solletica
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,073
- Reaction score
- 926
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
My honest thoughts are these. The destruction of the Asad regime would be a strategic defeat for Iran and Hezbollah, and therefore hugely in our interest. The optimum moment for safe, effective support to forces we favor passed long ago. Nonetheless, there may still be an opportunity to do something worthwhile.
John McCain is a grown man
Ok, those are the upsides, and I already agree with you in every respect on those. Have you considered any downsides, and if so, which ones, and what swayed you to dismiss or discount them?
On the matter of US senators... They should act responsibly, and I am not sure that he was. This applies to grown men and POWs as well, but I only care about U.S. senators in this case.
There are Americans that ally themselves with extreme Islamists. He should not meet with America! There are Europeans that ally themselves with extreme Islamists. He better not be going there next! Oh, yeah, and obviously we better stop talking to pretty much the entire Mideast. There's not a state to be found without those who ally themselves with extreme Islamists. If he wants to deal with a group wherein no one allies themselves with extreme Islamists, we better make him ambassador to the moon.
Are we really gonna refuse to meet with any group that have some members who ally themselves with extreme Islamists? What kind of idiotic foreign policy is that?
You know the best part? The OP poster thinks we should engage in talks with Iran and that we should talk with Assad. Laughable hypocrisy.
What difference does it make whether anyone talks to either of them? They'll do what they want to do no matter what
Plus, I support Assad 100% in his fight w/the Islamofascist rebels (which apparently includes independent Sunni extremist factions--what the West calls "al Qaeda").
And fortunately, Obama isn't stupid enough to arm the anti-Assad terrorists.
Do you think the Assad regime has been better for the Syrian people than Islamists would be?
Plus, I support Assad 100% in his fight w/the Islamofascist rebels (which apparently includes independent Sunni extremist factions--what the West calls "al Qaeda").
What difference does it make whether anyone talks to either of them? They'll do what they want to do no matter what
Plus, I support Assad 100% in his fight w/the Islamofascist rebels (which apparently includes independent Sunni extremist factions--what the West calls "al Qaeda").
And fortunately, Obama isn't stupid enough to arm the anti-Assad terrorists.
It is unlikely Al Qaida would control a new government.
Do you think the Assad regime has been better for the Syrian people than Islamists would be?
By stating that i want peace in the region through diplomacy makes me a hypocrite..... Oh yea i forgot you think anyone but Assad is amazing :roll:
Either we support al Qaeda connected rebels, or the Hezbollah-connected Assad regime.
Yeah, we couldn't possibly lose....:roll:
Whose the lesser of two evils in the situation? Both sides suck.
They have however fought side by side, and many FSA leaders claim they are "the special forces of the revolution"
I never claimed they were "one and the same"
But hell looks like the FSA might be having a defection problem with more people goin go the Al-Nursa front
Report: Entire Free Syrian Army Units Defecting To Al Nusra Front Because Of Its “Islamic Doctrine” And Advanced Weapons… | Weasel Zippers
Helping the rebels doesn't necessarily mean we want them to win. Harassing al-Assad for a few more months/years than they might have been able to would be to our advantage, no? al-Assad continues to be worn down...Islamist money and personnel stay in the Middle East...what's not to like?
Yes I'm sure about that. The commander of the FSA has explicitly declared that they do not coordinate with one another and that Al Nusra is not under his command. Your first article is almost a year old - a lot of important things have happened since then including Al Nusra's shift toward extremism and pledge to Al Qaeda. They're both fighting to overthrow Assad, occasionally their strategic goals overlap. So? They are not the same group and you cannot claim that FSA is an extremist Islamist group just because Al Nusra is.
THE leader of the FSA says otherwise. The don't fight side by side anymore - that is, since Al Nusra has moved towards extremism and Al Qaeda.
MIDEAST - Free Syrian Army nixes connection with al-Nusra Front
Good. Then perhaps you'll stop implying that helping the FSA is the same thing as helping Al-Nusra. That's a false dichotomy. If the event we give weapons to the FSA, Salam Idris has vowed to see to it they are not given to Al-Nusra or other extremist elements.
All the more reason to give greater support to the more moderate elements of the Opposition. Part of the reason extremist groups are gaining ground is because they're having success because they're being funded by foreign entities like Qatar. If the West were to put their weight behind the more secular groups, they would lose that advantage. Right now, your preferred policy of "do nothing" is resulting in a growing influence and power of the extremist groups like Al Nusra while undermining the power of the moderate groups. If you don't want Al Nusra and other groups like it to continue gaining power than why do you suggest continuing the policies that are already resulting in this effect? If you don't like how things are going in Syria, why do you advocate more of the same?
It is unlikely Al Qaida would control a new government.
Do you think the Assad regime has been better for the Syrian people than Islamists would be?
My honest thoughts are these. The destruction of the Asad regime would be a strategic defeat for Iran and Hezbollah, and therefore hugely in our interest. The optimum moment for safe, effective support to forces we favor passed long ago. Nonetheless, there may still be an opportunity to do something worthwhile.
John McCain is a grown man, a US Senator, a war veteran and a former POW. He has the right to go and see for himself.
The Free Syrian Army does not associate with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra does not operate under the FSA command structure and they've actually engaged in skirmishes with each other over disputed territory.
Though, to the poorly informed such as yourself, they may appear to be one and the same.
Whose the lesser of two evils in the situation? Both sides suck.
Despite mccain's total lack of noodle, he does have some character (a trait virtually non-existent in Washington), given the way he conducted himself in the 2008 campaign.
If the story line of the Game Change movie is true, then he really did put principles above politics, and there's something to be said for that.
he doesn't need anyone's OK...why would he? and whose permission would be needed?
additionally, we shouldn't get involved in their civil war.
Did you consider the MB? You are aware that they are involved into this mix.....Correct?
I don't care who the Syrians put in charge, as long as they can vote him out and not get bombed by their own military. Until the new government begins slaughtering civilians by the 10k, there's only success in the future.
I wish we could just ignore the whole lot of them.