why will removing Syria's leader work better than it did in Afghanistan Iraq or Libya?

[yurbud]

All of those countries have descended into chaos and turned into havens for Islamic extremists which is what our government claims to be fighting against.

Probably the best off is Afghanistan. Where we could claim life at least isn't worse than when we got there. Except maybe for the boys who are molested by the troops we trained.

Can anyone make a coherent argument for removing a side that acknowledges history like recent history in the past 20 years maybe?

[eissa]

1. It won't

Some places need a strongman. Sorry/not sorry.

[L. Coyote]

2. Work better for whom is the equation in play, not a generic work better.

Trying to change who controls a country isn't tied to whether or not it will result in a better situation, only in will it be better for Western oil companies, for example. Ask not, "Will it be better?" but rather "For whom, will it be better?" The people of Syria seem to be left out of the equation entirely.

[yurbud]

3. yep

[KamaAina]

4. Because ISIS.

[pampango]

5. Probably not. I don't want liberals to be the "pro-dictator because they're a lesser-of-two-evils"

group either. Our history of supporting dictators who promise to fight terrorists or communists or socialists or the 'bad guys' of the day usually has ended up creating more of the 'bad guys' when people in those countries have rebelled against the repression used to fight "the bad guys".

IOW, we should not remove dictators but we should neither support dictators nor discourage their own people from removing them. None of us want to live under a dictator. That probably applies to most human beings in the world.

[yurbud]

6. I'd like to see that principle apply to Saudi Arabia first

[pampango]

7. The principle of not removing dictators but not supporting them nor discouraging their citizens

from removing them either can start anywhere you like. Everywhere would be even better.

[yurbud]

13. our standing in the world would improve if we started with the most oppressive we back now

[malaise]

8. Because for the West the notion of sovereignty means

having our man in charge of our interests.

[pampango]

11. As opposed to say Russia's view of sovereignty? For now Assad is Russia's man in Syria because

he permits the Russian naval base in Syria. There have been recent indications seem to be that Russia might agree to move on from Assad as long as if the succeeding government maintained the Russian base there.

Unfortunately, foreign powers (whether they are Western, Russian or Chinese) tend to view the sovereignty of smaller countries in the prism of 'what's in it for us'.

Trump will fit right into this way of thinking. He seems predisposed to unilaterally tell other countries, e.g. Mexico, Iran, China, etc., what the US wants and expect them to act accordingly "or else". Negotiations to achieve mutually acceptable agreements is not in the Trump way of thinking.

[yurbud]

12. it's funny how it's easier to see other countries interests plainly but our government is always

acting on some ideal.

Or at least claiming to.

[Shandris]

9. Didn't you see how perfectly the other three went?

Europe is...well, let's just say Americans won't be pointing to Europe for advice on how to make 'socialist-style public service' for much longer and real estate in the Middle East is about to get real cheap (which is great for those people who like new banks, especially in those areas where there aren't very many, like only a few nations on earth...like Iran, North Korea, Syria...hey, wait a minute...).

No, I'd say that removing the other three worked out splendidly. Why wouldn't you want to see our 'success' continue?

(( ))

[polly7]

10. It won't.

But it will be the the second? last to be crossed off the PNAC hit-list.

[yurbud]

14. I thought Iran was on the list too.

[polly7]

15. Yes, I think it was/is the big prize.

I believe President Obama's messed up their plans, but who knows what will happen, depending upon who's in charge next.

[yurbud]

16. that plan stands a good chance of getting back on track if Hillary gets in

[roamer65]

17. It will take World War III to get at the Iranians now.

They are firmly under the Sino-Russian sphere of influence now, aka SCO. Bombing or in any way attacking Iran will be the initiation of World War III.

[yurbud]

18. That would have been the outcome in the Baby Bush era too.