Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Choose: ISIS or Assad

Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:58:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Agreed. Assad, bad as he may be, is holding back a force much worse. Trump and Cruz are the only candidates who understand this
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:58:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

Well there are strategic reasons for what we did, revolving around Oil, the Suez Canal and projecting force in that region of the world... We don't have any bases or real allies in that region like we do other places.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 12:59:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Assad. There are worse things in the world than a strong dictator.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.
Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:09:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Also, the FSA is a loose conglomerate of people bound only by their dislike for the religious sympathies and political past of Assad. I highly doubt the groups making up the FSA, as it is not a unified force by any means, would form a stable government of any kind in Syria.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:10:43 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.

Why is that?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Magellan
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:11:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:10:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.

Why is that?

ISIS is essentially invading Syria... they want the territory. Assad obviously wants to keep Syria in his possession. Damaging ISIS's military capabilities increases Assad's chances of retaining Syria and Vice Versa.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 2:16:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:11:54 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:10:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.

Why is that?

ISIS is essentially invading Syria... they want the territory. Assad obviously wants to keep Syria in his possession. Damaging ISIS's military capabilities increases Assad's chances of retaining Syria and Vice Versa.

This assumes that the only thing holding the ISIL back is Assad and that the only thing holding Assad back is the ISIL; again, why can't we take out both, seeing as how both can simultaneously be destroyed by means of a large-scale US military intervention in Syria?
Also, the stated objective of the FSA (or whatever they're called now) is to "bring down this regime" and to establish a democratic government. Granted, the anti-Assad forces are quite diverse and their interests conflict but that doesn't guarantee that they'll continue fighting after such a government is established.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 4:49:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 2:16:00 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:11:54 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:10:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.

Why is that?

ISIS is essentially invading Syria... they want the territory. Assad obviously wants to keep Syria in his possession. Damaging ISIS's military capabilities increases Assad's chances of retaining Syria and Vice Versa.

This assumes that the only thing holding the ISIL back is Assad and that the only thing holding Assad back is the ISIL; again, why can't we take out both, seeing as how both can simultaneously be destroyed by means of a large-scale US military intervention in Syria?
Also, the stated objective of the FSA (or whatever they're called now) is to "bring down this regime" and to establish a democratic government. Granted, the anti-Assad forces are quite diverse and their interests conflict but that doesn't guarantee that they'll continue fighting after such a government is established.

I agree, I wouldn't support actually sending US troops but the FSA is the best choice in the civil war. Assad's regime has used extremely excessive military force to impose laws.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 5:09:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

+1
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:03:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

- Well, Assad caused the death of hundreds of thousands of his own people, & the eviction of millions. ISIS are potentially as dangerous, if not more, due to their extremist ideology. Both have to go.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

- A foreign backing of any party will inevitably backfire in the future. No matter what Assad or ISIS do, they are natives of the region. Foreign intervention always leaves a sour taste, especially for the Arabs in the ME.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

- War will eventually end. It's never a perpetual state of affairs. Just look at how messed up Europe was decades ago, WWII & before. Now, it's mostly a stable place.

Which faction should we back? Why?

- Neither will succeed. Because oppression incites its own relief.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:08:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

- You mean no dictators, no invasions, no Israel...?

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

- That's a misrepresentation!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Robkwoods
Posts: 576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 6:28:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Neither, destroy both or don't get involved.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:26:37 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

+2
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more. If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:25:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more. If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

Is there anything that, in your opinion, would prompt an intervention in the middle east? Genocide? Invasion of Israel? etc.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:25:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:25:22 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more. If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

Is there anything that, in your opinion, would prompt an intervention in the middle east? Genocide? Invasion of Israel? etc.

*should prompt* sorry
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:30:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:25:22 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more. If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

Is there anything that, in your opinion, would prompt an intervention in the middle east? Genocide? Invasion of Israel? etc.

