unanswered questions

[Avatar4321]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

 

[Avatar4321]

No one can answer

 

[yiostheoy]

There won't be any regime change in Syria.

This was only a retaliatory punishment strike for Assad's using poison gas.

And it was a very subtle message to Kim in N.Korea that he will be next.

 

[Avatar4321]

Trump admin is the one calling for regime change.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Never ending perpetual warfare is not beneficial to us.

 

[l.todd]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

It was difficult to imagine the same thing with Hussein in Iraq as well. I think we need to be more imaginative.

 

[Avatar4321]

Never ending perpetual warfare is not beneficial to us.

Certainly agree

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

It was difficult to imagine the same thing with Hussein in Iraq as well. I think we need to be more imaginative.

Iraq didn't have Russia and iran

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

The bombing was a result of chemical weapons being deployed. Try not turning it into something it isnt. Syria was warned that there would be consequences. End of story.

 

[TNHarley]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

Lol, like they haven't said that before...

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

It was difficult to imagine the same thing with Hussein in Iraq as well. I think we need to be more imaginative.

There were no good choices for us in Iraq, and while we made lots of mistakes, Iraq is today a functioning democracy that is no longer threatening its neighbors. The whole ME is worse off because Obama did not support the fledgling democracy in Iraq and did not take a hard line with Iran.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Regime change is a political objective, not a military objective. Obama tried over and over to negotiate the ouster of Assad but he was never taken seriously by Russia or anyone else. Now when President Trump calls for negotiations Russia and Iran will take him seriously because they understand that for the first time in eight years all options are on the table. Either we decide we have no interests in the ME, and even Rand Paul is unwilling to say that, or we show the Russian and Iranian aggressors we are serious about defending our interests in the ME. This is not the opening volley of a war, it is the opening statement of a new negotiation to end the war.

Who will replace Assad? No one knows but it is difficult to imagine anyone could do more damage to the Syrian nation or the Syrian people than Assad is doing.

It was difficult to imagine the same thing with Hussein in Iraq as well. I think we need to be more imaginative.

Iraq didn't have Russia and iran

And what do you imagine Russia and Iran will do if the US continues to keep Assad's air force grounded or to destroy other military assets of his?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Never ending perpetual warfare is not beneficial to us.

Certainly agree

Was just stating the obvious. I dont have any answers for you though on your questions.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'd like to avoid partisanship in this thread. I don't care about trump, the Republicans, or the democrats. I just want to talk about these questions.

If regime change is the new policy with Assad, how do we accomplish that military objective without fighting Iran and Russia?

If we succeed at ousting Assad, who takes over?

Assad will probably be left in power for year's to come. Hopefully, he will be less willing to cross those red lines in the future.

 

[The Original Tree]

How would any of us know what the right thing is to do when we aren't out there?
We don't know the actual intelligence that determines whether or not Assad is actually doing this or if it is ISIS?
We all like to think we are SOOOO smart. Myself included, but all of our knowledge and information is filtered for us.
Keep that in mind always when you ponder such things.