Even more shit, because there won't be an established power, and ISIS will only benefit.

Thats the wound point here, which kinda makes everything hard. As far as I know the IS could only grow to a military power after the US left Iraq (2011?). So at first the IS must be destroyed, then people can work on the Syria-conflict itself.

"Do you think this war is just going to end ? It isn't the death tolls will continue to rise."
It will if we do 2 things. The first is realize that dictators are the only way to prevent terrorism in the Middle East, and support Assad unequivocally provided he refrains from severe abuses after the war. The second is to completely and utterly destroy them with an uninhibited total war. Credible military figures agree we could defeat IS in under a year.

This is what happens when European countries and America try to institute regime change.

Ah the serenity of Western hypocrisy; the same people who mourned the Paris attack victims, screaming "Bloody Mary" at ISIS are the same people who don't care that civiallins on a large scale die in Syria. When the fact is the situations are no different; maybe even a worse situation for the Syrians. So why is the same respect given to the fallen refugees ? Why are they different ?

Of course America can defeat ISIS in a year. Because the USA have achieved many great military successes in recent years. Iraq, Afghanistan; hell I'll even throw Vietanm in there. All these countries faced up against the mighty USA with their armies which in comparison looked feeble.

" the same people who mourned the Paris attack victims, screaming "Bloody Mary" at ISIS are the same people who don't care that civiallins on a large scale die in Syria. When the fact is the situations are no different"
1.)The Paris attacks were perpetrated by our enemies, on our allies. We have no connection like that with Syrians.
2.) The murder of innocents in Paris had no effect on ending a long, brutal war which would bring even more casualties. I am not saying i don't care for the lives of Syrians, but lives can be saved by a ruthless blitzkrieg that ends it soon.


"So why is the same respect given to the fallen refugees ? Why are they different ?"
1.) I think you mean "why is the same respect NOT given to the fallen refugees"
2.) Because they aren't us. I won't apologize for the fact that I care more for our allies and Americans and Westerners that I can relate to than a foreign, unnamed civilian ignoring our culture to impose their own wherever they go.
3.) I am not saying they don't matter; they do. But as I said before, a ruthless war will save lives.

We kicked Iraq's and Afghanistan's asses both times; we just fucked up by nation-building. Vietnam was a different situation. Please learn basic military strategy and history.

Ah the serenity of Western hypocrisy; the same people who mourned the Paris attack victims, screaming "Bloody Mary" at ISIS are the same people who don't care that civiallins on a large scale die in Syria. When the fact is the situations are no different; maybe even a worse situation for the Syrians. So why is the same respect given to the fallen refugees ? Why are they different ?

I'm sorry, Salty, but the situations are very different. One is a terrorist attack aimed at civilians for the purpose of killing civilians. One is the loss that comes with war, a war that was started by Syrians. The loss is sad, but cannot be avoided as long as war keeps going on.

Of course America can defeat ISIS in a year. Because the USA have achieved many great military successes in recent years. Iraq, Afghanistan; hell I'll even throw Vietanm in there. All these countries faced up against the mighty USA with their armies which in comparison looked feeble.

You know, if our leaders wouldn't half-ass wars, then the USA would have a much better track record.

You haven't kicked anyone's ass since WW2, even saying that is pushing it. Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed.

Persian Gulf. Taliban. Didn't kick ass in Iraq (nation-building messed us up), but we still won the war. STFU please.

" Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed."
You act like 99% of wars aren't built on that.

Edited 2/3/2016 17:56:56

Salty, shut it. Your argument is shit; I'm not even going to bother with you.

Please everyone be polite (you will ignore that for sure...). ;)

Every conversation about Syria suffers from the same thing. People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Honestly, what does it matter who's fault it is at this point? The damage is done, now we have to fix it.

You haven't kicked anyone's ass since WW2, even saying that is pushing it. Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed.

Because we half-assed everything.

"Honestly, what does it matter who's fault it is at this point? The damage is done, now we have to fix it."
That's why I'm saying we should launch a ruthless and swift total war. Salty is the one just blaming Western bombs for everything.

Iraq and Afghanistan was wars built on the foundation of lies, terror and greed.

Salty is right in this case. The Bush-Neocon push for a Middle East war was entirely self-serving in that it created a larger deficit and debt while creating more Islamic instability and costing thousands of lives. There's a significant argument to be made that ISIS would not exist without the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Here's only a few I can offer (obviously none of us are experts at Middle-East policy...and even experts of the Middle East get confused)

1) Give Kurdistan Independence in Syria
2) Remove Turkey from NATO and impose sanctions on them to weaken Erdogan's power
3) Form a coalition of Russia, NATO, and Gulf States to first defeat ISIS through air power and Muslim soldiers only
4) Have Basad step down and given immunity in Russia
5) Have the UN control Free Syria and Iraq as a mandate (like UN controlled Kosovo) until order is restored and a new coalition government composed of moderates (there are very few right now because many are refugees) is formed

Edited 2/4/2016 17:16:28

I like the first three; unfortunately, we need Assad in power to keep order. But we should make him accountable to the UN and dispose of him if he commits severe human rights abuses.

@Jai

1. Definitely agree. The Kurds more than deserve their own nation at this point.
2. Removing Turkey from NATO likely won't happen as they are one of the U.S' only stable allies in the region aside from Israel.
3. Agreed.
4. There's one major problem with this: Russia would never agree to it. They consider the Assad government a major ally and will likely support him as long as feasible. Also, as GeneralPE said, Assad is pretty much the only source of stability in Syria at the moment.
5. This plan would require the UN deploying a large number of troops to keep order and I don't know how much the shell-shocked Western populations would allow it.

However, I am not a foreign policy expert either. Good on you for at-least brainstorming possible answers unlike most on this thread.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:29:17

Platinum isnt gold colored...