4 ms·

FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander

FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.

acqq 11y ago
Compare the state of Iraq before 2003 and after. Most of the deaths before 2003 were induced by the Western sanctions and bombing, probably much less by Saddam. http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/ Look at Iraq now. Also Libya before 2011 and afterwards. The "rebels" in Libya, supported by the West, were again at least sometimes, again "accidentally," al-Qaeda. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-swi... Re "our rebels" in Syria: Al Nusrah wasn't on the list of the terrorist organizations before 2014. ISIS wasn't too, now it's "but we considered them under al-Qaeda." http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm Of course it's a mess there, but it's clear that Assad was considered as the main target. Just like Saddam before. Or Gaddafi. Civilians and all the other effects be damned. I don't see there anything "objectively" righteous.