Sfdebris.net

Well it look like the President decided to break another campaign promise this week - ie not toppling the Syrian goverment. This should come as a shock to any who believe him to be a Russian puppet as Assad is a key ally in the region. This was justified because of a gas attack the Syria government was accused of but makes very little sense for them to have carried it out and there isn't enough information out there because the attack was so recent - and after the last time Syria was accused of an attack like that on civilians Assad handed over all his chemical weapons.

One thing IS clear - this is a terrible idea. what I know of the Assad regime is he's a despot but he's at least better that the extremist rebels he was fighting - who are going to be given a chance to rebuild with the Assad goverment under US assault. This action will be taking out an area of retaliative stability despite the horrific human rights record - unlike the like Saudis though the Syrians aren't US allies so we don't overlook it.

Clinton was Hawkish on Syria too so all the democrats claiming they were anti-war the whole time and still supported her are just talking bullshit. This was pretty much always going to happen and it is pretty much guaranteed to end in disaster. If you ask me if I'd rather live under a despot who at least kept the training running on time... or under now law and an unpredictable gang of murderous psychopaths - I'd probably go with the former. From what I've heard from reporters coming back from Syria that's what the citizens wanted too - even those who hate Assad.

If you have no interest in a US war with Russia - well today was not a good day for you because Putin is not going to be happy and if his troops get caught in the crossfire there will be retaliation. The US has a lot of aircraft running and the Russian have a lot of Anti-air not firing at them..... for the moment.

Also the so called Allied (US/UK/Saudi) blockade on Yemen is starving millions of people to death and that never gets covered by the US media.

I have never been impressed with the argument that "At least Assad is better than the rebels." First, because it treats the rebels as a homogenous block, and basically equates them all with Daesh. And second, because the argument amounts to "We have to support brutal, mass murdering dictators or the terrorists win." Its a simplistic false dichotomy that to my mind carries more than a touch of prejudice, an undercurrent (weather intended or not) of "Those backwards A-rabs and Mooslims can't be trusted to govern themselves. They need a strong dictator to keep them in line."

That said, Russia is an ally of Assad, and Trump does not have the ability to navigate such a complex and dangerous situation. So unless some secret concessions were made to get the go-ahead from Putin behind the scenes, Trump just moved us much closer to global nuclear war. And he did it, in all likelihood, for the sake of a political stunt (Trump has given me zero reason to believe that he is capable of caring enough about anyone else for the gassing of innocent civilians to move him to such an action).

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I don't think it would be unwise to stock up on emergency supplies and plan an escape route away from any major cities/infrastructure/military installations.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I have never been impressed with the argument that "At least Assad is better than the rebels." First, because it treats the rebels as a homogenous block, and basically equates them all with Daesh. And second, because the argument amounts to "We have to support brutal, mass murdering dictators or the terrorists win." Its a simplistic false dichotomy that to my mind carries more than a touch of prejudice, an undercurrent (weather intended or not) of "Those backwards A-rabs and Mooslims can't be trusted to govern themselves. They need a strong dictator to keep them in line."

The alternative is worse - did people forget how overthrowing Saddam worked out? I'm not saying cuddle up to Assad - I'm saying its not worth it to fuck with him overthrow him right now because the alternative is likely handing the nation over Jihadists like most of Iraq. The Saudis aren't any better and I'd tell you not to invade them either because there is NOTHING western forces can do about it that won't make the situation worse other than just leaving and providing humanitarian aid where we can.

It's a similar situation to North Korea - people are staving to death there - but you need a really GOOD plan to deal with that without making the whole situation worse infinitely worse. I don't expect you to think leaving Assad in power is a good idea - I expect you to think its the best plan out of a lot of really REALLY stupid plans.

I'd LOVE to hear what the alternative is - tell me what IS your plan? because arming rebels has found almost all of the provided US military equipment funneled to the Islamic state or other fundamentalist groups in their orbit. Groups that were claimed to be moderate by US intelligence turned out not to be at a fairly troubling ratio. Turn out US intelligence cannot vett these groups for shit or far more likely choose to continue to sell weapons to forces they know next to nothing about because they don't care. Find me a way to get rid of Assad that has a good chance of allowing Syria to remain moderately stable while also making sure whoever replaces him isn't just as bad or worse and I'll listen but not ONE of the plans put forward by anyone has even a remote chance to come close to in some near impossible situation potentially pulling off that hat trick.

Let alone doing so in such a way it doesn't have a excellent chance of provoking a military response from Russia.

The Romulan Republic wrote: That said, Russia is an ally of Assad, and Trump does not have the ability to navigate such a complex and dangerous situation. So unless some secret concessions were made to get the go-ahead from Putin behind the scenes, Trump just moved us much closer to global nuclear war. And he did it, in all likelihood, for the sake of a political stunt (Trump has given me zero reason to believe that he is capable of caring enough about anyone else for the gassing of innocent civilians to move him to such an action).

I don't think there is anyone living or dead that could pull this off. Is this a political stunt? no this is just how neocons like Bush, Clinton and Cheney have always operated - they have full control of the national security council now and that's it. The american people aren't sick of Neocons - Trump ran an Anti-neocon campaign while Clinton was saying how she'd do... well pretty much exactly this and came out in support of this action just a few days ago. If you go by the popular vote the american people voted FOR this. THIS is what the american people wanted!

