US fighting US in a messed up proxy war.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tunerX, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #2
  2. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #3
    And if we'd supported neither of them you all would castigate Obama for not doing anything to help. Heads you win, tails he loses....
     
  3. tunerX thread starter Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #4
    I tend to castigate ineptitude. CIA vs Pentagon on the taxpayer dime is a lose-lose situation.
     
  4. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5

    Had Obama done nothing, there most likely would not have even been an Civil War in Syria. Bush was the mother of all **** ups until Obama pushed regime change in Libya, Obama might actually outdo Bush in stupidity.
     
  5. stylinexpat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #6
    Bush for regime change in Iraq and Obama for regime change in Libya.. Syria's regime change looks like a huge failure so far. Let's see what the next regime change is from our next President. If Trump is elected I am sure there will be another regime change
     
  6. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #7
    The ineptitude is thinking any of the so-called rebels align with U.S. interests (altruistic, i.e. liberty/democracy, not hegemonic) in either of these countries. CIA and Pentagon both picked wrong because there's no right pick. It's only extra irony that their picks now fighting each other.

    OTOH, Assad and Qaddafi each have their moments as Hitler of the Week for the usual warmongering suspects and objectively are/were not angels. Even though keeping the iron-fisted despot in place may be the least worst option, it's not a tenable political position to articulate. My point above is that the 'Obama is always wrong' Beavis and Buttheads here would be equally critical if the CIA/Pentagon had done nothing. Heads they win, tails Obama loses.
     
  7. Eraserhead, Mar 28, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    So you think Obama should have just left Assad to it from day one even though the whole of congress and the American people wanted more action? Obama isn't a King...
    --- Post Merged, Mar 28, 2016 ---
    And if Obama hasn't gone into Libya there would have been another Rwanda.
     
  8. stylinexpat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #9
    Assad is no angel (so no arguing there) but there are people who took advantage of the incident that started all of this when the boy who wrote on the wall along with the family members (some were killed and others were punished or pretty much tortured beyond what you could imagine). From there some used this window of opportunity to see if they could create further civil unrest to lead to regime change and a possible break up of the country to weaken neighboring countries around Israel so that they would be to occupied with their own problems and not pose a security threat or risk to Israel's security.


    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
    http://www.inquisitr.com/2922838/hillary-clinton-email-overthrow-assad-destroy-syria-for-israel-2/

    I think if Obama had not gone into Libya, Libya would have been fine and had we not gone into Iraq they would have been fine as well. After all over the years they have been fine. Maybe not a place for us to live in or at but none the less you did not see any terrorist bombings in either Iraq,Libya or Syria.
     
  9. juanm, Mar 28, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #10
    Actually, there is: the Kurds are a potential long term ally in the region, but they were an enemy to Turkey and as a result, the ones that are the closest in terms of "values" (of course, not a perfect match, but still) were left without equipment help (they do benefit, greatly, from airstrikes). The Kurds are now getting closer and closer ties to Israel, and long term, I can see the Syrian Kurdistan become an Israel of sorts (closed, high security, based on trained civilian populations).

    Oh, and by the way: our great ally Turkey:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-unleashing-them-europe-erdogan-a6954841.html

    --- Post Merged, Mar 28, 2016 ---
    Assad's Regime is causing 3 out of 4 deaths among civilians. His army is still barrel-bombing civilians. On that alone, he is much worse than ISIS (just not ISIS-******* crazy).
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    I think Israel is safer with a secular leader in Syria than Islamists in charge - and the Israelis aren't stupid.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 28, 2016 ---
    I'd love to see a source for this.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #12
    Well I'd imagine civilian deaths in ISIS held territory are not well reported and those that are will be blamed on the government since ISIS also wants Assad gone. So I can believe that the statistics are that way for reported deaths.
     
  12. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #13
  13. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14
    An American presidents job isn't to do what most Americans want at any given time. It is to do what is in Americas best long term interests.
     
  14. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    The Americans are either really clever or really stupid. Have you considered that they may want both sides to lose?
     
  15. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    Highly doubtful. Territories without any functioning, controlling authority are a preferred location for NGO terrorist radicals. Would be insane to affirmatively want more such territory.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 28, 2016 ---
    Turkey is a member of NATO. Makes any Kurdish option very problematic.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 28, 2016 ---
    I don't think that word means what you think it means.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Not if congress can pass a law to the contrary with a veto-proof majority.

    Besides I'm not sure explicitly supporting Assad from day one would have been particularly smart. That would give a lot of extra ammo to the Islamists complaining about the decadent West as we'd be supporting Assad because he was secular.
     
  17. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    Better than giving the FSA just enough weapons to keep them from losing, thus ensuring a civil war which might have ended in six months is now five years on and still going strong.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    The FSA doesn't really exist, that's the problem. There are too many rebel groups to allow them to win, and too many of them are tied to ISIS and al-Quaeda.

    So then America would have been forced to explicitly support Assad including through the subsequent mass murder of people he needs to kill to retain control.

    Plus that mass murder would have been bigger because probably the vast majority of the people he might kill have left the country altogether by now.
     
  19. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #20
    No need to explicitly support Assad. We could have just stayed out of Syria altogether. Who has our intervention in Syria (and Iraq & Libya) benefited? Certainly not the U.S. Seems to me that we helped ISIS more than anybody.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    And then you'd have stood idly by when Assad and Ghaddafi killed thousands to retain control.
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    And now ISIS is killing thousands and that is better how...?

    At least Assad and Ghadaffi didn't export their killing.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Until foreign islamists used the West standing idly by as two different secular dictators committed mass murder on innocent muslims as anti-Western propaganda.

    I can't see that argument going down poorly at all in muslim communities in general, let alone in the ungoverned parts of France and Belgium which have led to attacks in the past few years.

    I mean sure you wouldn't have the banner of Daesh to wave, but I'm sure they could wave the banner of another controversial cleric instead.
     
  23. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #24
    B-b-b-but you'd be leaving the Freedom Fighters to die on the battlefield at the hands of this week's Hitler! /OurStupidPublicDiscourse
     
  24. tunerX thread starter Suspended

    tunerX

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #25
    Whose freedom fighters? The US should no longer be involved in the middle east or SWA unless asked.
     

Share This Page