And I thought he was all about keeping plans super secret.

Do you know what the most awful thing about the Syrian civil war is? There is no clear answer to this question: Which scenario is worse:

1. It goes on forever
2. One faction now fighting actually wins

When that question has no obvious answer it's not something we should be involved in.

 

 

Of course I don't think we should be involved in any military actions abroad unless Congress actually declares war. But that's just me. And the Constitution.

Root of this problem is west naivity. I think there was big realisation after Egypt 'Arab Spring' revolution. It was most succsessfull revolt on all of them - and then they democratically voted for Muslim Brotherhood - go figure

Tunisia was the first and most successful arab spring revolution, and the only one which stuck. They also have a secular (well, secularish) elected government now.

Syria didn't have a spontaneous revolution (insofar as there is such a thing). It was fairly clear that the opposition was supported and encouraged from abroad, from day 1. 

 

That led to a chain of events that made what was supposed to be a quick regime change operation, infinitely more complex. ISIS, fragmentation of the opposition, Russian intervention, Iran's assistance to Assad, de-facto occupation of parts of the country by the US and its proxies, Turkey and its proxies, Israeli military support for the south-west rebels etc.

 

Most can neither be pushed out and destroyed (except ISIS) nor 'win' on their own. So this is why we are where we are.

 

Proving, for those that care for such things, that attempting to overthrow 'tyranny' via revolution that clearly doesn't have popular support, (the kind that some anti-colonial movements had in their heyday) is the surest way to inflict untold long term misery on a population as everything grinds down into a pointless forever war. 

Edited April 11, 20187 yr by Drowsy Emperor

I am not sure if there was many revolutions without 'outside' help.

 

nah, its just clear that you need to have educated population for democracy to work - otherwise they will democratically vote for another tyrant

Edited April 11, 20187 yr by Chilloutman

With the possible exception of Tunisia, revolutions these days seem to be about replacing one kind of tyranny with another. The only difference being the ethnicity/religion/philosophy of the next group of people to be mass murdered.

lets bomb another empty airfield

I really don't understand why the world allowed this to happen:

 

 

Was it REALLY that bad before the war?!

 

I think not.

How would "the world" have stopped a civil war?

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan calling it quits, will not seek re-election. Adds on to an already disastrous wave of retirements for the Republicans.

 

Retirement tracker: https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-retirement-tracker/index.html

Edited April 11, 20187 yr by Bartimaeus

How would "the world" have stopped a civil war?

 

By not interfering, be it U.S, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey...

Oh, ok.

stll better than Hillary amirite

nope, it's her and the deep state's fault that this is happening to begin with

How would "the world" have stopped a civil war?

By intervening openly and forcefully.

Obviously it would be a political suicide for some but it could have been done when the war was just beginning.

Nobody wanted Iraq 2.0, it was politically and economically infeasible. Plus Russia entangles things as they help to prop up the single-party domination of Syria.

By intervening openly and forcefully.

Obviously it would be a political suicide for some but it could have been done when the war was just beginning.

And which side should "the world" have chosen to be the victor?

I'm with Kapthood. Syria, like so many other similar conflicts is devolving into a proxy war between outside actors. Eventually one site will win and, as I said earlier, the mass killing will continue. Maybe just with different victims. Where Kapthood is wrong is it didn't start with intervention. That has just prolonged it. It starts when two or more differing groups of people can'r live under the same sun with someone who is different from them in some way. Or has something the other wants. If people are determined to kill each other there isn't much you can do but get out of the way.

 

I'm hearing George Washington warning us to avoid foreign entanglements in the back of my head. 

 

By intervening openly and forcefully.

Obviously it would be a political suicide for some but it could have been done when the war was just beginning.

And which side should "the world" have chosen to be the victor?

 

Neither.

The point of intervention is that you get to lay down your own rules.

The point of intervention is that you get to lay down your own rules.

So complete occupation of the warring nation?

 

How would "the world" have stopped a civil war?

By intervening openly and forcefully.

Obviously it would be a political suicide for some but it could have been done when the war was just beginning.

 

 

Yeah, sort of like Libya. What a paradise that place became right after the moment

. 

Edited April 11, 20187 yr by Katphood

If you are looking for a political opinion piece that does not involve Syria, Trump (directly anyway), etc this one is pretty brilliant http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/10/americans-cant-stand-each-other-so-lets

 

 

How would "the world" have stopped a civil war?

By intervening openly and forcefully.

Obviously it would be a political suicide for some but it could have been done when the war was just beginning.

 

 

Yeah, sort of like Libya. What a paradise that place became right after the moment

. 

 

Remember: if brute force doesn't solve the problem, you aren't applying enough.

Remember: if brute force doesn't solve the problem, you aren't applying enough.

The best lesson Dragonball Z ever taught us.