Defeating ISIL only possible with change of Syrian leader says US President Barack Obama

[khunken]

Assad had nothing to do with the emergence of ISIL - the invasion of Iraq did.

Removing Saddam & Ghaddafi worked? ONly if one twists failure into 'success.

None of the dictators are or were good people but they held their countries together until western, mainly US but also UK & other acolytes, destroyed that semblence of an entity. Oh and why are the dctatorial regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain & Algeria not targetted? HYpocrisy is the only answer.

Obama just doesn't get it - Assad is not a hurdle to tackling the ISIL, Syria would have been overrun if it were not for Russian, Iranian & Hezbollah support for the regime and, luckily, including Russia's vetoing of yet another NATO Libyan bombing into failed state campaign. The real reason is that the US has always to please Israel & the Saudi regime who want Assad removed.

[Srikcir]

Putin could care less about Asaad.

It's all about Russia's warm water naval base in Syria that he cares about. Russia has only one other such port (Crimea) and its bottled up by NATO member Turkey. If the USA and its allies can assure Putin that Syrian regime change will honor Russia's continued presence at its Syrian naval base, he'll agree to Asaad's removal. But that action must not be forced as it would show Russia to be an untrustworthy partner.

I expect ultimately Asaad will agree to elections and retire. But that can't happen until the country stabilzes. And that requires the elimination of ISIL with land troops. It's a perfect scenario for a UN sanctioned military force that would have unanimous Permanent Security Council support.

[craigt3365]

Putin could care less about Asaad.

It's all about Russia's warm water naval base in Syria that he cares about. Russia has only one other such port (Crimea) and its bottled up by NATO member Turkey. If the USA and its allies can assure Putin that Syrian regime change will honor Russia's continued presence at its Syrian naval base, he'll agree to Asaad's removal. But that action must not be forced as it would show Russia to be an untrustworthy partner.

I expect ultimately Asaad will agree to elections and retire. But that can't happen until the country stabilzes. And that requires the elimination of ISIL with land troops. It's a perfect scenario for a UN sanctioned military force that would have unanimous Permanent Security Council support.

I don't think Putin would agree to a regime change. Assad is his man. The new one is a huge question mark. Being Russia's 7th largest weapons buyer, we're talking big money. Which is desperately needed by Russia right now.

[Scott]

Regime change in countries like Syria doesn't always work well. This is more a dynasty than a government. The reigns of power were handed over from father to son. The people that run the day-to-day operation of the gov't from the highest levels down to the lowest are aligned with the current regime and power structure. A change in regime could mean the country falling apart. Even if it is a smooth change, it will be a BIG change and a lot of people will lose power and influence.

I worked in Syria for a time and it's a lovely country and the people are nice, it was governed with an iron fist and it wasn't a very warm and gentle iron fist.

With ISIS in the picture, I don't know if it is a good time to contemplate anything that would further destabilize the country.

[simple1]

Putin could care less about Asaad.

It's all about Russia's warm water naval base in Syria that he cares about. Russia has only one other such port (Crimea) and its bottled up by NATO member Turkey. If the USA and its allies can assure Putin that Syrian regime change will honor Russia's continued presence at its Syrian naval base, he'll agree to Asaad's removal. But that action must not be forced as it would show Russia to be an untrustworthy partner.

I expect ultimately Asaad will agree to elections and retire. But that can't happen until the country stabilzes. And that requires the elimination of ISIL with land troops. It's a perfect scenario for a UN sanctioned military force that would have unanimous Permanent Security Council support.

I don't think Putin would agree to a regime change. Assad is his man. The new one is a huge question mark. Being Russia's 7th largest weapons buyer, we're talking big money. Which is desperately needed by Russia right now.

There are reports that Putin approached the West in 2012 and offered to get Assad to step aside as a means to resolve the escalating conflict.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

Early on in the Civil War there are reports that Assad actually released from detention Islamists in order that they attack FSA forces as well as creating an enemy to justify his calls for support. Assad has played a very dark game in supporting extremist groups, which has of course created an enormous blow back for his regime.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

[craigt3365]

Regime change in countries like Syria doesn't always work well. This is more a dynasty than a government. The reigns of power were handed over from father to son. The people that run the day-to-day operation of the gov't from the highest levels down to the lowest are aligned with the current regime and power structure. A change in regime could mean the country falling apart. Even if it is a smooth change, it will be a BIG change and a lot of people will lose power and influence.