Here it is straight from your friends at the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/ ... ria-assad/

Schumer & Pelosi are also falling in line with the other Neocons on this issue - if you voted for the Democrats this is what YOU voted for. This is a fully bi-partisan attack - just like the iraq invasion. And here I wasted my vote on the green pary when I could have voted to Invade Syria or.... Invade Syria.

I remember that Cllnton's stated plan was a "no fly zone" over Syria that could have lead to WW3.

So, at least we're not quite there yet. Yay.

Rasp wrote:I'd LOVE to hear what the alternative is - tell me what IS your plan?

Make a deal with the Russians and the Syrians to allow American (and other coalition) troops into Syria, for the expressed purpose of destroying Jihadists forces in Syria. Assad's strategy of hide in the corner and beat up on the non-jihadist rebels would be the least effective here, and US forces would be able to relieve the Kurds and other non-jihadist rebels. Would this definitely stop Assad? No, but it would be damn near more effective than bombing Syria and hoping the non-jihadist rebels make ground.

The Romulan Republic wrote:That said, Russia is an ally of Assad, and Trump does not have the ability to navigate such a complex and dangerous situation. So unless some secret concessions were made to get the go-ahead from Putin behind the scenes, Trump just moved us much closer to global nuclear war. And he did it, in all likelihood, for the sake of a political stunt (Trump has given me zero reason to believe that he is capable of caring enough about anyone else for the gassing of innocent civilians to move him to such an action).

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I don't think it would be unwise to stock up on emergency supplies and plan an escape route away from any major cities/infrastructure/military installations.

That all depends on whether you think it's better to live in a post-nuclear dystopia, or just have it over with quickly.

There's a whole lot of posing going on here. It's a calculated move designed to achieve a certain effect, and it seems highly unlikely to me that this is something Trump came up with off the top of his head. It's contrary to the foreign policy he campaigned on, and his statements a few days earlier about having "changed his mind" on Assad seem a bit transparent. I think the (relative) lack of opposition to this among Democrats and world leaders is fairly telling. When it's all said and done, it's (perhaps sadly) one of Trump's less controversial moves.

I don't see a lot coming out of it, at least not this specifically. Of course the whole Syrian situation is FUBAR.

TGLS wrote:

Rasp wrote:I'd LOVE to hear what the alternative is - tell me what IS your plan?

Make a deal with the Russians and the Syrians to allow American (and other coalition) troops into Syria, for the expressed purpose of destroying Jihadists forces in Syria. Assad's strategy of hide in the corner and beat up on the non-jihadist rebels would be the least effective here, and US forces would be able to relieve the Kurds and other non-jihadist rebels. Would this definitely stop Assad? No, but it would be damn near more effective than bombing Syria and hoping the non-jihadist rebels make ground.

I don't like the idea of using ground troops because the moment we pull out the area goes right back to the way it is now. plus there is no way of knowing if the so called non-jihadist rebels are actually what they claim and intelligence on that is always unacceptably spotty. the same goes for the bombing solution really... the hard truth is there is nothing we can do that won't make the problem worse - the solution for the middle east is for the middle east to find a solution. We can have white helicopter ops and send in food and medical supplies maybe some intelligence gathering but we should stay the hell out of any logistical or military action.

I'm not a pacifist but doing something is not always better than doing nothing and I've get to see a plan isn't ether entirely futile or actively counter-productive.

ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote:There's a whole lot of posing going on here. It's a calculated move designed to achieve a certain effect, and it seems highly unlikely to me that this is something Trump came up with off the top of his head. It's contrary to the foreign policy he campaigned on, and his statements a few days earlier about having "changed his mind" on Assad seem a bit transparent. I think the (relative) lack of opposition to this among Democrats and world leaders is fairly telling. When it's all said and done, it's (perhaps sadly) one of Trump's less controversial moves.

I don't see a lot coming out of it, at least not this specifically. Of course the whole Syrian situation is FUBAR.

like I've said this is coming straight out of the neocon playbook so of course democrats are only going to offer the most hollow token resistance. They are eating this up with the rest of the military industrial complex. We're spending billions on counter-productive interventionist wars instead of our any number of domestic issues that are coming up wanting. The democrats and republicans are CELEBRATING while we're barely scraping by drowning in debt.

Rasp, you have not really addressed my argument reg. the false choice between Assad-like dictators and terrorists (for that matter, I would say that Assad is a state terrorist). You have largely just repeated your assertion, while challenging me to come up with an alternate plan. Nor did you provide evidence for your assertion that nearly all of the weaponry given to the rebels has fallen into the wrong hands.

As for what sort of plan I would use- I am not a military strategist, but I would think that any effort should ideally be made by an international coalition, with a commitment to a long-term rebuilding of Syria's infrastructure, with a plan for a transitional government that is neither Assad-like nor Islamist radicals, and only after a deal had been made with Russia to ensure that they we would not be blundering into World War III. I have absolutely no faith in Trump to do any of these things, and thus oppose the current course of action on practical grounds.

As for the rest of your post, the 2016 election, and your obsessive and single-minded hatred for (your straw man caricature of) the Democratic Party are not the topic of this thread, and I do not intend to be side-tracked. However, for the sake of accuracy, I will note that your implication that I am friendly to the Democratic establishment is oversimplified at best.

I really don't get what people want with regards to Syria anymore. Assad uses chemical weapons and everyone freaks out, and then Trump blows up a Syrian air force base in response and people start claiming that it's WWIII. I really hate to be defending or agreeing with Trump in any way, but Assad has got to go. He's proven on numerous occasions that he's criminal and illegitimate.