• 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!

If the USA is Going to Bomb ISIS in Syria Should the USA Work With Assad?

If the USA is Going to Bomb ISIS in Syria Should the USA Work With Assad?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 43.8%

  • No

    Votes: 9 56.3%
  • Total voters
    16
ecofarm said:
Assad is guilty of horrible war crimes, including gassing the capital, and needs to go.
Click to expand...

I'd like links that conclusively prove either of those lies.
 
DaveFagan said:
I'd like links that conclusively prove either of those lies.
Click to expand...

Assad is not guilty of war crimes and he did not gas the capital?

:screwy
 
ecofarm said:
You speak as if innocents are not being slaughtered.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that from a standpoint of a war, it would be good to have a side to pick. Did we go to war with the Nazis AND the USSR simultaneously? No, that would have been a disaster.

We go in, kill everybody, then who gets put in charge? These are the things that need to be thought out. HAlf the problem in Iraq is that nobody thought about who we'd replace Saddam with. So it ended up being nobody for a while, and that sure didn't work. And even then, we had a clear idea who the enemy was. In this case who's our enemy?

It sucks that innocents are getting killed, but why is it better to kill American soldiers with no clear idea of what it is we're trying to accomplish?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the syrian opposition has no recognizable leader of the same pedigree as Salah Al Din.
Click to expand...

Democratic movements are not dependent upon individuals, they're dependent upon understanding the concept of natural rights (something that even many Westerners are incapable of grasping).
 
azgreg said:
Sure he does, but you can't fight both at the same time can you?

At this point I feel Assad is the lessor of 2 evils.
Click to expand...

We don't have to choose though. We can help the moderate rebels by bombing only ISIS who they are also fighting against. Working with Assad would mean we would bomb all the rebel groups. He does not see a difference between them
 
rocket88 said:
I'm just saying that from a standpoint of a war, it would be good to have a side to pick. Did we go to war with the Nazis AND the USSR simultaneously? No, that would have been a disaster.
Click to expand...

What makes you believe Assad can wage war against the US? He's not gonna do anything to the US. If he fires on a US military asset, his palace will cease to exist and he'll be dead.

We go in, kill everybody, then who gets put in charge?
Click to expand...

Strawman.
 
ecofarm said:
Democratic movements are not dependent upon individuals, they're dependent upon understanding the concept of natural rights (something that even many Westerners are incapable of grasping).
Click to expand...

i invoked Salah AL Din because the Syrian Opposition do not have a leader capable of uniting them like the legendary warrior from the era of the Crusades.
 
ecofarm said:
You admit Assad gassed the capital?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Myth, urban legend, lies, false flags, external to Syria intelligence(or lack thereof) agencies actions, etc. Particularly Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
 
DaveFagan said:
Absolutely not. Myth, urban legend, lies, false flags, external to Syria intelligence(or lack thereof) agencies actions, etc. Particularly Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Like 9/11, huh?
 
iguanaman said:
We don't have to choose though. We can help the moderate rebels by bombing only ISIS who they are also fighting against. Working with Assad would mean we would bomb all the rebel groups. He does not see a difference between them
Click to expand...

and assad wants the united states to only bomb targets after recieving approval from him.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i invoked Salah AL Din because the Syrian Opposition do not have a leader capable of uniting them like the legendary warrior from the era of the Crusades.
Click to expand...

I believe the time makes the man, not vice-versa. Given the opportunity, a genius from a population will always rise to the occasion.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
currently most of those 'genius's' are flying the banner of ISIS.
Click to expand...

Oh please. A genius has one of two options with ISIS, be killed or pretend to be with them. Let's not pretend barbaric terrorism attracts those of exceptional intelligence.
 
 
ecofarm said:
What makes you believe Assad can wage war against the US? He's not gonna do anything to the US. If he fires on a US military asset, his palace will cease to exist and he'll be dead.Sec
Click to expand...


Still doesn't answer who we replace him with. I don't think the supposed moderates amount to much there, which means ISIS. I don't like that option very much either. Let Assad get rid of ISIS for us, or let ISIS get rid of Assad. Then we can deal with the aftermath. Right now neither option is very good.
 
ecofarm said:
Assad is guilty of horrible war crimes, including gassing the capital, and needs to go.
Click to expand...

Toss him out and you leave a power vacuum that ISIS/ISIL will fill. Yeah, Assad is a bad man, but taking him out of the picture leaves the door open for worse men to take over. Look at what happened when Pres. Tito died. Yugoslavia fell apart and ended up with years of civil war/genocide. Tito was a vicious leader, but he was better than the alternative. It sucks to have to accept the fact that we have to allow bad people to stick around, but when the alternative is allowing even worse ones to take over, any sane person knows what the intelligent choice is.
 
rocket88 said:
Still doesn't answer who we replace him with.
Click to expand...

A democratic transitional government. Why does it need to be a cult of personality for you?
 
ecofarm said:
I'm going to fight ISIS while maintaining that Assad must go. Ultimately, the choice is not between ISIS and Assad; the only choice is democracy and human rights. Those things are advanced through the defeat of ISIS and the removal of Assad. Given space to operate, moderates will re-emerge.
Click to expand...

The moderates aren't willing to take the steps that lead to power and as such they would get slaughtered in short order. This is an Arab/Persian nation where strength and power are what is respected. The people who lead these countries are not the reasonable people, they are the violent extremists because they are the ones willing to do whatever it takes to take and keep power. Remove one guy and the next most ambitious guy will step forward walking through the blood of the people who got in his way. That's the simple fact about Arab/Persian culture.
 
faithful_servant said:
Toss him out and you leave a power vacuum that ISIS/ISIL will fill.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

You're ignoring the support of moderates. Transitional democratic governments are in place throughout the world, let's not pretend it's impossible. Let's not pretend that the only people in Syria are terrorists and supporters of mass-murdering dictatorship.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Sorry. But that last option is clearly unrealistic. The moderates have almost completely lost. Now its Islamists, or more extreme Islamists.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The ones most willing to seize power at any cost will be the ones that come out on top. This will be another case of the worst people wining instead of the best. The only possibility (a very thin one) would for us to start killing off the bad leaders on both sides until someone realizes that being the baddest dog on that block is a one-way ticket to getting turned into a red smear. Outside of that kind of approach, there is no good solution... :sad
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i don't think we should assist assad becuase he is demanding that any bombings or airstrikes that the united states would conduct in syria need to be approved by his regime. how can we be certain he is targeting his political enemys and using the united states airforce as his unwilling hitmen?
Click to expand...

I think that's EXACCTLY what Assad wants. He gets to run the biggest, baddest and best military on the planet and take out his political rivals alongside the people trying to remove him from office.
 
ecofarm said:
Strawman.

You're ignoring the support of moderates. Transitional democratic governments are in place throughout the world, let's not pretend it's impossible. Let's not pretend that the only people in Syria are terrorists and supporters of mass-murdering dictatorship.
Click to expand...

They lack the strength of will and willingness to use power and fear to ever take power. The moderates are the sheep among wolves and expecting the sheep to take over means expecting the wolves to stop being wolves - AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom