• 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

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
31,120
Reaction score
22,286
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Syria: Nikki Haley says regime change is 'inevitable' - CNN.com

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has told CNN that removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power is a priority, cementing an extraordinary U-turn in the Trump administration's stance on the embattled leader.Two days after the US launched military strikes on a Syrian airbase in response to a chemical weapons attack widely blamed on the Assad regime, Haley said the departure of Assad was inevitable.



Before Tuesday's attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun, which killed 89 people, Haley had said toppling Assad was not a priority. President Donald Trump, before his election, described fighting ISIS and seeking Assad's removal at the same time as "idiocy."



But after seeing images of the horrific aftermath of the chemical attack, US President Donald Trump ordered a bombardment of the Shayrat airbase in western Syria, which the US believes was the launchpad for the strike. It was the first time that the US had struck the Syrian regime since the start of the six-year civil war.


In her interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Haley said removing Assad from power was one of a number of priorities for the US.


"Getting Assad out is not the only priority. So what we're trying to do is obviously defeat ISIS. Secondly, we don't see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there. Thirdly, get the Iranian influence out. And then finally move towards a political solution, because at the end of the day this is a complicated situation, there are no easy answers and a political solution is going to have to happen," she said in the interview with anchor Jake Tapper, to air on Sunday.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

If Russia wants to ensure the total annihilation of itself and probably the world by attacking the US over Syria then we are ****ed anyways
 
Crovax said:
If Russia wants to ensure the total annihilation of itself and probably the world by attacking the US over Syria then we are ****ed anyways
Click to expand...

The threshold for introducing nuclear weapons into an armed conflict is extremely high. I'm more concerned about the immediate political and geopolitical ramifications of a Russian-American conflict over Syria. It also runs counter to President Trump's expressed desire for peace with Russia.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The threshold for introducing nuclear weapons into an armed conflict is extremely high. I'm more concerned about the immediate political and geopolitical ramifications of a Russian-American conflict over Syria. It also runs counter to President Trump's expressed desire for peace with Russia.
Click to expand...

Russia is already our enemy in every non violent political way, so if there is no risk of Russia directly attacking the US then I see no real downsides to opposing them in Syria
 
Crovax said:
Russia is already our enemy in every non violent political way, so if there is no risk of Russia directly attacking the US then I see no real downsides to opposing them in Syria
Click to expand...

Confronting Russia over Syria could lead to a non-declared conventional conflict with Moscow necessitating large scale deployment of American forces to the region, a dangerous force deployment with Turkey increasingly friendly with Russia.

It's a huge risk to the lives of American service members and the integrity of NATO.
 
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...

Wow, so irresponsible, so effing stupid ! Obama's ME agenda was a disaster, and appeared to be a effort to enable and support the overthrow of existing secular Govt's so radical Islamic elements could move in and set up a theocracy...because " Democracy" ! Now Trumps doing it. Who does Trump think he's liberating ?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Confronting Russia over Syria could lead to a non-declared conventional conflict with Moscow necessitating large scale deployment of American forces to the region, a dangerous force deployment with Turkey increasingly friendly with Russia.

It's a huge risk to the lives of American service members and the integrity of NATO.
Click to expand...

And to my point that any conventional conflict with Russia will end in either Russia's complete destruction as a country or nuclear war and to reiterate if Russia is willing to risk that over Syria, then they will risk it over a lot of other small things too and we are probably ****ed anyways.
 
Crovax said:
And to my point that any conventional conflict with Russia will end in either Russia's complete destruction as a country or nuclear war and to reiterate if Russia is willing to risk that over Syria, then they will risk it over a lot of other small things too and we are probably ****ed anyways.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Wars have been fought between nuclear states or with one side possessing nuclear weapons that ended without the usage of nuclear weapons. It depends entirely on the development of the situation in Syria and the Trump Administration's response to it.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Confronting Russia over Syria could lead to a non-declared conventional conflict with Moscow necessitating large scale deployment of American forces to the region, a dangerous force deployment with Turkey increasingly friendly with Russia.

It's a huge risk to the lives of American service members and the integrity of NATO.
Click to expand...

You act as though Russia has no culpability. They assured the US they were going to be responsible for the removal of gas weapons from the Syrian arsenal. So either they looked the other way, they aided and abetted or were incompetent in doing so and/or got played by Assad. In some ways Russia has a good deal of responsibility for the attack and the flimsy story was almost provocative it was so bad.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You act as though Russia has no culpability. They assured the US they were going to be responsible for the removal of gas weapons from the Syrian arsenal. So either they looked the other way, they aided and abetted or were incompetent in doing so and/or got played by Assad. In some ways Russia has a good deal of responsibility for the attack and the flimsy story was almost provocative it was so bad.
Click to expand...

