Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[Divinity]

That would be tough while he's sucking Putin's cock.

With Trump though, there's always a chance he'll choke while he's deepthroating him and get upset.

[abaris]

Not that it matters. He will lose decisively.

I hope so. And I hope that Hilary will lose the attitude, since what the West is doing in Syria is creating a second helping of Afghanistan. Putin is far more realistic in a cynical way. Backing Assad, from a western point of view, is the right thing to do, with all the unknown powers involved.

I can't believe I'm actually fighting Putin's corner here, but as an observer of Western Middle East policy since the soviet invasion in Afghanistan, I can only say, as long as there isn't a largely accepted secular faction standing against the Assad regime, it's better the devil you know, instead of creating yet another islamist paradise.

[The Grand Nudger]

"fighting in putins corner" and "backing Assad" sounds better than "bombing the remaining survivors of chemical weapons attacks in Aleppo", huh.  

I'm a pretty cynical guy myself, I enjoy practical approaches. That, though, goes beyond anything I;d be willing to argue in favor of. I;ll stand there with a 249 and gun them down in the streets, if it can't be avoided....but lets not sanitize what we're discussing.

[Minimalist]

since what the West is doing in Syria

What are we doing?  Our ludicrous effort to identify "moderates" to support was a failure mainly because there are none.  We completely fail to understand the sectarian nature of this civil war.

The republicunts were beating the drums for war and Obama almost fell for it.  We're lucky not to have had a fucking moron like Bush making the decision.

https://mic.com/articles/38993/john-mcca....CMVG656cc

John McCain Lindsey Graham: Senators Demand Syria Intervention, Encouraging Another Stupid War

[abaris]

I'm a pretty cynical guy myself, I enjoy practical approaches.  That, though, goes beyond anything I;d be willing to argue in favor of.  I;ll stand there with a 249 and gun them down in the streets, if it can't be avoided....but lets not sanitize what we're discussing.

We don't need to sanitize anything here. I know it's not the nicest thing to say, but since we're talking western interests in any case, it's the wiser course to back the one and only proven secular force in the region.

Unless we're interested in another Lybia or Afghanistan, that is.

Noone really gives a shit over the population. To claim that is sanitizing the cynical approach on both sides. That's the only hard fact we have in this quagmire. Otherwise the refugee crisis would have been met differently. So, if noone gives a shit, we could at least try not to fuck ourselves up the ass by backing this or that rebel organisation that may or may not invoke the next theocracy in the region.

The only forces having proven to really fight Isis are the Kurds, the Iranians and Assad. But we're not backing the Kurds, since that would piss off our darling Erdogan. We're not backing the Iranians, since they aren't good people in our perception, and we're not backing Assad because big bad bogeyman.

Yeah, well he isn't mister nice guy. But he at least kept the lid on the kettle. Taking it off didn't go over so well in Iraq. Not the beakon of democracy but yet another trouble spot that cost more than 4000 American troops their lives. I don't even mention the more than hundred thousand Iraquis dying, since that would require giving a shit.

[abaris]

What are we doing?  Our ludicrous effort to identify "moderates" to support was a failure mainly because there are none.  We completely fail to understand the sectarian nature of this civil war.

Took me a while to figure out you're quoting me.

Nice attempt at quote mining, since my full sentence pretty much say what you're saying, while giving the semblance of disagreeing.

[Faith No More]

Well, no one is going to deny that that is a very western view to take.

Although, when your argument boils down to "at least the guy using chemical weapons on children is protecting my interests," I'm pretty sure you lose any claim to the high moral ground.

[abaris]

Although, when your argument boils down to "at least the guy using chemical weapons on children is protecting my interests," I'm pretty sure you lose any claim to the high moral ground.

I certainly don't take the moral high ground. But if the alternative is nothing but unknowns, with factions fighting each other and being more or less radicalised to an unknown extent, it may not be from a purely western perspective.

I highly doubt that the Afghanis would have suffered nearly as much under a president Nadschibullāh as they have under the Taliban. I also doubt that at least 165.000 Iraquis would have died violently within the last 13 years under Saddam.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't need to sanitize anything here. I know it's not the nicest thing to say, but since we're talking western interests in any case, it's the wiser course to back the one and only proven secular force in the region.

Then why did you sanitize it? I'm not sure that any force being a secular force is reason enough to back them in either a chemical attack, or in bombing the remnants of the same...depending on which secular force you're referring to.  What interest, of ours, do we serve, there?

Unless we're interested in another Lybia or Afghanistan, that is.

Noone really gives a shit over the population. To claim that is sanitizing the cynical approach on both sides. That's the only hard fact we have in this quagmire. Otherwise the refugee crisis would have been met differently. So, if noone gives a shit, we could at least try not to fuck ourselves up the ass by backing this or that rebel organisation that may or may not invoke the next theocracy in the region.

You may not, some of us do.  I;m not willing to offer my support or silent consent to either of the forces involved for what they're doing on the simple basis of their being secular.  That's a complete non-issue to me, in this context.

The only forces having proven to really fight Isis are the Kurds, the Iranians and Assad. But we're not backing the Kurds, since that would piss off our darling Erdogan. We're not backing the Iranians, since they aren't good people in our perception, and we're not backing Assad because big bad bogeyman.

So why back putin, he wasn't in your list of notables up there...I mean, don't get me wrong...I'm sure they -could- have success if they just stop bombing the shit out of Aleppo and start dropping those bombs on isis instead.  As to assad...is it really surprising that a tyrant is good at dealing with terrorists, so long as we allow a little chlorine gas here and there?  Saddam 2.0? I notice that you ommitted that we -do- back the kurds....which, frankly, isn;t much to brag about either but they;re pretty much the last candidate standing in this shitshow...so?

Yeah, well he isn't mister nice guy. But he at least kept the lid on the kettle. Taking it off didn't go over so well in Iraq. Not the beakon of democracy but yet another trouble spot that cost more than 4000 American troops their lives. I don't even mention the more than hundred thousand Iraquis dying, since that would require giving a shit.

Better the devil we know, then?  Seems to me like that's exactly what got us into shit in the middle east in the first place.

[henryp]

I think in the middle east, it's time to be practical. If Assad wants to kill a bunch of civilians, that's a bummer. But there's no actual solution. The place is a perpetual shit show, and constant interference has gotten us nowhere, and there's no reason to believe it will ever get us anywhere. In fact, it seems more likely that it will get us somewhere worse. Time to take off the World's Sheriff hat, and head back home to focus on things that can actually be helped.