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
The level of naivete displayed is astonishing sometimes. How do we imagine that we could occupy Syria and rebuild its entire government, its institutions, even its culture, from scratch, without enlisting the aid of someone in the actual country, and taking sides thereby?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Once the CIA figures out android technology we can create our own sides!
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des UrsinsWell there is a difference between ones actions being tangentially beneficial (as it would be with, say, the Kurds and the rebels in Daraa) and actively taking a particular faction's side in fighting. We'd have to be prepared to stop those we find "friendly" from committing attrocities as much as we do the likes of Daesh and Assad.
![]()
Don't condescend.
And again, not taking a particular organization's side isn't the same thing as not involving people in the government. Part of our problem in Afghanistan, for example, is that by taking the Northern Alliance's side in particular, Pashtuns felt marginalized and thus did not trust us for a very very long time. We thought giving Karzai power would be the antitdote to that, but that just made things worse.
edited 29th Sep '15 7:52:45 PM by FFShinra
I'm curious how much manpower you'd be willing to commit to this enterprise, how much time, and how much money. Meanwhile, there are still atrocities going on in countries we haven't invaded.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not necessarily with Assad, with Russia. With the caveat that Assad be removed.
I'm sure the Russians are very disappointed in what can only be described as a catastrophic failure on his part to keep the region stable and under Russian control. The Kremlin will be more than happy to put a new puppet in there to replace him.
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
Multinational force, several hundred thousand, for a few decades.
I never said it would happen. I'm merely saying what would need to happen to actually resolve the situation. Otherwise, let everyone else try their luck, including the Russians.
And once again, do not condescend.
edited 29th Sep '15 7:54:19 PM by FFShinra
Also realpolitik: would other Middle-Eastern nations really cheer us on while we dismantled one of their neighbors and rebuilt it according to our design? What happens when the next one has a civil war?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Since it'd be a multinational force, they'd be involved with reconstruction and rebuilding.
You seem to assume I want Bush style unilateralism. Do stop with that assumption.
As for the next civil war, that depends if it affects the rest of the world like this one is doing.
![]()
This is why the current "solution" will not work.
edited 29th Sep '15 7:57:44 PM by FFShinra
![]()
Overly simplifying things. Syria is majority Sunni. Significant Shia minority.
Oversimplifying things. We intervene in situations so grave that it affects more than just internal politics. And by we I mean the world. And rebuilding them for stability is different than rebuilding them as phony western style democracies.
edited 29th Sep '15 8:00:06 PM by FFShinra
I still say collaborate with the Russians at the price of removing Assad.
That's about the best solution there is right now.
And I'm sure the Russians will be happy to oblige considering that Assad really fucked things up. They'd want a new puppet anyway.
edited 29th Sep '15 7:59:59 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Hopefully they won't because we'll be involved in the selection process. Plus Russia won't be stupid enough to pick a lunatic twice.
It's in their best interests to keep the area stable. Russia is not a mustache twirling villain, they're no more evil than us.
Most of our goals are just incompatible is all.
edited 29th Sep '15 8:10:20 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?They didn't pick Bashar. He inherited power from his father.
s everywhere.
EDIT- No one wants him around. But most prefer his formal regme to the alternatives.
Of course, if one partitions the country, the point is somewhat mooted since there would be multiple new leaders...
edited 29th Sep '15 8:11:16 PM by FFShinra
They continued to support him. But the problem with Russia isn't whether or not they are capable but whether or not they care. The Russians are too focused on realpolitik to the point where they set their goal as "stabilize our SAM Site testing ground" rather than "assist in the creation of a functional, stable, fair state."
Alternate wacky ideas for how to handle Syria.
Assist Jordan in annexing the whole thing.
Assist Turkey in Annexing the whole thing.
Assist Turkey and Jordan in Annexing the country and splitting it among themselves.
Send in the Expendables.
Airdrop crates full of Guns and Ammunition everywhere in the country and televise it.
Sell the whole thing to Walmart.
edited 29th Sep '15 8:20:27 PM by Canid117
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins

At least you know where Assad stands, the rebels, not so much.
But in my opinion a UN intervention(or any kind really) like in Kuwait would be more preferable though.
Backing factions has never turned out well.
edited 29th Sep '15 7:44:38 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.