4 ms·

> He is the definition of human scum, and I'm glad to see the US finally step in. I agree with the "scum" part. For the "step in", hmm ...? If are trying to

by graycat 10y ago

> He is the definition of human scum, and I'm glad to see the US finally step in. I agree with the "scum" part. For the "step in", hmm ...? If are trying to civilize Assad and/or his enemies, then that looks hopeless. If are trying to deter Assad from more use of ugly chemical weapons on babies, maybe that can work, a little, for a while. If trying to replace Assad, then an early question has to be -- with whom that would be better? The replacement should be better, and in such situations that ain't nearly guaranteed. I'm no expert, but it may be that Syria divides into people who (A) more or less like Assad, at least will let him get by with rigged elections without being really bitter about it, and (B) hate Assad and all the people in (A) and would eagerly torture and murder all of them by the most brutal methods they could implement. Yes, the people in (A) might be equally eager to murder all the people in (B). That is, first-cut, we're talking a lot of people who still are back in essentially Medieval times, maybe as if they were still fighting over very limited water and grazing land, and still isolated from the lessons from the religious, etc. wars of Europe of the past 1000 years, e.g., separation of church and state, basic humanism, etc., lessons not well honored in Europe even as recently as Hitler. Hitler was brutal, in Medieval terms, including with gas, likely also on children and babies. So, is it too surprising that maybe a lot of people in Syria are Medieval, brutal, inhumane, etc.? To me, from about 1/4th the way around the world away, one of the big lessons needed in the Mideast is separation of church and state, and I can't believe that any significant separation will take place there for at least another, say, 200 years. E.g., apparently one of the main recruiting attractions of ISIS -- in Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. -- is a closed, isolated, Medieval, brutal, sectarian dictatorship. So, that stuff still gets lots of people over there to vote with their feet, lives, etc. Over there, maybe they were having wars and, there, killing babies, etc. going way back. Some of the situations and scenes in the movie Lawrence of Arabia, a side-show of WWI, seem to suggest so. In such situations, there is an approach to peace, that of the grave. I do suspect that with some well placed bombs from the US, it is possible to send a message that even the most dedicated sectarians can hear, the parties can understand the message, calm down for a while, sign a deal, get some strong geographical lines of separation, maybe monitored by the UN, and, then, live essentially in peace for some decades, say, until there is another ambitious, bloodthirsty, leader eager to take over territory and willing to exploit religion to do so.

Cyph0n 10y ago
I was genuinely worried that basically all HN users lack any insight on this topic. It's great to be proven wrong! And thank you for being humble about it. Most other commenters spew out bullshit as if they were an authority on the topic. It's funny how ignorant the average HNer becomes when they're not discussing the latest JS framework. I essentially agree with your reasoning. It's a very delicate situation, but Assad, Iran, and Russia have gotten away with too much. The US and its allies have to show them that their actions have consequences. You can't just use chemical weapons over and over again without repercussions. As for the long term, it's very difficult to tell what will happen. The way I see it is dialogue is the only way forward. Both sides have to figure out an arrangement that ends up benefiting the Syrian people. Otherwise, this war is going to become irreversible, if it hasn't already..
- graycat 10y ago
  > Assad, Iran, and Russia Yup, they seem to believe that they have some strong interests in common. First cut, from the campaign and the terrorists attacks, the US is mostly interested in stopping terrorism, in particular just ending ISIS. For that, a guess so far is that Assad, Iran, and Russia see no real gain and a lot of pain in the back side from ISIS and will be eager enough to see the US, Turkey, Baghdad, if it is now not too close to Iran, and maybe even Assad kill off ISIS. How far Assad, Iran, and Russia can get with a coalition for geography, power, and money I don't know; my guess is that once ISIS is dead, the US will have more important policy items than Assad, Iran, and Russia in the Mideast and will have friends in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel. Just from a glance at a map, easy enough to understand why Russia might want a warm water port. E.g., the US has warm or even hot water ports all along both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico with all of those ports a lot of deep water away from adversaries. There may be some neo-cons around who never want to pass up an opportunity for another foreign advanture and saw Trump's shooting 59 cruise missiles as a big day for neo-con goals -- here I believe that the neo-cons will be wrong. I hope Trump still wants to stay the heck out of foreign adventures, be President of the US and not the world (his saying "God bless the world" alone is okay), stop Assad from using gas, kill off ISIS, organize an effort in the Mideast, with funding from the Saudis and Gulf states, for a refugee area, help draw new lines to keep the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds separated, get all that done quickly, and then just come home and concentrate on jobs, the wall, trade deals, replacing Obamacare, getting the economy going, e.g., fast enough to generate the needed tax revenue, energy independence, etc. Trump has talked a lot about the $6 T or so we have spent in the Mideast, and I hope and believe that he won't spend even another $1 T there -- his big infrastructure program is supposed to be only $1 T. If we throw $1 T at a time over and over at the Mideast, after a while it adds up to real money we would have liked to have spent here. > Both sides have to figure out an arrangement that ends up benefiting the Syrian people. Kill off ISIS. Have a Sunni area cut from the current Syria and Iraq and get Assad, Baghdad, and Turkey to go along. Have a Kurdish area cut from Syria and Iraq, and tell the Turks that, no, we don't want a greater Kurdistan. Tell Assad he can rule half of Syria or none of it -- his choice.

