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

[Indy Texas]

Assad has killed more people than the IS. I'd rather we destroy Assad first.

It's not that simple. I don't think you understand what a huge welfare check you would be handing The Islamic State by doing that.

I don't like the IS, but I don't like Assad more. He has butchered tens of thousands. The IS is hated by everyone and can't expand much more, only shrink. Especially once we kick them out of Iraq and their oil revenue dries up. Assad's the bigger threat.

Assad is just barely holding on to power in his own country.  ISIS is preaching global jihad that could reach out and conduct serious attacks not just in the M.E. but also in the West. There are many people rallying to their banner and you underestimate them at your own peril.

If Assad is just barely holding on, then all the more reason to shove him through the door first.

The IS may be preaching that, but there's a difference between preaching and doing. Yes, they are a more significant threat to the United States than Al Qaeda at this point, and probably will try to attack us. Which is why we need to hurry up and bring down Assad, so then we can go after the IS in Syria. We can go after them in Iraq for the meantime, though.

You want to create a power vacuum in Syria that ISIS will be able to jump right in and fill?

Sir, are you high?

What's wrong with leaving Assad in power, letting HIM get rid of IS in Syria and working with him to get rid of IS in Iraq?

[Indy Texas]

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 Texas]

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.

[Indy Texas]

No guys, Hillary wanted to support the real good guys on the ground, the moderate rebels. And yes, there were moderate rebels. Now we're left with supporting a guy who gasses kids. I hope you're proud of that, jfern.

Who were these "moderate" rebels? Do you seriously think you can build a sustainable political base of support from a handful of "moderates"?

Once elections were held, the Islamists would end up winning anyway.

That's what none of you get about the Middle East. If you want a government in power that's not going to either be hostile to the US or impose a backward-ass version of Islam, you pretty much have to either find a penniless royal dynasty to prop up (such as the Hashemites in Jordan) or find an ambitious field marshal and write him a check to stage a coup (Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr in Iraq in the 1960s; Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Egypt last year).

[Indy Texas]

...

Nice to see we have a liberal pro-genocide poster here, it's rare opportunity to able discuss the pro and cons with genocide from a liberal democratic (as the ideology) POV.

?

Opposing both Assad and the IS makes me pro-genocide?

Fine, Starwatcher. We'll let the Syrians be killed by a wide variety of armed thugs instead of be killed by one set of government-backed armed thugs. And we'll spend a bunch of American money to make that happen.

[Indy Texas]

Look at what is happening to Christians and Yazidis in Iraq.

That's the fate you're asking for for the Alawites, Christians and Druze in Syria if you support removing Assad.

Give yourselves a pat on the back for supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide.

[Indy Texas]

They can handle democracy - albeit probably an illiberal, ersatz version that's vulnerable to identity politics and tyranny of the majority. But they'll never produce the kind of governments that make the US happy and that we are willing to work with.

Palestine had elections once. Hamas won in a landslide. How'd that turn out? We had to thwart the will of the people and prop up the "moderate" Fatah government and elections haven't happened there in nearly a decade.

Egypt had elections. They voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. How'd that turn out? They're back to their old ways of having a military strongman in power.

Lebanon, arguably the most functionally democratic of the Arabic-speaking countries, is more or less ungovernable.

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."

[Indy Texas]

It would be a deal with the devil, which we would regret in the future.

Better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don't, which is what we'd get teaming up with your allegedly freedom-loving moderates.