• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would getting rid of Assad really be benifecial for United States foreign policy?

cwb01

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
76
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seeing that the rebels are terrorists as well. Also someone the other day told me it was confirmed that the rebels have also used chemical weapons. Is this true? Why would the United States want to get involved in this seeing that both sides are enemies of the United States?
 

Juiposa

is totally not a robot.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
606
Location
Ontario
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Seeing that the rebels are terrorists as well. Also someone the other day told me it was confirmed that the rebels have also used chemical weapons. Is this true? Why would the United States want to get involved in this seeing that both sides are enemies of the United States?
Why would they? I see zero justification to intervene in Syria for exactly the same reasons you stated. We have no idea who the good guy is.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,944
Reaction score
9,014
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Seeing that the rebels are terrorists as well. Also someone the other day told me it was confirmed that the rebels have also used chemical weapons. Is this true? Why would the United States want to get involved in this seeing that both sides are enemies of the United States?
Fallacy. Not all rebels are terrorists. Most aren't, actually.
 

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Depends on you definition of terrorist.
Only 6% of all rebels are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. Even some of the Islamist groups have taken care to avoid civilian casualties, something terrorists don't typically do. As for the main opposition, many of them aren't even Muslims :)
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Only 6% of all rebels are so much as affiliated with al-Qaeda. Even some of the Islamist groups have taken care to avoid civilian casualties, something terrorists don't typically do. As for the main opposition, many of them aren't even Muslims :)
Syria is the left-over parts of the ME--the part that didn't naturally belong with any other part when the Ottoman Empire was being carved up so France could get the heck out of there. Terrorist can be a relative term these days. The reason Assad's father and now him had to use an iron fist was because the place would fall apart if they did not. Helping depose him for philosophical reasons will result in a good dose of Real World Karma--either another autocrat will replace him who is just as bad, if not worse, or the place will fall into perpetual chaos as it becomes the Club Med for radicals.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,210
Reaction score
19,316
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Seeing that the rebels are terrorists as well. Also someone the other day told me it was confirmed that the rebels have also used chemical weapons. Is this true? Why would the United States want to get involved in this seeing that both sides are enemies of the United States?
I agree with the premise that both sides are chock full of undesirable people.

I wonder if it has something to do with Israel. Get a fractured small force in power, which would be much easier than dealing with Assad and his friends in Iran. Just a thought, but I wonder if that's what it is.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
3,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I agree with the premise that both sides are chock full of undesirable people.

I wonder if it has something to do with Israel. Get a fractured small force in power, which would be much easier than dealing with Assad and his friends in Iran. Just a thought, but I wonder if that's what it is.
Is this a joke? The Syrian border has been quiet for 40 years. Do you think a border controlled by the MB will be as calm?
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
3,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Seeing that the rebels are terrorists as well. Also someone the other day told me it was confirmed that the rebels have also used chemical weapons. Is this true? Why would the United States want to get involved in this seeing that both sides are enemies of the United States?
It seems that Obama is determined to have the MB in control. He backed Morsi and probably thought that having the MB control the largest population in the ME was great. Now that he has been toppled Obama needs to look elsewhere.

Why would Syria, now that the tide of battle has swung their way use chemical weapons. The only way Assad loses is if Western powers intervene.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,210
Reaction score
19,316
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is this a joke? The Syrian border has been quiet for 40 years. Do you think a border controlled by the MB will be as calm?
The actual border's been fairly quiet, but Assad's got his fingers in the pie in Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. That has a tendency to flare up once in a while. They've also supported Hamas, which has been a roadblock to a two-state solution.

The overthrow of Assad would be bad for Hezbollah and Hamas. Can you see why Israel would want that?
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
3,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The actual border's been fairly quiet, but Assad's got his fingers in the pie in Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. That has a tendency to flare up once in a while. They've also supported Hamas, which has been a roadblock to a two-state solution.

The overthrow of Assad would be bad for Hezbollah and Hamas. Can you see why Israel would want that?
No. Hamas and Hezbollah will still get their aid through Iran. If Syria is partitioned all you get is Assad, plus the MB as headaches.

