Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
One of my Senators, Gary Peters, a liberal democrat, is calling for regime change in Syria
.
“The Russians have to stop propping up Asaad,” he added. “Trump should try to work with them to try to get them to condemn Assad and then make sure the world community unites as well to push him out. He simply cannot stay there.”
On another topic, here is a Reuters article about Jon Ossoff, the Democrat trying to flip a Republican Congressional seat in northern Atlanta. In Georgia, a Democrat's 'Make Trump Furious' campaign rattles Republicans
.
"In the most-watched congressional race so far in the Trump era, a wave of grassroots anti-Trump fervor has positioned Democrat Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old political newcomer, to possibly capture a House of Representatives seat held by Republicans for decades, one of 24 seats Democrats need nationwide to reclaim the House."
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
We've been talking about Ossoff for a while already.
As for Syria, it undoubtedly does need regime change. I have neighbors with family there, and they describe the starvation and other horrors of their government's war on its own people. Assad is a criminal on the same level as Pol Pot and Mussolini and needs to be deposed, imprisoned, tried, and hanged.
That said, is it worthwhile to do so? Is it a useful investment of our military and diplomatic power? Are there not other brutal dictators that we could go after? Would we be willing to sustain the program of development needed to create a stable democracy in Syria, when we so miserably failed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Does the U.S. (or any nation) have the right to choose the government of another nation, no matter how awful they are?
I don't have satisfactory answers to those questions.
That too. Are we willing to go to war with Russia over Assad?
edited 11th Apr '17 9:36:05 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Bear in mind this isn't some simple regime change like Saddam or Gaddafi.
Assad is a full blown Russian puppet with full support. He's not some random local warlord they send money to every so often.
To properly engage Assad is to engage the Russians themselves. They won't ever let Syria go. It's far too important to their strategic operations.
It'd be like if we let the Russians overthrow Erdogan for his crimes against humanity. Sure it needs to happen but fuck if we're gonna let the Russians anywhere near Istanbul.
edited 11th Apr '17 9:36:24 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?The only way that would happen is if we could convince the Russians to dispose of him themselves with some diplomacy.
We cannot fight Assad properly. The Russians won't allow it. Irritating as it is, this is their territory and their politics. Not ours. We've got no real jurisdiction or mandate there.
edited 11th Apr '17 9:42:55 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
I can see the Russians saying just that:
"You want to kick out Assad? Okay, then let us kick out Erdogan."
Another problem is that Assad isn't a cooperative puppet. He's more of a rabid guard dog on a leash. And he keeps testing the leash.
edited 11th Apr '17 9:44:07 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Krieger 22: The Kurds and Jordanian militias cannot do this alone-if they had the numbers, we would have stepped up the arms shipments and taken a stronger stance against the Russians. The only way at the moment to get the manpower needed is to cut a deal with AQ militias or back the unreliable militias that are now lousy with the Islamist militants Assad released from prison to (successfully) taint those groups.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's securities fraud trial has been moved to Harris County.
More to the point, toppling Syria is a situation where you've got to be real damn careful about having an endgame. We learned that lesson in Iraq when we replaced a brutal dictator and war criminal with an unstable system that broke apart along sectarian lines literally the moment our troops pulled out. How are we going to keep the Alawites and Christians in Syria from being ethnically cleansed if we topple Assad? If we can't get Jordan and Kurdistan to partition Syria between them, then who the hell do we replace Assad with, a colonial governor and a permanent garrison?
The opposites include "conservative," which is not the same as "regressive." It implies a preference for keeping what works as opposed to the evolutionary ideals of progressives.
Other options are radicals, who are revolutionary, and reactionaries, who...yeah, we're labeling those as regressive.
edited 11th Apr '17 10:14:47 AM by Ramidel
Not necessarily, but it does imply that one is claiming to lead society "forward." Still, tis a feel-good label, advertising, not unlike "moderate" (implying others are extremists), "market-oriented/free-market (implying others are well, evil in the US, socialists elsewhere), "For the children" (implying there's anyone anywhere who'd run on an openly anti-children platform), et cetera ad infinitum...
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesI believe most Syrians are in favor of Assad. That makes toppling him an even worse idea atm.
Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent You Gov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad – the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene – so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go.
The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
edited 11th Apr '17 10:23:51 AM by MadSkillz

It is true that government has a strong inertia to keep any/all social programs, because even if they aren't doing what they are intended to do on paper (or what they are doing is not a good thing to begin with), someone is benefiting from them and is therefore invested in them, and will be very upset if you take them away. Thus, anyone who does so will become unpopular with those people, and if done enough and to enough people, will lose reelection.
In contrast to the Libertarian nonsense, this bespeaks the need to cut down the chaff gradually and thoughtfully, not in a massive sweep of the scythe.
edited 11th Apr '17 9:27:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"