I don't think Russia cares.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not necessarily. Wars have been fought between nuclear states or with one side possessing nuclear weapons that ended without the usage of nuclear weapons. It depends entirely on the development of the situation in Syria and the Trump Administration's response to it.
Click to expand...

Except we are talking about both sides having nuclear weapons and it not being a proxy conflict but direct war where each nation is at risk. It's going to end very badly for Russia either way if they choose that route, which is why I would expect they won't do so for Syria
 
Crovax said:
Except we are talking about both sides having nuclear weapons and it not being a proxy conflict but direct war where each nation is at risk. It's going to end very badly for Russia either way if they choose that route, which is why I would expect they won't do so for Syria
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, my point still stands.

And since Russian defensive doctrine relies heavily on nuclear threat to deter aggression against the Russian state, this will end badly for everyone, not just Russia.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Then they are measuring US response and I would say they didn't get the one they expected.
Click to expand...


It's a very dangerous game to play. The Russians right now are in the dominant position in the region.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yeah I know, my point still stands.

And since Russian defensive doctrine relies heavily on nuclear threat to deter aggression against the Russian state, this will end badly for everyone, not just Russia.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt since this is an unprecedented situation, you are fooling yourself if you think that a Russian/US war could be fought without inevitability of necular war. I mean it's possible to have a quick decisive victory for the US that proverbially cuts the head off the snake but in a longer conflict once Russia realizes that it it going to lose as you point out in your post what Russia's defense strategy is.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Not necessarily. Wars have been fought between nuclear states or with one side possessing nuclear weapons that ended without the usage of nuclear weapons. It depends entirely on the development of the situation in Syria and the Trump Administration's response to it.
Click to expand...

Trump can't push Russia's red button, only Pooty poot can. Nice try making Trump responsible for other people's actions.

Taking the side of weakness is an Obama tactic. Ask the civilian women and children who were gassed how that worked out.
 
Crovax said:
If Russia wants to ensure the total annihilation of itself and probably the world by attacking the US over Syria then we are ****ed anyways
Click to expand...

assad is a very big ally of Russia and always has been.
I think it is a mistake to actually try a regime change there.

that is for their people to do. that is one country we need to stay away from.
the US history of doing regime changes is not that great.
 
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...

Sounds like the same old establishment to me. Sounds like the government is going to open a ground war in Syria. Anything to divert from Trumps Russian scandal.
 
ludin said:
assad is a very big ally of Russia and always has been.
I think it is a mistake to actually try a regime change there.

that is for their people to do. that is one country we need to stay away from.
the US history of doing regime changes is not that great.
Click to expand...

Yeah Japan, South Korea, and Germany are 3rd world hell holes

The US can be a great force for good but I agree that Syria isn't worth it because the people don't want to be free. I honestly don't see anyway to deal with the terrorism issue that doesn't leave a whole bunch of innocent Muslims dead.
 
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...

Yep. Obama let it go too far and our enemies from Europe to the Far East had been led to believe that the puffed up tiger's red lines were nothing to worry about. That has let the situation in a number of areas deteriorate. You are right. At the beginning Putin did not have as much skin in the game.

But Putin is not going to confront the US with war to save a Third World Strongman and probably not even for the Russian naval base, though taking it out directly could escalate. But he does not want to risk nuclear war and he is probably uncertain how far Trump might go if confronted.

You are right, however. We are headed for war, if multipolarization of international security continues. But that has nothing to do with this individual situation nor does it with Trump at all. It is the structure that is developing and that we did nothing to fix for the last eight years in spite of knowing it was happening.
 
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...

Didn't Tillerson say just a week or so ago that the removal of Assad was up the people of Syria? Now the admin has changed their position 180 degrees, or are we doing mixed messages again?

Niki is a rank amateur and doesn't have a clue about world affairs. Just like many of Trump's people that have no experience.
 
Crovax said:
Yeah Japan, South Korea, and Germany are 3rd world hell holes

The US can be a great force for good but I agree that Syria isn't worth it because the people don't want to be free. I honestly don't see anyway to deal with the terrorism issue that doesn't leave a whole bunch of innocent Muslims dead.
Click to expand...

cuba, Vietnam, Syrian, Iran, Guatemala, Afghanistan,
Nicaragua, Grenada, Bosnia

so yea we have a lot of failures in regime changes.

Actually I think a great many people in Syria want to be free but they have no way to fight the Syrian army that protect assad.
more so when the guy is willing to use any method possible to kill them.
 
ludin said:
cuba, Vietnam, Syrian, Iran, Guatemala, Afghanistan,
Nicaragua, Grenada, Bosnia

so yea we have a lot of failures in regime changes.

Actually I think a great many people in Syria want to be free but they have no way to fight the Syrian army that protect assad.
more so when the guy is willing to use any method possible to kill them.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, we learned in from the Arab spring that they don't want to stop the oppression they just want to become the oppressors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom