US troops to Syria

[Belsnickel]

So the idea that the Syrian civil war is religious v. secular is bollocks. The opposition forces are comprised of groups both secular and religious, including Kurdish units. It all started because of Assad's extreme (torture, imprisonment, murder) of people speaking out against his regime during the Arab Spring. His regime is like the Hussein regime. Same party, same ideology, same temperament. We should not be involved in taking him out, just as we should not have been in Iraq. But why people stand with Assad that disliked Hussein, I do not know.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2015, 05:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So the idea that the Syrian civil war is religious v. secular is bollocks. The opposition forces are comprised of groups both secular and religious, including Kurdish units. 

This 

(11-01-2015, 05:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  It all started because of Assad's extreme (torture, imprisonment, murder) of people speaking out against his regime during the Arab Spring. His regime is like the Hussein regime. Same party, same ideology, same temperament. We should not be involved in taking him out, just as we should not have been in Iraq. 

I see a slight difference here.  We did not start the civil war in Syria the way we did in Iraq.  I am 100% against ever starting a war to remove a despot.  But in very limited situations I can agree with the rest of the world stepping into a civil war situation that turns into a bloodbath.  However even then we should not get involved unless it is part of a large coalition.

[Belsnickel]

(11-01-2015, 06:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I see a slight difference here.  We did not start the civil war in Syria the way we did in Iraq.  I am 100% against ever starting a war to remove a despot.  But in very limited situations I can agree with the rest of the world stepping into a civil war situation that turns into a bloodbath.  However even then we should not get involved unless it is part of a large coalition.

I can get that. However, I am against involvement in internal conflicts of sovereign nations on either side unless one of two things takes place (ironically, one has taken place now in Syria). The first is that it is a one sided genocide(like those we have ignored in several countries in the past couple of decades). In those situations it should be a coalition to go on and stop the human rights issues. The other is when another country decides to intervene in the conflict. Internal conflicts should remain internal, and external influences should not be tolerated.

If Russia was on the side of the rebels I would be against their involvement as vehemently as I am against their involvement on the side of Assad.

[Bengalzona]

Syria is an mess. At this point the only answer is diplomacy. All of the main powers involved (the Assad regime, Russia, Iran, the U.S., Western Europe) need to sit down and come to an arrangement.

The actual deal is quite simple:
1) Assad will have to step down, because that is what the U.S. wants
2) The Alawite minority coalition will remain in power, because that is what Iran and Russia want
3) Assad will be allowed some form of semi-honorable retirement and retirement fund, because that is what he wants
4) When the country is stabilized the refugees will be able to return, because that is what the Europeans want
5) The new government will be charged with cleaning ISIL out of Syria, because that is what everyone wants.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-01-2015, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, right, there is no reason to address the Syrian Civil War other than just making a change for the sake of change.

The refugee problem is irrelevant.

The rebels are not the good people in this fight. They are the same people who turned Egypt into a nightmare.

Assad isn't "good" either .... But he is better

[Belsnickel]

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but I saw this while reading Die Welt and wanted to share. This is apparently from an IS math book.