by graycat 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

I was genuinely worried that basically all HN users lack any insight on this topic. It's great to be proven wrong! And thank you for being humble about it. Most other commenters spew out bullshit as if they were an authority on the topic. It's funny how ignorant the average HNer becomes when they're not discussing the latest JS framework. I essentially agree with your reasoning. It's a very delicate situation, but Assad, Iran, and Russia have gotten away with too much. The US and its allies have to show them that their actions have consequences. You can't just use chemical weapons over and over again without repercussions. As for the long term, it's very difficult to tell what will happen. The way I see it is dialogue is the only way forward. Both sides have to figure out an arrangement that ends up benefiting the Syrian people. Otherwise, this war is going to become irreversible, if it hasn't already..

graycat 10y ago
> Assad, Iran, and Russia Yup, they seem to believe that they have some strong interests in common. First cut, from the campaign and the terrorists attacks, the US is mostly interested in stopping terrorism, in particular just ending ISIS. For that, a guess so far is that Assad, Iran, and Russia see no real gain and a lot of pain in the back side from ISIS and will be eager enough to see the US, Turkey, Baghdad, if it is now not too close to Iran, and maybe even Assad kill off ISIS. How far Assad, Iran, and Russia can get with a coalition for geography, power, and money I don't know; my guess is that once ISIS is dead, the US will have more important policy items than Assad, Iran, and Russia in the Mideast and will have friends in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel. Just from a glance at a map, easy enough to understand why Russia might want a warm water port. E.g., the US has warm or even hot water ports all along both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico with all of those ports a lot of deep water away from adversaries. There may be some neo-cons around who never want to pass up an opportunity for another foreign advanture and saw Trump's shooting 59 cruise missiles as a big day for neo-con goals -- here I believe that the neo-cons will be wrong. I hope Trump still wants to stay the heck out of foreign adventures, be President of the US and not the world (his saying "God bless the world" alone is okay), stop Assad from using gas, kill off ISIS, organize an effort in the Mideast, with funding from the Saudis and Gulf states, for a refugee area, help draw new lines to keep the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds separated, get all that done quickly, and then just come home and concentrate on jobs, the wall, trade deals, replacing Obamacare, getting the economy going, e.g., fast enough to generate the needed tax revenue, energy independence, etc. Trump has talked a lot about the $6 T or so we have spent in the Mideast, and I hope and believe that he won't spend even another $1 T there -- his big infrastructure program is supposed to be only $1 T. If we throw $1 T at a time over and over at the Mideast, after a while it adds up to real money we would have liked to have spent here. > Both sides have to figure out an arrangement that ends up benefiting the Syrian people. Kill off ISIS. Have a Sunni area cut from the current Syria and Iraq and get Assad, Baghdad, and Turkey to go along. Have a Kurdish area cut from Syria and Iraq, and tell the Turks that, no, we don't want a greater Kurdistan. Tell Assad he can rule half of Syria or none of it -- his choice.