I worked in Syria for a time and it's a lovely country and the people are nice, it was governed with an iron fist and it wasn't a very warm and gentle iron fist.

With ISIS in the picture, I don't know if it is a good time to contemplate anything that would further destabilize the country.

Nation building by outside influences rarely works. As you know, I spent a bit of time in Cuba. The people there are massively oppressed. But taking out the Castro's would definitely destabilize an already unstable country! LOL Very sad for the average citizen.

[ABCer]

With respect

All interested posters and caring people here on TV

Why can't you understand a very simple thing

Whether Assad is a Leader of Syria or someone else is not important

Whether he is a cruel despot or a patriot of Syria is not important

Whether there is democracy, autocracy or theocracy at the helm in Syria is not important

Whether he is loved and supported or hated by Syrians is not important

Whether you 'make him an offer he can't refuse' or assassinate him is not important

Whether Obama hates him or Putin loves him is not important.

Important is to have some semblance of stability in those ME countries.

Now who do you propose instead of this Assad?

USA have one way or another removed so many of these 'bad men', installed so democratic other men

And what do we have?

Maybe, just maybe for crying out loud not all peoples are made for democracy? Not all countries?

From this viewpoint some posts here look as ridiculous as Obama's 'pearls of wisdom' on democracy or virtues of Islam.

[Loptr]

I just want to know where it is written in the US Constitution that the USA has the right to decide by fiat who gets to be the leader of another sovereign nation and who doesn't... I've looked, but I can't find it...

Just research the last 19 times the US has imposed regime change in the last 100 years and examine how they have turned out...

Manufacturing propaganda, then repeating it until it is accepted as fact is no longer playing on the global landscape... Russia and China are finally standing up to US rhetoric... Here is an interview with Putin where he calls a spade a spade...

youtube.com / watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

And his speech before the UN last week...

youtube.com / watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0

Edited October 1, 2015 by Loptr

[craigt3365]

That from the guy who's lied so many times it's hard to believe anything he says? No troops in Ukraine. Well, they are there, but on holiday. LOL

But you are right. Regime change doesn't work 99% of the time. And I do wish the US would pay more attention to their own problems. Of which there are a few....

[lostoday]

I just want to know where it is written in the US Constitution that the USA has the right to decide by fiat who gets to be the leader of another sovereign nation and who doesn't... I've looked, but I can't find it...

Just research the last 19 times the US has imposed regime change in the last 100 years and examine how they have turned out...

Manufacturing propaganda, then repeating it until it is accepted as fact is no longer playing on the global landscape... Russia and China are finally standing up to US rhetoric... Here is an interview with Putin where he calls a spade a spade...

youtube.com / watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

It worked out well in Thailand and Japan and Germany.

[hawker9000]

I just want to know where it is written in the US Constitution that the USA has the right to decide by fiat who gets to be the leader of another sovereign nation and who doesn't... I've looked, but I can't find it...

Just research the last 19 times the US has imposed regime change in the last 100 years and examine how they have turned out...

Manufacturing propaganda, then repeating it until it is accepted as fact is no longer playing on the global landscape... Russia and China are finally standing up to US rhetoric... Here is an interview with Putin where he calls a spade a spade...

youtube.com / watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

And his speech before the UN last week...

youtube.com / watch?v=q13yzl6k6w0

Kind of off-topic, as the U.S. government nowadays does, and stretching back decades or more has been doing, a whole basketful of things not mentioned in the Constitution, and not without some squawking to be sure still manages to get away with all of them. Saying this particular form of exercising a foreign policy is not in the Constitution is therefore just cherry-picking and among the weakest and most meaningless of all possible arguments. You're just using it to try & deflect attention from the point that it's actually a dangerous & power-mad Putin and a blatantly expansionist China (who, I've been reading, have finally finished building that 10K ft airstrip in the middle of the S. China Sea) that need some standing up to ...