume is russia friendly in general, I don't thhink it's just the assad family personally that sides with russia) stay. Have some power decentralization and a fair bit of local autonomy to regions so long as they don't cause trouble.
So long as assad is at the top, I don't think there will be peace because there's too many there who utterly hate him in some parts of the country. If he's gone, but the regim eis otherwise still there, I think a deal might be achievable.
I don't think assad has the manpower to stably control the parts of the country that don't like him.
of course that's still only a rough estimate/plan, and there's some other options, and details might change some things.
|
On October 08 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:38 Rebs wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. Well in fairness that was always going to be a problem. The thing you have to realise about dictators is that as miserable as it is countries have to organically evolve themselves out of it. Yes it can be brutal and miserable but if its organic what needs to happen will happen. Thats what history will tell you for where the west finds itself today. Being world police is fine if countries are damaging each other.. But with all the power vacuums that intervention creates and the amount of weapons that start flowing around you now have set back that organic progression decades if not hundreds of years. The US has been doing it since Iran in the 50's and they just never learn. I guess the blinders from being so powerful can do that. You just gotta get your tentacles in there. Its a failed standard of FP that the US has been following and I dont know where the political will for it comes from but its helped refuck everyone who was already pretty fucked so the world isn't exactly going to thank you for pretending to help and then making things worse. The people who suffered under Assad weren't going to blame the US.. They will now. As someone who was born under a martial dictator that secreted Wahabism from every pore I can assure you that, it is still preferred to being in a perpetual state of civil war that power vacuums create. I agree it problematic and there is no good solution. I think the "let Assad win" is just overly simplistic and doesn't address all the ramifications of letting him win. Its not like we can just stop being involved and the pre-civil war status quo will snap back into place.
Yeah I edited that into my comment sorry. I agree that you cant just hand it back to Assad anymore no questions asked. For starters Russia will have at that point basically consider themselves having dickslapped the US in the face by backing the winner and frankly if you let him back in he will be stronger than ever.
But hey as long as Russia keeps arming Assad and the US keeps arming the rebels they can basically play war with each other while other people suffer the consequences. Dem weapons aint gonna sell themselves.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally.
Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government.
I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it.
Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely.
|
On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely.
can you provide some citations for the groups in question?
|
On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it.
No, the obvious reason is not to remove Assad, costs be damned. The obvious reason is to keep the conflict in balance and ongoing.
If the US wanted Assad gone, costs be damned, he would have been gone before Russia even got involved.
What reason does the US have to end a conflict that is draining all its enemies of precious resources?
Morality sure isn't it or something would have been done in Syria and elsewhere (Africa) ages ago.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 02:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely. can you provide some citations for the groups in question?
Hard to do because there is a lot of groups with a lot of different specific circumstances, but this article describes some of the happenings there in some generality. The short version is that groups the US trained and armed to further its own interests eventually came to aid their enemies in the terrorist conflicts.
|
On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone.
In the face of Assads constantly escalating violence every rebel organisation at some point seems legitimate from the pov of someone on the ground. That's just the reality of a war that at this point includes biochemical warfare and strategic destruction of water supplies and basic necessities. The Assad regime for the longest time has opportunistically used Isis to go after moderate rebel groups.
|
On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on.
The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. No, the obvious reason is not to remove Assad, costs be damned. The obvious reason is to keep the conflict in balance and ongoing. If the US wanted Assad gone, costs be damned, he would have been gone before Russia even got involved. What reason does the US have to end a conflict that is draining all its enemies of precious resources? Morality sure isn't it or something would have been done in Syria and elsewhere (Africa) ages ago.
How exactly do you think the US could have gotten rid of Assad? The Iraq way? Well you can see how politically unfeasible that was when the whole Ghouta chemical weapons / red line issue came up. The US electorate gave a very resounding and unambiguous "no" to Syrian involvement. Give weapons to people who will take Assad down for them? Well they did that too, but said people tend to fall into terrorist movements more than one would like. The US only got involved when ISIS advanced into Iraq, a pretty good example of the back-loaded cost of supporting terrorist groups (but far from the extent of those costs).
