Why is the U.S. against regime change in Syria?

"Assad needs to go"-Barack Obama. This man is among the most evil men in history. He does, in fact, need to go. Even if he gives up his chemical weapons, he will still use his other weapons and just kill his people in a different manner. He is a mass murderer, he is committing atrocities and will continue to do so with or without chemicals.

Why is the "shining city on the hill" just going to allow this to happen as long as no chemicals are used? To me, it is sickening. I know the fighters against him are most likely not the "good guys", but the civilians are. We need to take out Assad and deal with the opposition afterwards.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Because this isn't the United States of America's problem!! This is a ME problem....If someone is to correct this, it needs to be an ally of them...Russia/China etc....

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the global police country!! This is why I am against this....

ETA:
Is it worth a world war with Russia and China etc for the United States to attack? Is it worth innocent troops of America to make this happen? Is it worth the money that we don't have to make this happen?

reply to post by devildogUSMC


I have been thinking about that as well.
How dare he use gas...he should be using bullets,bombs and fire like moral people do when they kill people.

What a crock of excrement.

When will America butt out and leave others alone??
if there is any country that needs a regime change...its America.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Should we fight all bad men or just the ones who reach CNN and Fox news? I think the answer to your question is that we are weary of war. They (We) elected a lefty hand-wringer for God's sake. The problem with Reagan's ideals in todays reality is that, not everyone agrees we are the good guys. Even well meaning people don't think we are the good guys anymore. I think the CIA has pissed on so many folks Wheaties since the 60's, that we are no longer seen as the same guys from WW2. Sad to say, we probably need to pull back and get our own sh*t together before we go getting in another war - and I am a Reagan Republican.


V

reply to post by devildogUSMC


"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!".

How is Obama much different than Assad? How about Bush for that matter? Look at the declassified information on the people of the US whom have been killed or plotted to be kill by our own government!! Try looking into Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio to get you started........ Way too many things to even list!

But I guess if you want to believe in the ole "USA, USA, USA" chant while holding your pom poms war is good thing eh?

Oh, I almost forgot..............Since the US is already bankrupt, who is going to pay for our mercenary forces to do the bidding of the globalists this time????

reply to post by devildogUSMC


What I see you recommending is a UN military action that targets both sides fighting. Not going to happen, especially since even the permanent members of the security council at the UN are on opposite sides in this conflict.

Even if a UN force were sent in to split up the fight, they would just become the new target as well. It would be a death by a thousand cuts financially. It would more than likely end up as another Somalia.

As I understand it attacking a country with the intention of changing the regime is illegal under international law which is why Bush and Blair concocted the WMD story as a reason to go into Iraq .

Who's to say that this whole chemical weapons story isn't a similar concoction .

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


I agree with you and do not believe it is our responsibility to take out Assad using our military and resources. what i do believe is we should not accept Russia's solution of them just handing over the chemicals. THEY need to help take him out without bloodshed.

That is what we need to be talking about not forfeiture of one type of weapon. The U.S. and Russia need to work together on this in a real way to stop the killing of innocents everyday. Maybe we are not the "good guys" or the "shining city on the hill", but we can and should at the very least try to do as much as we can to stop this genocide and any genocide going on anywhere else for that matter.

I do not advocate a military strike by the U.S. at all. I do believe there is a solution to this if our leaders and leaders across the world would stop worrying about their politics and start worrying about the future of our children.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


It's not that Assad is a good guy or that anyone much likes him, I think. It's that what looks to replace him is, believe it or not, worse. So, in a contest of choosing the lesser of two very real evils? Syria needs SOMEONE to run the place....and until something better than Assad comes along? Leave him be, is my feeling.

This is for Syrians to decide for Syria anyway tho. Not the U.S. or Jihadis from around the region. That's the whole problem, IMO.

Does anyone believe that the international community including Russia, Iran, and China want innocent to be killed on a daily basis? Do they want a situation that could possibly escalate to WW3? Why are we not pressuring them to put down their own dog and then clean up the mess?

They must recognize it's a problem. Does everyone have the callous attitude of just them kill each other? That isn't the case; civilians are being killed everyday who want to live in peace. Is that just how the world works?

The UN needs to be treated seriously and they need to find a serious solution that we all can agree to. I believe Assad must go. I also believe he must go because Russia makes him go. Then the opposition needs to also be dealt with immediately and legitimate power needs to be established or this will escalate to proportions unimaginable.

