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

[Blue3]

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

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

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.

I'd rather have another Iraq than see Assad stay in power.

At least with him gone, there is hope for the Syrian people to choose their own destiny, and we can support the Free Syrian Army.

It's a false choice to say we must support one of these evils. Best to do what we can to destroy both.

Supporting Assad now would be admitting that the Middle East needs a bloodthirsty dictator to keep it in order. Admitting that some people are better off without democracy and human rights, that white Christians can handle democracy but brown Muslims can't, would be inhumane and disastrous. If that's the course the United States chooses, we deserve to lose.

We need to back the IS out of Iraq and back into Syria, then crush Assad, then help the FSA secure Syria.

(And let's not forget... letting Assad stay in a stalemate with the rebels for so long is what caused the IS to rise, and get pushed into Iraq once Assad was able to turn the tide.)

[Blue3]

...

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?

[Blue3]

Well it's these guys job to weigh in all options, so that means they're just doing their job. But it would be a great humiliation for the US or any European country (France and the UK were also very vocal about Assad) to suddenly change its mind, start helping Assad and to line up behind Russia and Iran. Anyone doing that could shut up about the Middle East for the next 50 years, so I think it's extremely unlikely.

Don't forget that Assad released islamists from his jails when the civil war started in order to present it as a war of Assad vs terrorists. I find it very worrying that many are ready to fall into his trap, and equally worrying that many start running around like headless chickens as soon as they hear "islamists".

Exactly.

The guys saying we must ally with Assad to defeat ISIS are falling into Assad's trap, and it would also destroy all of our moral credibility.

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).

And your amorality is what's wrong with the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. You're basically saying "those brown Muslims can't handle democracy."

Also, not all Islamists are like ISIS. So what if they win elections, as long as they respect human rights? Christian conservatives win elections here all the time.

The moderate rebels are the Free Syrian Army.

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.

Somebody didn't understand anything I've posted.

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.

Again, way to misunderstand me.

Also, if you go back a year or two, you'll see my position hasn't changed. Back in 2012, I was calling for the United States to bomb both Assad and any extremist rebels. If that had happened, the IS wouldn't be the threat it is today.

[Blue3]

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

[Blue3]

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.

I believe the opposite. The region is broken. Better to have a real change, than keep the awful status quo. You know keeping things the same will keep them awful, if there's change then there's hope.

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.

1. The chemical weapons could have fallen into the IS's hands.
2. You would justify using chemical weapons against anyone? That's barbaric.