There is no way I could say never.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:31:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:30:04 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:25:22 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/10/2016 6:05:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/9/2016 5:09:26 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:57:42 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:56:27 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:47:52 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Assad. Definitely Assad.

ISIS is 1000x more radical than Assad's regime.

Agreed. Deposing all of our dictators in the Middle East was our biggest blunder by far.

+1

Or we could just have never been involved in the first place...

But no, the US gov. loves to be world's policeman.

That is my wish. Leave them the hell alone.

- Keeping the dictators there is the opposite of leaving them alone.

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more. If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

Is there anything that, in your opinion, would prompt an intervention in the middle east? Genocide? Invasion of Israel? etc.

There is no way I could say never.

So there are some things that could prompt a (just) intervention in your opinion? What would those things be?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 4:03:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

- It IS ironically silly. I know what you're thinking. Dictators backed by the US all over the Muslim world are allies & good guys, no matter what atrocities they commit. Those who defy the US, like Saddam, are the bad guys.

I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more.

- Your country does.

If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

- What do you think is gonna happen if the ME nations were genuine democratic countries? What would be their first order of business?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 4:23:45 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 4:03:15 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:20:58 PM, TBR wrote:

Not at all! What a silly thing to say Yassine.

- It IS ironically silly. I know what you're thinking. Dictators backed by the US all over the Muslim world are allies & good guys, no matter what atrocities they commit. Those who defy the US, like Saddam, are the bad guys.

I think you are talking to the wrong guy. I want to stop all interaction in the ME. Stop backing any of them. I don't think I can find ONE "good guy" in that mess, and I have no interest in looking anymore.

Get off the oil, and let the area be the he11 it is.


I have no interest in mucking about in this part of the world any more.

- Your country does.
I am, have, try my best to elect people who want to get out. Not start new sh1t.


If you feel it is important, get someone else to do the dirty work.

- What do you think is gonna happen if the ME nations were genuine democratic countries? What would be their first order of business?
Don't care. Get this crystal clear. I don't give one damn about the ME. If the suffering people of that area want to move to better countries, and become good citizens of the US, or Europe, great. Otherwise, I just don't care.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 4:57:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 4:49:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:16:00 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:11:54 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:10:43 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:08:45 AM, Magellan wrote:
At 1/9/2016 2:03:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 1/9/2016 12:30:50 AM, Magellan wrote:
One of the most frustrating ongoing issues in US foreign policy is the government's insistence that both ISIS and Assad must be eliminated from Syria. Both of those groups are the leading powers in that particular country at this moment. We can't fight both.

Either we need to back Assad to fight off ISIS or let ISIS continue to attack Assad. Fighting both is ludicrous from a strategical standpoint.

And even if we do get our wish and Assad is deposed and ISIS is beaten back, whose left? What faction then is gifted control of Syria?

Which faction should we back? Why?

Why is this an either/or question? Why not go with the third option (the FSA)? Why do you assume that "we can't fight both"?

Because, depleting Assad helps ISIS and depleting ISIS helps Assad.

Why is that?

ISIS is essentially invading Syria... they want the territory. Assad obviously wants to keep Syria in his possession. Damaging ISIS's military capabilities increases Assad's chances of retaining Syria and Vice Versa.

This assumes that the only thing holding the ISIL back is Assad and that the only thing holding Assad back is the ISIL; again, why can't we take out both, seeing as how both can simultaneously be destroyed by means of a large-scale US military intervention in Syria?
Also, the stated objective of the FSA (or whatever they're called now) is to "bring down this regime" and to establish a democratic government. Granted, the anti-Assad forces are quite diverse and their interests conflict but that doesn't guarantee that they'll continue fighting after such a government is established.

I agree, I wouldn't support actually sending US troops but the FSA is the best choice in the civil war. Assad's regime has used extremely excessive military force to impose laws.

I don't think so. A lot of ISIS members are former FSA soldiers. We shouldn't arm anybody.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k