Syria Civil War resumes; Assad Regime Falls

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 223
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
I'm not a fan of Assad, but I'm not a fan of the rebels either. Most aren't Syrian. This guy, for instance, is not speaking Arabic. Sounds Turkish to me. Also, don't think that replacing Assad with religious extremists is any better for the long run.
If it hurts Russia, it’s an improvement.
 
I'm not a fan of Assad, but I'm not a fan of the rebels either. Most aren't Syrian. This guy, for instance, is not speaking Arabic. Sounds Turkish to me. Also, don't think that replacing Assad with religious extremists is any better for the long run.
It’s a fucking mess. Who would’ve thought that decimating Hezbollah and Iran would leave a power vacuum for Sunni forces to fill?
 
Yeah, that’s the thing isn’t it? These actions always have unintended and unforeseen consequences.
Yeah.

In this case, our best action looks like inaction. I see no way or reason to get involved and no inclination to do so without an engraved invitation.
 
The Taliban hurt Russia in Afghanistan. Was that an improvement?
Well, if the Afghanistan invasion really was the final nail in the Soviet coffin (as many experts have argued, though I've not found them convincing), then probably. Russia has backslid into tyranny of course, but the fall of the Soviet Union was liberatory for hundreds of millions of Germans, Poles, Slavs, Ukrainians, Romanians, etc.
 
In light of the alternative, I believe so.
It’s impossible to know what would’ve happened if the Soviets had remained influential in Afghanistan. What we know for sure is that arming and funding the mujahideen directly led to the Taliban controlling the country. It also led to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The USSR would’ve collapsed shortly after anyways.
 
It’s impossible to know what would’ve happened if the Soviets had remained influential in Afghanistan. What we know for sure is that arming and funding the mujahideen directly led to the Taliban controlling the country. It also led to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The USSR would’ve collapsed shortly after anyways.
You're seriously neglecting how the Gulf War and aftermath had more to do with Al Qaeda than us supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Fwiw, nobody has ever really been in control of Afghanistan.
 
You're seriously neglecting how the Gulf War and aftermath had more to do with Al Qaeda than us supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Fwiw, nobody has ever really been in control of Afghanistan.
That’s why it’s not really worth doing these alternate histories. These things cascade and we can’t tell what would’ve happened or wouldn’t have.
 
I was mostly reflecting on something I read that suggested one of the big triggers in the growth of A-Q was how long we left troops in Saudi Arabia after the war. I can't speak to the validity of that but the nationality of the 9/11 attackers and the home of the Wahhabist movement are the same.
 
I was mostly reflecting on something I read that suggested one of the big triggers in the growth of A-Q was how long we left troops in Saudi Arabia after the war. I can't speak to the validity of that but the nationality of the 9/11 attackers and the home of the Wahhabist movement are the same.
Could be. Bin Laden was also involved in the jihadist movement in Afghanistan, which is what I was talking about.

He had the money and resources to fund jihad if he wanted to, even without a base of fighters who were supported by the U.S. and fought against the Soviets.

The Russian involvement in Syria is quite similar to the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. That is, supporting a secular government in the face of religious extremist movements.

I tend to agree with RaiGuy. I’d prefer a secular dictator over a theocracy. They are a lot more predictable.
 
Back
Top