Coombs wrote:
If all we're supposed to be doing here is arguing about who did the worst thing most recently, then have at it. I personally think it's a load of nonsense.
Thanks for the effort (not being ironic) Coombs but you do know there's a middle to be had between one-liner responses and that novel you just typed out đ
I find it difficult to respond to your whole post given that you covered a LOT of different topics, philosophies and histories, which I have to add have not always been 100% accurate. You're talking about a great deal of hypothetic scenarios which might or might not be a lot worse than what is currently going on in Syria and the region altogether.
I don't agree with the notion that you cannot criticise something because the alternative might be as bad, however probable it actually is. I speak from the experience of someone who's been to Syria before this war started, who has several (even Christian! shock) Syrian friends who probably won't get to see their home country in a long while. I never meant to exonerate Assad for the evils he's committed. Call it "burgeois" or whatever other cringe-inducing term you can think of but I speak of the situation of the country that he was the head of state for eleven years before the current war broke out, and I compared it to the complete clusterfuck that the US first and foremost have created in lieu of the state formerly known as Syria.
Assad might be interested in power first and nothing but his own advancement interests him but those interests coincide with having an intact state in place. None of any of the bombing NATO states share that premise. This ridiculously academic idea of how Syria was always bound to fail as a nation-state because of its multi-ethnic makeup, arbitrarily drawn borders by France and the UK, meddling involvement from Russians or Saudis funding wahhabism and terrorists within the country all flies in the face of the fact that in the 2000s there was a stable country and economy in place with people of different faiths and ethnic backgrounds living together peacefully.
As a last point: I don't want or need anyone to be wrong. I know that everyone involved with power operates on the wrong sides of morals the absolute majority of times, regardless of whether they rule a country in the Middle East or whether they're mayor somewhere in Middle Europe, the degrees don't matter here. The only thing I said with my earlier post is if you ask any Christian, Alawite or Muslim Syrian whether they'd rather have Assad in charge or any other realistic scenario you will find that everyone will agree with the "nonsense" that one outcome is preferred to the other.
