Sfdebris.net

Great!

I have been against our intervention in Syria since we started getting really involved in 2013, and I have also been thinking that we need to reduce our presence or get out of Afghanistan for the last few years (I approved of our being in Afghanistan until around 2012 or so, as long as the goal was Taliban suppression, but I have decided that we're fighting there futilely).

The great news, though, is that finally we are getting a Republican President who is NOT trying to get us into war all over the world (driving the neocons like William Kristol and Max Boot out of the party is just a bonus).

As a supporter of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, this really pleases me.

Of course, there is probably going to be a chemical weapons attack "by Assad" in the next few days. Anything to vindicate the warmongers that WE NEED TO STAY FOREVERRRRRRR!

But this will also leave the Kurds vulnerable to the Russians. And Russian aggression should scare you, especially given the influence they have over the President, and that this likely came at Putin's "suggestion."

With the refusal to move against Assad, further intervention in Syria is pointless. The Pentagon's behavior has been disgraceful, exaggerating a monstrous humanitarian crisis just to check Russia and displacing millions.

Either the goal should be to destroy ISIS or destroy Assad so a democracy can be born or both.

Otherwise, why were we there?

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:39 am But this will also leave the Kurds vulnerable to the Russians. And Russian aggression should scare you, especially given the influence they have over the President, and that this likely came at Putin's "suggestion."

Thanks Vlad. It was about time.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:57 am With the refusal to move against Assad, further intervention in Syria is pointless. The Pentagon's behavior has been disgraceful, exaggerating a monstrous humanitarian crisis just to check Russia and displacing millions.

Either the goal should be to destroy ISIS or destroy Assad so a democracy can be born or both.

Otherwise, why were we there?

To maintain global hegemony, prevent regional alliances and any rivalry to US Full Spectrum Dominance.

Yeah, not worth it.

The only reason should be there is to help the people there.

There are some people in Syria who supposedly want to turn the place into a liberal democracy. I really hate abandoning those people, but at some point we have to throw in the towel. I don't think enough of the population wants that, or wants it badly enough, and obviously it isn't something that can be imposed from outside.

If Assad and Russia want to do endless battle with ISIS, let them consume each other's men and money. If we manage to really put down ISIS, maybe we can learn how rough we have to be to do likewise. Either way, it makes America safer.

It is kinda weird dealing with other countries that have abysmal civil rights conditions.

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:58 pm There are some people in Syria who supposedly want to turn the place into a liberal democracy. I really hate abandoning those people, but at some point we have to throw in the towel. I don't think enough of the population wants that, or wants it badly enough, and obviously it isn't something that can be imposed from outside.

It's not like their voting for this and the dictatorship people won it. The people who want a democracy are being murdered by the Assad regime and ISIS. The vast majority can and do want to not be under both for both the "liberal democracy" reason and much-much more the "not be murdered by evil scumbags en masse" reasons.

If Assad and Russia want to do endless battle with ISIS, let them consume each other's men and money. If we manage to really put down ISIS, maybe we can learn how rough we have to be to do likewise. Either way, it makes America safer.

It's not a game. The United States as part of the international community has made commitments to prevent human rights violations and war crimes which have been many many times demonstrated by the participants in the war.

Also the US abandoning regions to instability led to the creation of ISIS soo.....

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:29 am
Also the US abandoning regions to instability led to the creation of ISIS soo.....

They did not sacrifice thousands of Asmerican lives to pacify the Congo so...

Stick to that precedent.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:29 am

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:58 pm There are some people in Syria who supposedly want to turn the place into a liberal democracy. I really hate abandoning those people, but at some point we have to throw in the towel. I don't think enough of the population wants that, or wants it badly enough, and obviously it isn't something that can be imposed from outside.

It's not like their voting for this and the dictatorship people won it. The people who want a democracy are being murdered by the Assad regime and ISIS. The vast majority can and do want to not be under both for both the "liberal democracy" reason and much-much more the "not be murdered by evil scumbags en masse" reasons.

If Assad and Russia want to do endless battle with ISIS, let them consume each other's men and money. If we manage to really put down ISIS, maybe we can learn how rough we have to be to do likewise. Either way, it makes America safer.

It's not a game. The United States as part of the international community has made commitments to prevent human rights violations and war crimes which have been many many times demonstrated by the participants in the war.

Also the US abandoning regions to instability led to the creation of ISIS soo.....

It's true they didn't vote in Assad, but it seems to mostly be a heap of people hoping their side comes out in charge. Not all of them, and there are some really genuinely good people there, but they don't seem to be in the majority.

As far as stability, (1) there are a lot of regions the U.S. has let lay in disorder without international terrorism arising, and (2) the Russians and Assad will provide order. Not a very nice type of order, but order.

As far as America's commitment to human rights, we've worked toward that. Let China, Japan, Brazil, or Canada have a go at it.