would you support a regime change in syria?

[WalterMitty]

yes.  it should be a high priority of american foreign policy.

[minionofmidas]

America has nothing to hope for from regime change in Syria.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Wow. That would clearly be as successful as regime change in Iraq.

Admittely I am something of a Kurdophile; but this is ridiculous.

[Friz]

America has nothing to hope for from regime change in Syria.

Wow. That would clearly be as successful as regime change in Iraq.

[WalterMitty]

Wow. That would clearly be as successful as regime change in Iraq.

Admittely I am something of a Kurdophile; but this is ridiculous.

a regime change doesnt necessarily mean a military action.

syria should be put on notice.  they should immediately stop supporting hamas and hezbollah.  they should immediately stop interfering in lebanon.

i dont understand how we can have a 'war on terrorism' and give syria a free pass.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Wow. That would clearly be as successful as regime change in Iraq.

Admittely I am something of a Kurdophile; but this is ridiculous.

a regime change doesnt necessarily mean a military action.

syria should be put on notice.  they should immediately stop supporting hamas and hezbollah.  they should immediately stop interfering in lebanon.

i dont understand how we can have a 'war on terrorism' and give syria a free pass.

So without Military action how do you propose to change the Syrian regime? And how do you propose to replace with one who is better (ie. More Pro-American; hardly a sentiment which is very popular in the ME right now. While Assad is clearly a despot and a tyrant - though not of the Saddam Class, not quite - I imagine you wouldn't feel quite at home with alot of his Opposition.)

I actually agree with you that Syria should stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas; but the question is how do 'we' do this, without recourse to arms or severly alienating even more of the Middle East? Is that even possible?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

i dont understand how we can have a 'war on terrorism' and give syria a free pass.

Perhaps because we don't have the ability to force a better regime to replace Assad II?  If Iraq had been the success that the neo-cons had hoped for, Syria would have been a good choice for what to "reform" next.  But in Iraq, neo-con theory hit the hard wall of reality and stuck there.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The islamic world declared war on the civilized world(as in anyone not a muslim) so why not reciprocate and show them what war to the knife is really like? They want to play games like guerilla warfare/terrorism/using WMD? Fine. We'll play too. Hell recruit militia types, IRA types and other western violent radical groups and have them do to arab monuments what Al Qeada did to the WTC/twin towers.

[Frodo]

I would love to see regime changes throughout the Middle East (with the exception of Turkey), so long as they are not accomplished through U.S. military force. 

[Lief 🗽]

We'd all like to see regime change in every non-democratic country. That doesn't mean it's pragmatic or possible.

Assad, as far as dictators go, isn't even that bad.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'd like to see the european empires back(Only not so nice this time. As in westernizing by force) and the US owning all of north america. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No.

Because as bad as Assad is, if he goes down, it's going to be fundamentalist crazies who take over. Same situation as Pakistan (though Musharaf is nowhere near as bad as Assad but the same scenario still stands)

[Lief 🗽]

What exactly has Assad done that's been horrible? All I really know about the guy is from Dateline interviews and the like.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously it would be bad if the US got involved trying to change his regime. Not because there is anything worth keeping about Assad's regime, but because it's time for the US to stop deciding which regimes to overthrow and ending up with a big mess.

[DanielX]

Getting rid of Assad's regime? Yes, that would be a brilliant idea and I support it completely.

Pulling it off, though, without making the region an even worse mess than it already is? That's the problem....

[John Dibble]

Getting rid of Assad's regime? Yes, that would be a brilliant idea and I support it completely.

Pulling it off, though, without making the region an even worse mess than it already is? That's the problem....

Sounds about right.

I'd like to have Kim Jong Il's head on a pike as well, but you don't see me calling for the US to invade North Korea.

[opebo]

Good lord people, why get rid of the best of all possible Syrian regimes?  Can't we see in hindsight that Saddam was far better than anything that will arise in Iraq now?  Personally I find those Arab nationalist/fascist governments - what are the called?  Basques?  Baths? - to be a huge improvement on theocracy.

[WalterMitty]

Obviously it would be bad if the US got involved trying to change his regime. Not because there is anything worth keeping about Assad's regime, but because it's time for the US to stop deciding which regimes to overthrow and ending up with a big mess.

why do you hate america?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Obviously it would be bad if the US got involved trying to change his regime. Not because there is anything worth keeping about Assad's regime, but because it's time for the US to stop deciding which regimes to overthrow and ending up with a big mess.

why do you hate america?

Why do you troll?

[Lief 🗽]

Opebo's probably right. We're not going to get free, secular democracies in the Middle-East any time soon. Until then, it's probably better we have authoritarian, secularish states.

[Sensei]

Obviously it would be bad if the US got involved trying to change his regime. Not because there is anything worth keeping about Assad's regime, but because it's time for the US to stop deciding which regimes to overthrow and ending up with a big mess.

why do you hate america?

Why do you troll?

Straha heeled