Why do the US wan't to remove Assad?

Why do the US wan't to remove Assad?

Give me a good reason.

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/19/al-qaeda-rat-line-from-syria-to-iraq-turns-back-ag/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Abu_Kamal_raid
wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
archive.is/mLIGt
news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74
nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19syria.html?_r=0
cbsnews.com/news/syria-crackdown-has-killed-5000-people-un-says/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Obama the nigger in chief has been slapped around by Putin like the bitch he is

Becuase Israel asked us to.
There's a leaked email that explicitly states this.

This

ebil dicktator

Because, money. duh!

Du skal nok arbejde lidt på det engelske der bassemand.

oil pipeline.
destabilize the middle east further
CIA is ISIS

Because he fucked over the US of A in Iraq. They bully him out of sheer spite.

This.

>Give me a good reason.

There is none.

Neocons and liberals are run by international Jewry here, and Assad is yet another chess piece they want removed.

>us invades syria
>ww3

this

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/19/al-qaeda-rat-line-from-syria-to-iraq-turns-back-ag/

our raid in 2008 on terrorists he was harboring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Abu_Kamal_raid

"BECAUSE HE GENOCIDED HIS OWN PEOPLE AND CAUSED THE MIGRATION CRISIS! READ A BOOK!"

-autistic Dutch friend of mine.

This is the same Dutch friend who agrees with Libya since Gaddafi "Would have created a humanitarian crisis," like there isn't one now.

BARREL
O
M
B
S

Do you have a link to the email?

Both those assertions are true though

Because based Assad rejects the globalism.

Because a powerful, stable, and secular state in the Middle East terrifies the shit out of them. The US Government doesn't want strong and reasonable ME countries. They want a bunch of weak extremist hellholes they can bomb into submission every ten years.

They're both irrelevant.

Supporting Assad is the only way to stop the migrant crisis. People won't flock back to Syria if ISIS is in control. We need to work on stability in the region first, and the only way to do that is supporting Assad. Instead, we're trying t conjure a secularist anti-Assad front out form nowhere, and it always ends in disaster.

And the situation in Libya is worse now than it ever would have been under Gaddaffi. Now it's anarchy like Somalia. As Islamic Militants gaining more and more ground, more and more Libyans flee to Europe, bringing Islam and ISIS with them.

Uh... I was actually thinking about the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and not this, but whatever.

>We need to work on stability in the region first, and the only way to do that is supporting Assad.

Assad was great at destabilizing the region, especially his country, so I don't think that your proposal is very wise.

Source?

Qatar oil pipeline.

Whom do you support then? There are only two dogs in this fight: Assad and ISIS. I choose Assad.

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
archive.is/mLIGt

I choose neither and only wish that a third dog will enter the fray. Assad is bad, the ISIS and the other moderate headchoppers are worse, the Kurds are wild cards, and the people who might be able to make a difference (Assad's generals) are too busy fixing the situation on the ground.

Because the Saudis want to put a pipeline through Syria to supply more oil to the good goys in Europe, and Putin wants to do the same in competition.

If the Assad stays then Putin gets to sell more oil, and if he goes then Saudi's get to sell more and Putin is further impoverished and cut off.

Are you new here?

>Choosing neither

You can hide your head in the sand if you want, but governments need to make a choice. We're too busy focusing on being "anti-Assad" and missing the forest for the trees. The people we're helping are either extremists themselves, or so small in number that they don't stand a chance.

Well, that's very convenient for you. Perhaps there could have been a peaceful transition before the US decided to legitimize AQI's insurgency as a "rebellion" and throw billions into arming terrorist organizations to overthrow Assad.

It's this short-sighted US policies that create these situations.

Oil pipeline.

Check out caspianreport on youtube

Holy shit, is this legit? Is it to Hillary? Who is it from?

>(((US)))

>only wish that a third dog will enter the fray
there is more than 2 sides in the syrian quagmire

Replace him with a Wahhabiist regime so the Saudis can build a thousand mile long XL pipeline through the desert

Its a 2015 document from State. Looks like an internal unclassified policy position of some sort. Its on Wikileaks, and they have a spotless record as far as posting legitimate documents, so its undoubtedly legitimate.

No there's not. Returning Syria under the full control of Assad is the only way to quickly neutralize ISIS.

NO MORE DECADE-LONG, TRILLION-DOLLAR REGIME CHANGES.

No one of significance, unless you mean al-Nusra, which is just as bad as ISIS. The Kurds aren't an option for a stable Syria and the FSA is so small now that many people don't think they even exist.

It isn't hiding my head in the sand, only recognizing that neither sides are viable and we need something else to really end the civil war. Simply considering only two options is short sighted and won't lead to a true resolution imho.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the US vultures know exactly what they are doing. They want Assad to suffer, and that's exactly what is happening. There are also a few other things too (swamping the EU with the refugee crisis, busting the balls of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have the Russians chase every local player back into their cucksheds, etc.) but they also fit into the greater picture very well.

>mfw Russia and Iran are on Assad's side

Israel and USA BTFO

>wan't

Autists actually believe that russia will start ww3 for Syria. U.S could create a no fly zone in Syria, shoot a bunch of Russian jets and there is nothing russia can do about it.

It's part of Shillary and Obama's plan to destabilize the Middle East.

They want Islamic extremism to flourish, and they see secular Islamic governments as an obstacle.

Look at Libya m8. Gaddafi was bad, sure, but he's a hell of a lot better than ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood.

>civil war

kek. You really think the situation is a civil war? The "opposition" is just a product of Turkish, Saudi, and American support. Pull the funding for the terrorist opposition and everything goes back to normal. The US is still trying to use the civil war as leverage to get Assad out, so they're keeping it going. It's never been a legitimate civil war.

I'm on mobile and I can't see the flags. Anyone else having this problem?

While you try to pull your magical, Goldilocks, third option from thin air, Syria is burns. There is a real threat to the secular Middle East and even the West via the Migrant Crisis. We have to deal with the facts on the ground, and teh facts are that there is no significant third party that can take on both ISIS and Assad.

So tell me, who will this third option be? Any of Assad's disloyal generals joined the FSA and got BTFO hard. Most citizens who want to rebel do so along religious lines, and join ISIS/al-Qaeda. So where is your third way going to come from? Are ayy lmaos going to invade Syria?

China is now too.

They could actually shoot back hence why S-400 was placed there for a reason.

Syria was never a secular state. They where supporting the same factions that they are fighting against today. Assad is fighting his old friends now.

Hussein Obama Bin Laden doesn't like Christians.

Yeah, we too are infested with loads of liberal idiots who truly believe everything and everyone is equal.

Heard an old woman talk about barrel bombs and hospitals today, but she just got mad at muslims in general instead of Assad.

Just a hunch, Soros wants to destroy Israel.

US can't do shit.

Get Clover, m8. I can see your Israeli flag just fine.

>he actually believes "le strong russia" meme.

>So tell me, who will this third option be?

I'm thinking about either the Tiger or the Beast. Assad can just... leave and martyr himself politically, quietly handling power to one of these guys. One has the Tiger Forces to back him up and is a viable choice for Assad's power base. The other has the Republican Guard and might be an acceptable choice for Assad's enemies because his hands are "clear" and he has a history of anally violating the ISIS.

Another third option could be balkanization, though I don't like the prospects here very much. Maybe a Crescent Moon Union between Syria, Iraq, and Iran might also work, but I don't think that the US and/or Russia would let it happen. Then... my guess is as good as yours. If the aliens take over Syria, then so be it. We X-Com now and shit.

>Syria was never a secular state

Yes it was. Assad is a Ba'athist, which is secular ideology. Just because he funded terroristic proxies doesn't make him an Islamist. Using that logic, Obama and Reagan are both Islamic extremists.

And this does nothing to address my point that Assad is the only option in Syria worth considering. The other option is ISIS.

Look up operation market garden and operation orchids.
Syria cooperated with north Korea for nuclear secrets with intent to destroy Israel.

Salty that you are on the losing side in aleppo?

There is also the option of giving power to his vice president who is a secular sunni with no blood on his hands and is even respected by all the syrian people even opposition. But no man fuck that it's all "muh jewish agenda".

No a counter argument and unlike you I'm not Syrian so it doesn't affect me one way or another.

>Assad can just leave and hand over power

Why would he ever with Russian support? As far as generals such as al-Hassan defecting, they're probably more worried about ISIS than Assad, and will remain loyal to him, at least for now. Once (if) the war quiets down, there may be a Sissi-like movement, but for now, they're focused on defeating Islamists.

After how hard the FSA got defeated, and with Assad receiving Russian support, I doubt any of his generals think making such a move is wise.

Unlike our own leaders, they realize that, for the time being, Assad is the only good choice for Syria.

As if you delivered any arguments. If you think we are in a discussion then you are delusional

>Why would he ever with Russian support?

Because he is a shit leader for Syria (this is also why Putin likes him so much). He could then leave to... I don't know, return to GB and operate eyes or something.

