☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,624
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,093
Reppin
The Deep State


tenor.gif








@DonKnock @dza @88m3 @wire28 @smitty22 @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @.r. @Dorian Breh @Dameon Farrow @TheNig @VR Tripper @re'up @Blackfyre_Berserker @Cali_livin


 

thatrapsfan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
17,695
Reputation
1,833
Daps
53,706
Reppin
NULL
Should said strikes be launched and be successful, is the West willing to engage in a political process that may result in Assad remaining in power?

I ask this because it appears that the sticking point of the political process is Assad’s political fate. The U.S. and its allies want him out, while Russia and Iran (especially Iran) want him to stay.

The success of said strikes also relies on Russia and Iran not retaliating much, if at all.

Not saying it has no way of working, but I’m not sure how said strikes would significantly change the calculus of a potential political solution (a political solution is my preferred goal btw).

I think the main sticking point on the political process is Assad himself. He is unwilling to concede a thing, and as long as that remains to be the case, the parallel Russia, Iran, Turkey process will not create anything that resembles a return to normality. The thinking behind airstrikes actually focused on degrading Assad's offensive capabilities, would be to force him to consider those concessions, but in an environment where his entire regime would not collapse. I think the West to date has preferred the status quo, over a scenario of an armed rebel overthrow ( which is now dead). The bulk of Western military campaign in Syria was always focused on ISIS, and the logistical/arms support to the rebels was limited in comparison ( and by design.

Your questions are legit and debatable btw, there is fool proof scenario, but I just advanced an example to argue the "regime change" scenarios are hyperbolic in a situation where there are no active frontlines and no chance the West will consider a big number of boots on the ground.
 

thatrapsfan

Superstar
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
17,695
Reputation
1,833
Daps
53,706
Reppin
NULL

:russ: This dude is stringing along his conspiracy-addled following. The goal-posts will shift for an eternity. After the OPCW found Assad responsible and even identified the helicopter unit that was dropping chemical barrel bombs, they made an entire new angle claiming their findings could not be confirmed because only the "terrorists" had immediate access to the scene. Its a charade.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,358
Reputation
8,202
Daps
218,929
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
:russ: This dude is stringing along his conspiracy-addled following. The goal-posts will shift for an eternity. After the OPCW found Assad responsible and even identified the helicopter unit that was dropping chemical barrel bombs, they made an entire new angle claiming their findings could not be confirmed because only the "terrorists" had immediate access to the scene. Its a charade.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,358
Reputation
8,202
Daps
218,929
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
Should said strikes be launched and be successful, is the West willing to engage in a political process that may result in Assad remaining in power?

I ask this because it appears that the sticking point of the political process is Assad’s political fate. The U.S. and its allies want him out, while Russia and Iran (especially Iran) want him to stay.

The success of said strikes also relies on Russia and Iran not retaliating much, if at all.

Not saying it has no way of working, but I’m not sure how said strikes would significantly change the calculus of a potential political solution (a political solution is my preferred goal btw).

 
Top