• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US envoy Nikki Haley says Syria regime change is 'inevitable'

Jredbaron96 said:
He didn't help. Some of that is his fault, some of it was beyond him. It's not a clear black and white answer.
Click to expand...

I would say, that because of his lack of a response on the red line policy that Assad felt emboldened and Putin felt no compunction to fulfill his obligations to ensure Assad eliminated his WMD stockpiles or building more.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Syria: Nikki Haley says regime change is 'inevitable' - CNN.com



This is a risky stance for the administration to take. As an official ally of Russia, any attack on the Syaran government and the Assad regime brings forth the very real possibility of an armed confrontation with Russia over the Syrian Civil War.
Click to expand...

So.. again, we remove a despot from power like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we have to deploy thousands of troops to protect the puppet we put in place in Syria. It's working great in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also we have to get Russia to buy off on what we're doing because they support Assad.

What could go wrong?
 
lurchadams said:
So.. again, we remove a despot from power like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we have to deploy thousands of troops to protect the puppet we put in place in Syria. It's working great in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also we have to get Russia to buy off on what we're doing because they support Assad.

What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

The alternative is to let him keep using WMDs on his own people. What could go wrong?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I would say, that because of his lack of a response on the red line policy that Assad felt emboldened and Putin felt no compunction to fulfill his obligations to ensure Assad eliminated his WMD stockpiles or building more.
Click to expand...

Obama's red line failed largely because there was no political will on the part of the American people nor Congress. He had his **** ups but that's not really his big shame.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The alternative is to let him keep using WMDs on his own people. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

Why does the U.S. have to be the policeman of the world? Saudi Arabia and Jordan have a bunch of military planes and equipment we sold them. I'd rather not send my kids to a s*thole like Syria. Thanks.
 
lurchadams said:
Why does the U.S. have to be the policeman of the world? Saudi Arabia and Jordan have a bunch of military planes and equipment we sold them. I'd rather not send my kids to a s*thole like Syria. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Should we let Russia do the job? Because they are on the take, they aren't policing anything.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Obama's red line failed largely because there was no political will on the part of the American people nor Congress. He had his **** ups but that's not really his big shame.
Click to expand...

No it failed because he made a policy he didn't have the ability to follow through on. If you cant walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Should we let Russia do the job? Because they are on the take, they aren't policing anything.
Click to expand...

Did I say Russia? I asked why not let one of the other Mideastern countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan lead the charge?
 
lurchadams said:
Did I say Russia? I asked why not let one of the other Mideastern countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan lead the charge?
Click to expand...

Why saudi arabia? they are the ones funding a whole bunch of rebels, and by default supporting genocide in the region. For your idea to work it would need a coalition between iran saudi arabia and other countries, as saudi arabia is against shia muslims and christians, turkey has issues with the kurds to say it lightly, and every other country has their interests. Putting a single country in charge of the chaos means you only let one guy decide how the genocide rolls.
 
beerftw said:
Why saudi arabia? they are the ones funding a whole bunch of rebels, and by default supporting genocide in the region. For your idea to work it would need a coalition between iran saudi arabia and other countries, as saudi arabia is against shia muslims and christians, turkey has issues with the kurds to say it lightly, and every other country has their interests. Putting a single country in charge of the chaos means you only let one guy decide how the genocide rolls.
Click to expand...

I used Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan as an example. My original question was: Why does the intervenor always have to be the U.S.? We've got our hands full with two other poorly executed wars in the Mideast already. I say the next one is someone else's turn.
 
lurchadams said:
I used Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan as an example. My original question was: Why does the intervenor always have to be the U.S.? We've got our hands full with two other poorly executed wars in the Mideast already. I say the next one is someone else's turn.
Click to expand...

I agree it is someone elses turn, problem is who though. So far russia has caused less chaos than the us there, but their strategy is to keep iran syria and other shia powers intact, and from there not implement any regime change at all. The us strategy as well as saudies has been regime change and proxy wars.

Who else to turn to is the question, rather than should we turn it over.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No it failed because he made a policy he didn't have the ability to follow through on. If you cant walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
Click to expand...

Because the national and political will wasn't there. There was massive domestic opposition to further involvement in Syria even after the usage of chemical weapons. Had Obama pressed he would've been criticized for acting against the will of the American people.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because the national and political will wasn't there. There was massive domestic opposition to further involvement in Syria even after the usage of chemical weapons. Had Obama pressed he would've been criticized for acting against the will of the American people.
Click to expand...

Bzzzt. Obama doesn't even have half the pressure on him that Trump has. Even if what you say is true, then he never should have issued an ultimatum he couldn't back up.
 
lurchadams said:
Did I say Russia? I asked why not let one of the other Mideastern countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan lead the charge?
Click to expand...

Because neither of them will even try to push the Russians out of Syria or even make diplomatic waves about it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bzzzt. Obama doesn't even have half the pressure on him that Trump has. Even if what you say is true, then he never should have issued an ultimatum he couldn't back up.
Click to expand...

>Republican House
>Republican Senate
>Republican Presidency
>Republican Governors

wat
 
Jredbaron96 said:
>Republican House
>Republican Senate
>Republican Presidency
>Republican Governors

wat
Click to expand...

National and political will was the terminology you used. Would you care to rephrase?
 
There is no telling what this tactical military action means in the world of Trump. He is not one that shows his cards and call a spade a spade. We have no idea what he will do next and give what description he may give of it. He was against what he is now for, while condemning Obama for his stance that he was...against or in agreement with or somewhere in between. You tell me. Assad did nothing different than he had already done before. Now Trump figures it out as though it wasn't to have been known before he said so. What an utter Hadrian's knot of a President Trump is. A can of worms.
 
Crovax said:
Then explain how Syria is vastly different from the rest of the ME
Click to expand...
it is not my job to prove your argument it is your job.

You have to prove that none of the Syria people want freedom so good luck
 
Haley has impressed me the last few days. She is very articulate and IMO comes across very strong.

But as to the regime change, the Trump administration and US government better have someone in mind before trying to remove Assad.
 
OpportunityCost said:
National and political will was the terminology you used. Would you care to rephrase?
Click to expand...

So you can proceed to get bogged down in semantics in a feeble attempt to insist all the problems and faults lay at the feet of your political opponents?

I think I've seen this before.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
So you can proceed to get bogged down in semantics in a feeble attempt to insist all the problems and faults lay at the feet of your political opponents?

I think I've seen this before.
Click to expand...

So you don't recognize you are moving goalposts? I am saying there is just as much if not more pressure on Trump as there was Obama. You seem to want to use semantics to change the definition of political pressure.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So you don't recognize you are moving goalposts? I am saying there is just as much if not more pressure on Trump as there was Obama. You seem to want to use semantics to change the definition of political pressure.
Click to expand...

How on earth does Trump have more pressure on him than the Obama administration had? The GOP controls the White House and Congress, and the majority of governors are Republican. This should be easy street.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Because the national and political will wasn't there. There was massive domestic opposition to further involvement in Syria even after the usage of chemical weapons. Had Obama pressed he would've been criticized for acting against the will of the American people.
Click to expand...

Nope. Obama had the same option Trump has - 90 days. Obama diddled because he was an extremely risk averse politician uncomfortable and uninterested in foreign engagement. Then, knowing that congress had serious reservations about his red line, he gave them the opportunity to provide the excuse he needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom