Is Assad A Better Strategy For The Us Than The Least Worst Rebel?

[georgephillip]

I've never understood our hard on to get Assad gone. He's not attacked us. He hasn't allowed terrorists to train there to attack us. Hell, he hasn't even attacked Israel.

The best explanation I've found comes from a source many consider to be radical; it is. Radical in the sense of getting to the root of a problem:
"The 'New Middle East' project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.”

"This 'constructive chaos' –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives."
In 2006 Israel invaded Lebanon possibly with the intention of occupying that country as far north as the Litani River.

Hezbollah had other thoughts, and the IDF failed to penetrate in any strength for more than a few kilometers.

Things may be back on track in Syria, with Lebanon (and Iran?) still in play.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East The Project for a New Middle East Global Research

 

[deltex1]

What I want to know is why does Assad have to go...but Saddam shoulda stayed?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The ever-shifting right wing position on the Baathists.

 

[georgephillip]

What I want to know is why does Assad have to go...but Saddam shoulda stayed?

According to Wesley Clark, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, and a few more were scheduled to go within weeks of 9/11:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.

"'But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[deltex1]

What I want to know is why does Assad have to go...but Saddam shoulda stayed?

According to Wesley Clark, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, and a few more were scheduled to go within weeks of 9/11:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.

"'But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Too bad...didn't they know we had enuf nukes to do it?

 

[georgephillip]

What I want to know is why does Assad have to go...but Saddam shoulda stayed?

According to Wesley Clark, Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi, and a few more were scheduled to go within weeks of 9/11:
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.

"'But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"
Wesley Clark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Too bad...didn't they know we had enuf nukes to do it?

Thank you, Curtis LeMay

 

[paulitician]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

We're in complete agreement regarding the outcome of US regime change in the Middle East; however, what if the chaos we see there today was not a blunder, at all, but an example of the neocon plan working to perfection? Does the "arc of instability" end in Iraq or is Iran still slated for the same fate as Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Ukraine ??

It's a Ruling-Class Elite Global Chess Match. And they don't care how many people die. It's all about the power and money. They will always prosper from the chaos they create. It's average people who do all the suffering. They pay for the Elites' Wars with their money and lives. They don't benefit at all. It's very sad. The People need to demand an end to Permanent War. Otherwise, they'll just go on suffering.

Apparently, it is the chaos they profit the most from. The Anglo/American/Israeli roadmap for the New Middle East requires an "arc of instability extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan." The state of eternal war in the Middle East ensures huge profits for arms sales which are used to spike the price of oil. You're right. The elites are playing all the rest of us, and Republicans AND Democrats depend on elites to finance their election campaigns and retirements. What are we going to do about it?
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East The Project for a New Middle East Global Research

Syria is about money & power. It's about seizing control of its banking system and natural resources. That was also the case in Libya. Who do you think controls Libya's banking system now? Here's a hint, it's not the Libyan People.

It's exactly the reason we're staying in Afghanistan. We already control their banking system. But we want to plunder its natural resources as well. We're not leaving Afghanistan till that goal is achieved. This Permanent State of War will go on till the People demand its end. It is what it is.

 

[georgephillip]

I've been saying that from day one. But the West and some Sunni Nations in the region became obsessed with 'Regime Changing' him. It's very much like America's obsession with 'Regime Changing' Hussein in Iraq. Assad is a secular well-educated man. He is not a Muslim Fundamentalist. In fact, he despises the radicals.

It was a huge blunder pushing 'Regime Change' there. It opened the door to Terrorism chaos. It's just more Blow Back. We need to stop meddling and come home. We've done enough damage over there.

We're in complete agreement regarding the outcome of US regime change in the Middle East; however, what if the chaos we see there today was not a blunder, at all, but an example of the neocon plan working to perfection? Does the "arc of instability" end in Iraq or is Iran still slated for the same fate as Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Ukraine ??

It's a Ruling-Class Elite Global Chess Match. And they don't care how many people die. It's all about the power and money. They will always prosper from the chaos they create. It's average people who do all the suffering. They pay for the Elites' Wars with their money and lives. They don't benefit at all. It's very sad. The People need to demand an end to Permanent War. Otherwise, they'll just go on suffering.

Apparently, it is the chaos they profit the most from. The Anglo/American/Israeli roadmap for the New Middle East requires an "arc of instability extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan." The state of eternal war in the Middle East ensures huge profits for arms sales which are used to spike the price of oil. You're right. The elites are playing all the rest of us, and Republicans AND Democrats depend on elites to finance their election campaigns and retirements. What are we going to do about it?
Plans for Redrawing the Middle East The Project for a New Middle East Global Research

Syria is about money & power. It's about seizing control of its banking system and natural resources. That was also the case in Libya. Who do you think controls Libya's banking system now? Here's a hint, it's not the Libyan People.

It's exactly the reason we're staying in Afghanistan. We already control their banking system. But we want to plunder its natural resources as well. We're not leaving Afghanistan till that goal is achieved. This Permanent State of War will go on till the People demand its end. It is what it is.

With defense contractors located in every congressional district, how would you replace all those lost jobs?