US Diplomats Urge Barack to Obomba Bashar

[Ganos Lao]

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia openly sends money and arms to an Al-Qaeda affliate.

Yes but they are another beast entirely. We have bases, they buy our weapons and overpriced luxury good plus have investments tied up in the U.S. We can use those as leverage against them when they really start misbehaving. What leverage do we have on Assad? He isn't decedant or morally bankrupt enough to get in bed with Uncle Sam.

My point was that we shouldn't be quick to judge Assad when we cavort with our own devils, you know? I don't support Assad, don't get me wrong. But I just don't see the point in getting rid of him when there's no one at all in the Syrian opposition who looks good enough. Since day one, no one has listed even a single person who could take over Syria after Assad's gone. Plus, look at what happened to Iraq. The West handpicked al-Maliki and it blew up in our faces. Let's not have that happen again.

And what do you mean really start misbehaving? The Saudis spread radical Islam throughout the world. They're literally funding an al-Qaeda affliate - you know, the guys behind 9/11? What else do you want them to do before you think it's okay to deal with them?

[Saiwania]

The S-300 and its follow-on systems are some of the most capable and dangerous air defenses an opposing air force could ever face. Not only are the missiles mobile, but the systems are networked together. One S-300 battery is a handful, but several such systems networked together into an integrated air defense system is a nearly insurmountable challenge for most fourth-generation fighters like the F-16 or F-15.

If Russia has deployed their latest surface-to-air missiles to Syria, the areas protected by these systems have become no-go zones for most allied aircraft save for the F-22 Raptor and B-2 Spirit—and the F-35, if that warplane was genuinely operational. In other words, the US along with all of NATO including Israel have no means of actually flying over Syria without potentially losing aircraft.

[United Marxist Nations]

>hey, things are finally starting to get cleaned up in Syria with the whole ISIS thing
>Fuck it, let's destroy the biggest player and make the war into a toss up
These diplomats should be fired, tbh.

>Swears to be the only force capable of fighting ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

[The East Marches]

It fell because we were no longer comitted to propping it up. Had we sincerely wanted it still around, South Vietnam would still exist.

moronic_western_fantasy.txt

To quote Stefan Memeneux "Not an argument".

[Allet Klar Chefs]

It had twenty years to establish any. It never did. First it was an incredibly corrupt state under rule by a single family (part of the reason Christians were deliberated targeted by communists in the sixties is because Diem's brother was also the head of the Catholic Church in South Vietnam). After that a string of military dictatorships that did not in any sense work for the Vietnamese people. That's why ARVN forces dropped their rifles, and why there were so many VC. And it's why the state fell so quickly after the Americans left.

Largely because the soldiers in question weren't being paid, because the US cut off funding.

It's one thing to risk your life and get paid an acceptable amount to do that will provide your family with something to live on in case you get killed.

It's another thing to risk your life for no gain at all.

Lot of VCs worked pro bono. Never got the same thing going on for the other side, even despite the apparently c.98% approval ratings of it leaders.

[Ganos Lao]

>hey, things are finally starting to get cleaned up in Syria with the whole ISIS thing
>Fuck it, let's destroy the biggest player and make the war into a toss up
These diplomats should be fired, tbh.

>Swears to be dedicated to destroying ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.
>Buys oil from ISIS.

At least Assad's honest about this stuff. He doesn't pretend to be wholesome and good like the West.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

>Swears to be the only force capable of fighting ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

[Ganos Lao]

>Swears to be the only force capable of fighting ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Eliminating Assad all but assures an Islamist victory. Goodbye democracy, hello Saudi Arabia's version of Manchukuo.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

moronic_western_fantasy.txt

To quote Stefan Memeneux "Not an argument".

Nor is "if only we had supported it, which we didn't, it would exist", really.

[Ganos Lao]

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

Put him in the unemployed dictator line, you mean.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

>Swears to be dedicated to destroying ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.
>Buys oil from ISIS.

At least Assad's honest about this stuff. He doesn't pretend to be wholesome and good like the West.

Honest?

The guy who said he would leave power if it was beneficial to ending the conflict and now can't even bring himself to the negotiation table?

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

Israelis bombed his father and it didn't change much.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

Put him in the unemployed dictator line, you mean.

In the long term.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

Israelis bombed his father and it didn't change much.

Well his father wasn't in as much of a pickle as he is.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

>Swears to be dedicated to destroying ISIS.
>Breaks ceasefire to bomb non-ISIS forces.
>Buys oil from ISIS.

At least Assad's honest about this stuff. He doesn't pretend to be wholesome and good like the West.