This fire needs to be extinguished.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Because the people fighting for the regime change are brutal barbarians working for Al-Qaeda! They behead prisoners, burn Christians, and tie up and execute their enemy. Why would anyone fight for/with those kind of people?

Because the terrorist rebels are far more evil than Assad. They are religious fanatical hate filled murderers of innocent people. The world can handle Assad, but another Al Quida nation it cannot.

And secondly, it's not our fight, it is a war among the adherents of the religion of peace, the muslims.

reply to post by jjkenobi


I'm not advocating fighting for them. Assad should be removed without U.S. military action then the opposition needs to be dealt with immediately by a legitimate force, who the can govern Syria. The current leaders have failed beyond the point of ever being deserving to be in a position of power again.

The rebels have no right to power either. however, there must be a peaceful group somewhere in Syria that is going to have to step up and lead if they don't want their country to burn to the ground along with it's population.

Again, the opposition needs to be dealt with to and I do not believe they should be the ones to fill the void of power. If the Assad regime is dismantled we will get a much better perspective of the opposition based on what they attempt to with the Assad regime gone.

I believe they will also be a problem; then it will be time to solve that problem. This is a complex issue and it will never be solved without international cooperation between countries that aren't traditional allies. I do believe it needs to be solved as a matter of the security of the U.S..

reply to post by devildogUSMC


The Us is "officially" against regime change, but unofficially they wanna make him go bye-bye.

The US would LOVE to see Assad go, so they could place someone in power who will play ball according to the West's conditions.

That said, the US now has pretty much a blatantly stated record of regime chance now, which is not exactly legal, so it's a LOT easier for them to say "We're not interested in regime change" (while trying to do just that) than to just go the regime change/we gotta take this guy out route.

People are wising up, so the US is changing it's game.

Hence the "chemical weapon" charge, and "we have to bomb them now" crap.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


In summary then, you want someone to "tale Assad out", not too bothered who does the deed, as long as it's done! Then what?

Think about this for a moment, if armed groups started a war against the government inside the US, I am talking US citizens here, what would the response be? Of course, we know they'd be sending in the drones and blowing people to bits, using any and all weapons available to them. Sure, plenty of innocent people would die too, simply colatteral damage though, so unimportant. As long as the "rebels" are demonised enough in the media and the people are on side, then it's all good. Would that make the US government evil incarnate too?
It's not all clearly black and white. The "rebels" in Syria are largely from outside Syria, so that alone points to an external influence in all this, rather than a grass roots uprising by the people. The Saudis, Qataris, US, UK and Israel have been involved in this from the start, arming and training the rebel mercenaries in neighbouring countries before sending them in. As their war dogs are also responsible for mass death, should we not also be ordering hits on Obama, Cameron, Nuttyahoo and heads of state of Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

reply to post by Liquesence


I absolutely agree with you there. I know they want him out, but we cannot cause that to happen on our own and we really need Russia to work on this with us. Then we need someone that isn't a genocidal maniac to run Syria. And I'm sure if we ever get that far it will be decided by the Russians. It will not be pretty, but it could be tolerable.

Right now, it is not tolerable. Or at least it shouldn't be to a decent human being.

I have a question for you OP, what is so important about Syria to you that we need to take care of the inhumane dealings over there? Why isn't North Korea, Iran, any number of Africa countries, and more worth our time? North Korea has been effectively starving their population since the 50's, I don't see you advocating a regime change over there. Africa has so many warlords and dictators rolling through, they constantly massacre and subjugate the populous, shouldn't we be working towards regime changes there too?

You see this is my point, if you start looking at one country's misdealings, you have to look at the rest of the world too. Frankly we or the UN doesn't have the resources to take care of all the injustices and horrid governments in the world. Syria should just be left alone. It is a sad state of affairs in that country, but if we were to meddle, what do you think the outcome would be? We may be able to stabilize the country for a little while, but eventually some power monger will seize control and things will be right back where they started.

reply to post by Britguy


I respect your position but vehemently disagree with you. The hypothetical you put forth is incomparable to the situation being discussed. I'm sorry.

reply to post by devildogUSMC


Really? and who do you propose take over once Assad is gone, let see, Al-Qaida, the Muslim brotherhood or the Syrian free army jihadist rebels.

I guess anything will be just fine as long as Assad is gone, well dear welcome to the new Syria control by sharia nation, screw secularity. Right?

You have no idea what you are wishing for.