I am sure you can come up with reasons for israel being behind the ills of everything in the world including climate change. That being said, the folks wanting the Arab spring were mostly the MB and the Obama administration.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
10,196
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Reuters today:

Syria agreed to let the United Nations inspect the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack from Monday but a U.S. official said any such offer would be "too late to be credible" and there was little doubt the government was to blame.
Syria lets U.N. inspect gas attack site, Washington says too late | Reuters

One of candidate Obama's and later President Obama's criticisms is that the U.S. took military action against Iraq before there was evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a WMD program (something that was found lacking afterward). That was a hindsight criticism.

Now, it appears that the President is poised to take exactly the same kind of approach, before there is firm evidence that the Assad dictatorship was behind the recent chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. Indeed, it appears that a decision has been made regardless of what the evidence might show, and there is some dispute as to who was responsible.

If the Assad dictatorship were responsible, then missile strikes against known chemical weapons depots would be legitimate and appropriate. However, if not, then the focus should be on the party responsible. However, as it stands, it appears that a non-evidence-based approach will be pursued, perhaps as a cover to facilitate regime change.

IMO, this would be a mistake. Neither party to the sectarian conflict has shown concern for civilian safety. Responding in the absence of evidence or, worse, despite what the evidence might reveal, would demonstrate a lack of consistency between policy choices and objective fact. That gap would undercut the credibility of U.S. policy.

Hypothetically-speaking, let's say the U.S. did retaliate before the evidence were found or despite what the evidence showed. Afterward, let's say Russia decided to carry out air strikes against anti-Assad forces and facilities (something I still don't expect, though a stepped-up Iranian and Hezbollah role cannot be ruled out). The U.S. would no longer have a credible position on which to criticize such direct Russian intervention. Hence, waiting for the evidence to become available would be far more prudent.
 

Coin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
949
Reaction score
371
Location
Albania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The US will really it's credibility if intervene in Syria.

When UN, Carla del Ponte accused that rebels were using chemical weapons in May, after an investigation, both USA and England covered up and claimed that rebels were not using such weapons based on their intelligence agencies. CIA has been training rebels in Syria, they wouldn't approve an use of chemical weapons at all.

Now, the ships are moving toward Syria, before the US's investigation started.
No matter what the UN's investigation will produce, it's clearly it won't make any difference.

I believe Obama doesn't want an intervene in Syria, but he is forced to.
And I also believe, all this chemical issue happen to force USA get involved.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
43,210
Reaction score
19,316
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am sure you can come up with reasons for israel being behind the ills of everything in the world including climate change.
Hold on. Strawman alert!

I'm not an Israel hater. I don't think they're behind the "Arab Spring" or anything bad that's happened from it. I just think that it's entirely possible that they'd like to be rid of Assad, which would be understandable if they did. I don't think they're evil, I think perhaps they have their own national security interests. And maybe, just maybe, we're helping them out since they are our ally.

Take your "Oh you just want to blame Israel for everything" elsewhere.
 

Slyhunter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,041
Reaction score
277
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Syria is keeping the terrorist busy so hopefully they fire fewer rockets into Israel, bother our troops less in Afghanistan etc. Let them fight it out so they cull the field of more terrorists.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
3,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hold on. Strawman alert!

I'm not an Israel hater. I don't think they're behind the "Arab Spring" or anything bad that's happened from it. I just think that it's entirely possible that they'd like to be rid of Assad, which would be understandable if they did. I don't think they're evil, I think perhaps they have their own national security interests. And maybe, just maybe, we're helping them out since they are our ally.

Take your "Oh you just want to blame Israel for everything" elsewhere.
Then you just a lousy job at analysis in my opinion. israel knew the good and bad of what they had with Assad. Better than the worst of all worlds. Assad survives in a slither of Syria that allows them to continue to supply Hezbollah with the Suuni majority run by terrorists, opening up another front they have to defend against terrorists.
 
Top Bottom