Sorry Mkess u are just wrong. I live in an area with a heavy Persian and Armenian population. Mostly Christian. And u are just 100% wrong on this. Some countries need a thug to keep part of the population from enslaving and beheading a portion of the population. That was NOT happening before we decided to topple this thug regime. It IS happening now. Sorry man, our country is not perfect, we ARE on the wrong side at times.
U argue with me as if I spoke highly of Assad. Go read what I said. He is a brutal dictator. As was Hussein and Ghaddafi. But some countries are better off with a dictator. And forcing democracy by drones on populations where the majority will behead the minorities is DUMB.
As for Crimea. I never justified that, I was speaking of Syria. I'm sure u and I agree on Ukraine, so not sure why it was even brought up. I am not going to justify the evils of my government by pointing out the evils of others.
I think you need to reread what I wrote. I really wasn't picking a side when it came to Syria. Your post said "Go ask ANYONE that's fled Syria..." I was pointing out the people who'd have a different view than you do have been jailed, tortured, killed etc. by Assad's regime.
And yes, atrocities WERE happening before we were involved in Syria. This didn't start out as the U.S. just randomly deciding to get involved. There were pro democracy rallies that were pretty much Syrian homegrown and those involved were captured, tortured, etc. Many of them the "women and Christians" you claimed Assad was "protecting".
I get that your anecdotal evidence of those that have fled to your area says Assad is the better choice. And let me once again make this clear: he MIGHT be the better choice. I'm not claiming to know what's best in Syria. Obviously a pretty large part of the population wants democracy. And of course there's those who want the pseudo-Theocracy that is Assad. And HELL YES the monsters that have taken advantage of the situation to try to impose their extremism are worse than Assad. Obviously nobody thinks otherwise. Which is why you have this weird scenario where the U.S. is simultaneously saying Assad needs to go but also militarily trying stamp out the "rebels" (terrorists for the most part, as you said). The problem is that it's complicated and that I believe we've had a feckless and indecisive executive branch of our federal govt for quite some time.
So to repeat: I'm NOT saying toppling Assad and leaving another power vacuum is the right thing. Or trying to install a weak puppet regime that won't last. I don't know the best course of action, and these situations are rarely black and white. The world is a complicated place. The same people that have screamed for years about the lack of U.S. intervention in the Sudan due to human rights violations turn around and criticize us for being to involved in other parts of the ME.
Finally, I'm not "arguing" with you. I think you have an opinion that's valid, I just can't go so far as to necessarily agree with it 100%. I think it's too simplistic to just say "We need to just leave these thug dictators in place over there and mind our business". The world is too small now and that's too simplistic a viewpoint. BUT, nor does it mean I think it's a good idea to constantly be trying to topple dictators, esp in that region. I don't claim to know the best course of action. Thankfully, I don't have to make those decisions. And just an FYI, I just used the Russian invasion of the Ukraine as an example of why if Putin ever tried to use "international law" as his justification for shooting down a U.S. plane it would be laughable. I know you most likely don't think that he had any right to do it.
I don't think we totally disagree on this stuff, I think my stance is just more nuanced. When I was 25 I thought I had every answer to these international issues. Now I'm almost 40 and I finally realize how little I know and how glad I am that I'm not the one having to deal with them.
