Replies

The way I see it is as follows. Syria under Assad is far from paradise. Assad is a tyrannical monster, most definitely a dictator, and is not a friend to the West. Russia is led by a man who is a demogague, ghas certain nationalist interests that are definitely not beneficial to Western interests, and while he may claim otherwise is also a dictator. I agree with you here. In addition, it has been pointed out to me that Christians were in fact treated decently under Assad. I had not known that.

With that out of the way, the West needs to realize - as we remember 911 - that militant Islam is a major threat across the globe. Whether it is Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Africa, or Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, or any of the various 'scion of Al Qaeda' that have sprung up around the ME, the fact is that ISIS is the most cogently effective Jihadi group to emerge. They did something that Osama never thought possible ...have an actual fledgling caliphate, hold land, take taxes, and have sustained success. They are consolidating power in Iraq, Syria, and parts of North Africa. In West Africa Boko Haram has pledged allegiance. Other groups may soon follow. I agree here also.

Basically, you are looking at GlobalJihad.org. Yes we are.

Now, the West's process of regime change - be it removing Saddam, or removing Qaddafi, or removing Assad - has been shown to be unworkable. We almost lost Egypt as well. Removing 'bad men' without having a viable alternative is foolish. Simple! Here's where we differ materially.

I will agree with you that regime change in Libya and or Egypt was just idiotic. Mubarak was a decent sort, as it relates to the West. He shouldn't have been sold out. When we allow that with him or the Shah or Iran, we are basically sending a signal to our allies, that we will sell them out at the drop of a hat. That is a terrible message to send if you want future allies. Even in Syria, regime change is problematic. Better to have someone you don't agree with on many things and yet is peaceful, than to send them packing and let a radical group replace them.

Assad, Khadaffy, were known quantities. They weren't our allies by any stretch of the imagination, but both were less than full fleged active enemies of the U. S. Khadaffy had gotten the message. He was toothless.

Now I kow Obama is president, but I think his council with John McCain was crucial to Libay, Egypt, and Syria McCain is an unfortunate reality. From "our side" of the isle he pulls such unmitigated garbage that it makes us look bad. He's a Republican, and what he does is considered to be Republican policy. The media will describe him as a Conservative, the big double whammy when you're trying to discredit the Republican party and Conservatives.

McCain's advice was wrong headed. There was no impetus for us to help the gihadists destabalize the Middle-East, and yet McCain/Obama did just that.

As for Hussein, he had been cruzing for a bruising for over a decade. After 09/11, it was time to address that situation. He was removed from office, and a stable government replaced him. I supported it then, and I still do. He was a threat to his own people, his neighbors, and the region. According to him he was also supporting terrorism around the world. Wrong thing to telegraph when terrorists are doing things like those on 09/11/2001 did.

Thus, if Assad and Russia smiting ISIS is unpalatable, then the only thing is for the West to do something about it. Smite ISIS. Drive them to their doom and smash them so hard that the genetic memory of Jihadi is imprinted with what happens when the West decides to act. I agree.

Unfortunately, it appears that the West is not willing to do much. At least so far. Which reminds me of the story of the good Samaritan (there's a reason he is called a GOOD Samaritan). Before he came along and helped the injured man, two men who were 'holy' passed him without offering aid. Only the GOOD Samaritan decided to do anything.

While Russia is not 'nice' and Assad is a veritable monster, the thing is if the West will not do squat then it better not complain when others fill that void (for good or ill, as countries always have their own interests and I'm sure Russia is not doing it for CSR or goodwill). If the West will not step up, then it really shouldn't be screaming and shouting. I agree with these thoughts also.

It would be like the two holy men chastising the good Samaritan for assisting the injured man they themselves had just walked past. I see some diffrences, but essentially I agree with your premise here. I know what you mean.

What's ironic is this ...someday the West will rue that it never squashed ISIS back when it would have been simple to do so. A saying from my native land is that 'the best time to kill a crocodile is when it is in its egg.'

However, it appears the West prefers fighting off 18 foot scaled leviathans rather than smashing soft crackly teeny weeny eggs!!!! I agree here also. Good point.

This is what I understand currently the political environment is regarding Syria....

....US and EU want Russia to join the coalition against ISIS

....US and EU nor Russia wants the Syrian Army to fall to ISIS

....Russia wants Syrian Army to be part of the Coalition against ISIS

....Russia wants Assad to consider ‘power sharing’ with the Rebels through Diplomacy...(currently underway)... before attacking ISIS.

....US does NOT want Power shared rather Regime change..Assad out....no Diplomacy before attacking ISIS

....Russia’s intentions are safe guarding Assad’s “elected” Soverign state Government...Iran now assisting Russia to do that.

....US and EU fighting alongside Syrian Rebel Army bombing against ISIS in Syria, while Assad forces along with Gulf Oil Countries Bombing against ISIS in Syria ...

....ALL parties want a coalition against ISIS.

....A ‘diplomatic solution’ would put an end to regime change which does not satisfy the US officials...

The US has their Transiante Officials ‘outside’ Syria to assume Government of Syria if Assad falls.

The Syrian Rebels have their Officials ‘Inside’ Syria to Assume Government of Syria if Assad falls.

US says Russian involvement would destablize the country ...yet US is fighting there also????...Russia has always supported ASSAD.

US wants regime change ahead of the urgency of ridding the areas of ISIS????

US and Eu want to get rid of ASSAD but keep the Syrian Institutions in place...unlike in Libya...

Assad is the head of the State legally, politically, and morally responsible for what is happening in Syria now.. under his watch Syria has come apart...It’s Only the Syrian people who determen Assads legitimacy...

Remember Petraous said that the US should be arming Alqiada to fight Assad????...against a sitting President????

So where are the Syrian people that’s claimed by the Us that Assad has lost his power??? Are they fighting ...no they’re in Germany or in flight from their own country to “find a better life”....

If the Syrian people want regime change then they need to appoint their own transitional Government and have an election... which was agreed on in 2012.... the US walked away saying it’s a conflict zone so there can’t be elections...yet they had them many times while Aphganistan was in conflict.???

This is a cold we see playing out in Syria between Saudi and Iran....for the Caliphate leadership...be it Sunni or Shite that wins in the end.