The Lion Assad, Victor In The Incredibly Democratic Elections of 2015/16, Sheller Of Uppity Towns Which If You'll Remember Was The Root Cause Of This Whole Thing is not an honest man.

[Ganos Lao]

At least Assad's honest about this stuff. He doesn't pretend to be wholesome and good like the West.

Honest?

The guy who said he would leave power if it was beneficial to ending the conflict and now can't even bring himself to the negotiation table?

That's what I meant. He's honest about being that sort of person. He's not like the Saudis, the West, etc in that regard.

[United Marxist Nations]

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

By reducing his capability of ending the war and thus causing it to drag on longer?

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Israelis bombed his father and it didn't change much.

Well his father wasn't in as much of a pickle as he is.

His father killed ten thousand people in Homs because of civil unrest. He was in quite the pickle. A real tizzy, if you will.

[Ganos Lao]

At least Assad's honest about this stuff. He doesn't pretend to be wholesome and good like the West.

The Lion Assad, Victor In The Incredibly Democratic Elections of 2015/16, Sheller Of Uppity Towns Which If You'll Remember Was The Root Cause Of This Whole Thing is not an honest man.

You missed the point of my post, and are also incorrect if you think I think so highly of the guy.

It's not that I support him. I don't. I just think there's no reason not to support him, or at least work with him, until we have someone in the wings who is quality leadership material.

It won't be worth removing him just to have an al-Maliki pop up and fuck Syria up even further. We owe it to the Syrians to help them find good government, not to simply pull a "well, Saddam's gone, mission accomplished" again.

[United Marxist Nations]

Doesn't change that eliminating Assad makes the war into a toss-up with no clear winner, likely exacerbating it even more.

Eliminating Assad all but assures an Islamist victory. Goodbye democracy, hello Saudi Arabia's version of Manchukuo.

That is actually best case scenario for a non-Assad victory. Worst case is that it reaps eternal war.

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

You have a brown semitic-looking man as a flag.

He's pretty clearly black and looks not at all what I associate with semitic peoples.

But w/e.

Again, a joke, but his facial structure is what makes him look semitic.

[The East Marches]

Yes but they are another beast entirely. We have bases, they buy our weapons and overpriced luxury good plus have investments tied up in the U.S. We can use those as leverage against them when they really start misbehaving. What leverage do we have on Assad? He isn't decedant or morally bankrupt enough to get in bed with Uncle Sam.

My point was that we shouldn't be quick to judge Assad when we cavort with our own devils, you know? I don't support Assad, don't get me wrong. But I just don't see the point in getting rid of him when there's no one at all in the Syrian opposition who looks good enough. Since day one, no one has listed even a single person who could take over Syria after Assad's gone. Plus, look at what happened to Iraq. The West handpicked al-Maliki and it blew up in our faces. Let's not have that happen again.

And what do you mean really start misbehaving? The Saudis spread radical Islam throughout the world. They're literally funding an al-Qaeda affliate - you know, the guys behind 9/11? What else do you want them to do before you think it's okay to deal with them?

I don't see the point in getting rid of him at this point either. However, I see no hypocrisy in not supporting Assad but tolerating the current dynamic between the U.S. and Saudis.

Unfortunately, the most... efficient method of problem solving is off the table as we don't have the stomach for it. Until then, we have to be content with the Saudis whoring themselves out to us while continuing to give us the clap. Yes, it burns when we pee but it's a mutually beneficial relationship.

What I mean by misbehaving is stop selling oil in dollars, stop opposing Iran or they begin to try to buy weapons not sourced from the West. While we can't crush their wahabbi dogs due to PC problems. We can control what arms they buy and put kill switches in them. Things to that effect.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Doesn't change the fact that the point in bombing Assad isn't to kill him but to put him in line.

By reducing his capability of ending the war and thus causing it to drag on longer?

If I want my lawn to be overgrown it doesn't hurt to cut a few blades of grass.

It will temporarily slow the thing down, but if Assad listens more to his id than his ego and makes a deal with the opposition the war will end sooner.

[Ganos Lao]

Put him in the unemployed dictator line, you mean.

In the long term.

Just leaves an opening for one of the Islamists to take control and start a final solution to the Alawite problem. Totally worth it, though, because big bad Assad's either dead or in exile in the Crimea. /s

[Ralkovian Grand Island]

Eliminating Assad all but assures an Islamist victory. Goodbye democracy, hello Saudi Arabia's version of Manchukuo.

That is actually best case scenario for a non-Assad victory. Worst case is that it reaps eternal war.

Eternal War sounds kind of cool, actually.