>As far as generals such as al-Hassan defecting

No defection, thank you. Assad leaves, one of the generals take the wheel from him, end of story. There is no need for a palace coup or anything like that. You can even have totally democratic elections like in 2014 to have your preferred guy in charge.

>guys, I know we've been unsuccessfully pushing regime change for 5 years now but if we just keep funding terrorists and destabilizing Syria for a little bit longer Assad will leave

Fuck off. I hope your neighborhood is filled with refugees.

But why would Assad do that? He has no reason to leave.

>al-Hassan: "Hey Bashir, you're bad at this, why don't I take over?"

>al-Assad: "How about no."

He's a dictator, not an MP. The only way to get him out is killing him. It should go without saying that that kind of coup would be disastrous for Syria.

Refugees aren't going back if assad wins man. You better get used to them.

>But why would Assad do that? He has no reason to leave.

Because he is a reasonable person who actually cares about his country. He is not into this hard-ass power-grabbing business (see Lebanon for more info).

No, but if these morons in Washington will stop funding "moderate rebels" and let Russia take out ISIS, the refugees will have no excuse for going to Europe.

If you take time and do some research most refugees are saying that assad is the reason why they are fleeing the country. It's gonna be a good excuse as long as he is there.

news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

He sure cracked down on those protestors trying to keep his power though. If he didn't want to rule Syria, he would have left already. The fact that he's still there would indicate that he is interesting in this "hard-ass power-grabbing business," or whatever you call politics.

Assad isn't going anywhere unless it's at the barrel of a gun. Id' rather that gun not be in the hands of ISIS. Three are still only two options: ISIS or Assad. And I still choose Assad.

Because Syria is an indispensable ally to Iran (Shia population and proximity to Israel) and Russia (naval base), and Saudi salafists have taken over our foreign policy establishment with Israeli/Neocon help. It's simple bullying, trying to make the weak weaker in an unfair fight that looked easy from a distance, but is now blowing up in our faces. Our leaders are traitors.

>one of the generals
I guess that will completely pacify everyone complaining about the "Regime," ey?

Because Syria is one of the few remaining countries without a western central bank jammed up its arse. Neither did Iraq and Lybia but now have. Also, oil pipeline politics.

He's killing all those poor poor peace loving muslims that DO NOT want to behead christians.

There are no refugees. Those are Salafists making hijira or conquest by migration.

>He sure cracked down on those protestors trying to keep his power

He actually didn't, that's why the conflict spiraled out of control. His dad did back in the good old days. That "revolution" ended within a week.

Most likely yes because Assad is in the center of their attention and not the rest of his government.

Are you insane? The Alawite regime stays in place and the Salafists and Zionosts are okay with that because their real enemy is the most democratic and moderate Assad in history?

Sadly, I don't think that even if the fighting stopped today that it would put the genie back in the bottle as afar as the Migrant Crisis goes. Merkel has opened the floodgates to "economic" migrants. Even if Assad crapped rainbows and sunshine, there would still be hordes of MENA "refugees" flooding Europe for free money.

Syria has always been crucial in aiding anti-Israel forces. Both Hamas and Hezbollah receive military aid from Iran (although Hamas has probably cut ties with Iran and joined isis instead) , but everything goes through Syria. Without Syria, Israel would have already crushed Palestine and Lebanon completely.

First thing you need to know: cold war never ended.
Now, Assad is allied with russia for their protection in exchange of allowing them to have military bases there.
For USA, they are just an impediment to the geopolitical control of the middle east. And of course, let's not forget natural resources such as natural gas and oil among others. That's why they are one of the parts behind ISIS.

He's a secular leader that is civilised and intelligent enough to build a solid country/army and ally with Iran to put pressure on Israel.

America wants every Middle East country excpet Israel run by absolute religious fanatics, so admist all the chaos and fighting they have: (1) a place to trial new weapons and strategies; (2) can maintain their geopolitic hegemony over the region; (3) ensure that Israel remains safe; (4) ensure that the Middle East remains fractured and weak.

Because he is a Russian ally and Russia is a geopolitical rival.

>Assad didn't crack down on protestors

What? Are you fucking with me? He totally did!

nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19syria.html?_r=0

Police fired on crowds in Dara'a and prominent dissidents and political leaders were arrested and sentenced to years in prison. The UN had the death tally from Assad's nation-wide crackdown at around 5000.

cbsnews.com/news/syria-crackdown-has-killed-5000-people-un-says/

Now you're telling me he didn't crackdown to save his power? What, was that just a normal year in Syria?

Ports & Pipelines