Which enemies is the US bleeding? Russia? Russia hasn't spent that much in Syria on open military ventures. A few billion. The political costs of being involved in the first place are substantial but tangential and not cheap for the US either. Assad? Yes, but Syria has never been stable. ISIS? If the US didn't make it then it wouldn't exist in the first place.
No, the US plan reeks more of a geopolitical power play that was horribly botched, like many others in the Middle East in recent years. Russia got strongly involved only after it was clear that the US didn't have any effective plan for Syria beyond "Assad gone then we'll figure it out."
|
The US doesn't need to back Assad. It just needs to stop doing the Saudis' and other Arabs' dirty work for them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well.
At the end of the day, this objection is really "it's the best option but I don't like this option so there must be a better way." Well no, there isn't. War vs. dictatorship, one is substantially better than the other. Of course, things are worse than if no one had ever gotten involved in the first place, but there's fuck all you can do about that now. Displaced refugees are not easily re-placed, and there's not a simple way to solve that (and the European response has been problematic, to put it lightly). People will blame the US for fucking things up, but there isn't much that can be done about that at this point because the US already did what it did. The best path forward is stability, even if said stability involves some unpleasant concessions, and work forward from there.
|
On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Simple let the Islamists bleed themselves then have Russia have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of money it doesn't have to prop up a powerless dictator. ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well.
I'm pretty isolationist but I think we should leave that shithole part of the world to themselves for a generation or two. I think the blame would rightly go to Assad and not the west when perpetuating civil wars longer than they would be otherwise.
|
On October 08 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. At the end of the day, this objection is really "it's the best option but I don't like this option so there must be a better way." Well no, there isn't. War vs. dictatorship, one is substantially better than the other. Of course, things are worse than if no one had ever gotten involved in the first place, but there's fuck all you can do about that now. Displaced refugees are not easily re-placed, and there's not a simple way to solve that (and the European response has been problematic, to put it lightly). People will blame the US for fucking things up, but there isn't much that can be done about that at this point because the US already did what it did. The best path forward is stability, even if said stability involves some unpleasant concessions, and work forward from there.
And we lose any credibility we had in region for decades. You are just kicking the can down the road because you see a dictator and stability for yourself as beneficial. Our children will have to sort out whatever mess arises in the Middle East after that.
And this all assumes Assad can even regain control of Syria.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
The US doesn't need to back Assad. It just needs to stop doing the Saudis' and other Arabs' dirty work for them.
I really wonder why the US bothers given how buttfucking terrible the Saudis have been as allies.
On October 08 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. At the end of the day, this objection is really "it's the best option but I don't like this option so there must be a better way." Well no, there isn't. War vs. dictatorship, one is substantially better than the other. Of course, things are worse than if no one had ever gotten involved in the first place, but there's fuck all you can do about that now. Displaced refugees are not easily re-placed, and there's not a simple way to solve that (and the European response has been problematic, to put it lightly). People will blame the US for fucking things up, but there isn't much that can be done about that at this point because the US already did what it did. The best path forward is stability, even if said stability involves some unpleasant concessions, and work forward from there. And we lose any credibility we had in region for decades. You are just kicking the can down the road because you see a dictator and stability for yourself as beneficial. Our children will have to sort out whatever mess arises in the Middle East after that. And this all assumes Assad can even regain control of Syria.
The credibility ship has sailed. It was called "Iraq and Afghanistan Wars." As it stands, there is no immediately stable outcome in Syria and any improvements will have to come from a starting point of at least an unstable peace.
At this point Assad will likely have to make concessions to some of the rebel parties to reestablish control of Syria. But that form of agreement is feasible.
|
On October 08 2016 03:25 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. I'm pretty isolationist but I think we should leave that shithole part of the world to themselves for a generation or two. I think the blame would rightly go to Assad and not the west when perpetuating civil wars longer than they would be otherwise.
I mean, I agree to an extent. But they have all this oil that they offer to the world and there are these other countries like China and Russia that would love to have more influence over that resource. And they have all that money too and the ability to build very bad things if we ignore them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
