U.S. Weighs Direct Military Action Against ISIS in Syria

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Assad is the more long-term evil, he could actually survive all this, while the IS is doomed to be destroyed. And Assad has killed much more people.

Yes, I'd rather take out Assad, and have the IS make some gains in Syria before they're taken out.

Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to the US? No. Is Bashar al-Assad a threat to Syria? Of course.

But it's not our job to look out for the best interests of the Syrian people. We're not a human rights brigade.

Indy, Starwatcher, you are neglecting or underestimating the consequences of an ISIS takeover on the Syrian people. The Shias, Christian and moderate Sunni communities would suffer just as they have in Iraq.  ISIS would cleanse them of their supposed sins. They could make Assad's barrel bombs seem tame.

This is why I'm saying we need to leave Assad in power there and enable him to get IS out of Syria.

Starwatcher wants to remove Assad and fails to understand that all we'd be doing is creating yet another Iraq.

That's Hillary Clinton's views. With 20/20 hindsight, Hillary still thinks we should have armed the rebels, so I guess she decided her Iraq vote didn't screw things up enough there.  Maybe she can find some other area of the world to be completely wrong about instead?

To be fair, if we are willing to take the hero's road and put boots on the ground, then we won't need Assad. I think that's her plan.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

snip
Some of this is our fault. And the British and the French. But I'm curious to know what is so different about Syria that you think "but this time it's going to be different."

The economy is better in Syria and, after the inevitable Ataturk/Rhee dictatorial era that the FSA would give Syria, they would be ready for limited democracy.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disarm Assad because he could have used those chemical weapons against ISIS. That would have slowed the operational tempo of the battlefield, but it would have given the anti-terrorism forces a boost.

No way was it a mistake to take those chemical weapons from a madman.

Assad is not a madman though; he is simply a brutal dictator who would rather slaughter his country than give up power. While I agree that it is a good idea to take away his stockpile, the proliferation of WMDs amoung non-great powers is inherently destabilizing, we could perhaps let him lob a few at ISIS before he is totally disarmed.