- Joined
- Feb 3, 2016
- Messages
- 43,134
- Reaction score
- 16,114
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
My content was pointing out that you made a logical fallacy and tried to pass it off as somehow, magically, valid.
That's all the 'content' your comment deserved.
That you have to pretend otherwise is simply par of the course.
My statement assumes at least a base level of education and awareness on the matter so I can see where you struggled there. This article partially gets it but still falls short in some regards.
To avert a possible TL;DR effect, which is quite possible with you, I'll do my own summary, since this has only been in my job field for almost 15 years and can write my own premises.
Obama's policies of aiding so-called moderate rebels, in congruence with hindering the Assad regime's ability to defend itself, created a power vacuum that was fertile ground for ISIS to grow (this is backed up by a DIA report in 2012). His policies only intervened enough to ensure the maximum amount of violence and bloodshed would be reached for the longest period of time possible. It was never enough to tip the scale decisively. However, this is not to say that getting rid of Assad would have been better. That would have (and still would to this day) result in the cleansing of all religious and ethnic minorities. It would be what we have in Libya but worse.
Like it or not, Assad is about as moderate as you're going to get in a leader that can maintain any control over the various factions. If we, and our friends and middle-men that is Saudi Arabia and Qatar, had stayed out of Syria then it would have been over much quicker and had a better resolution.
Even this pittance is a effort too great to have bothered. Pearls before swine.
| National Review