The debate "The US should engage more militarily in Syria." was started by
June 22, 2016, 6:53 am.
By the way, Nemiroff is disagreeing with this statement.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nm1995, PoliticsAsUsual, xaveragexjoesx and 7 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, truce_jttm, dasani72002, Bodaciouslady16, AzelG and 16 visitors disagree.
In the beginning of the conflict there were some "moderate" groups. But these have mostly been squeezed out. the major factions left are Assad, Isis, Al Nusra (an al qaeda affliliate), and the kurds. The kurds don't want most of syria and the rest are predominantly Islamists. No matter who wins this conflict it is going to end badly for the west in all likelihood.
why do you think most of the rebels are islamists? Syria was a secular nation, and during the Arab spring they made very reasonable requests. I am not going to assume about what is right, you may very well be correct. but that doesn't mean I will believe you without evidence.
many have hinted at the existence of substantial moderate groups, and the recent history of Syria makes that a logical conclusion as well. what is your proof that most of the rebels are not moderate?
US bettet prepare for their own national development and avoiding international risks and aid. Unfortunately, they've been connected internationally at the first place...
the problem with backing any of the rebel groups in Syria is that they are all different shades of the same group. the large majority if them are Islamic extremists. so if we back them we are creating another version of Isis, or the rediculous dictatorship of Iran. we would be pushing them from one horrible regime into another horrible regime. to my knowledge there are no "moderates" with any chance of success. that's why our arming them didn't go well. because they never really existed.
there isn't anyone to back who isn't also terrible.
also I am suspicious of Russian actions lately. and it feels like Syria is a very important part of it.
but we need to do that as an official statement. the rebels were at a stalemate, at best most of the time. I doubt they've been doing much thinking beyond the battle.
if we offer them our military support as an incentive, investing time in an after plan will have much higher priority.
of course with oversight and strings attached. we sure as hell won't be paying tariffs to them for the next 50 years!
you are right.
there is a difference in syria tho. not only were we asked for help by the people, but the people are also actively fighting for themselves as well.
in my opinion, the bulk of both the fighting and the rebuilding should be handled by the people of that nation. If the rebels can come up with a satisfactory post revolution plan, we will back them with the power of the US airforce, and maybe a few loan guarantees to get them started. If not, it'll be in their best interest to start thinking of one cause their prospects are not that good.
without a satisfactory plan, I agree. assad may have to stay.
the problem with bombing Assad is what will replace him as well as what will his allies do.
getting Assad out is a good thing, but if that allows ISIS or some other terrible dictator take more power then everyone will be worse off. America has made the mistake of toppling regimes they didn't like in the past. it often ends very badly.
not an invasion like iraq, but at least a legitimate air campaign. much like Russia which bombed our allies and ISIS, we should bomb ISIS and Assad.