[rmlew]

We live in a nasty world, but adults have to face it. The choices in Syria are the Iranian-backed Alawite-dominated Ba'athist regime, and the Muslim Brotherhood dominated opposition. Al Qaeda supports the opposition. A weak Ba'athist Syria with WMDs is better than giving them to Al Qaeda. And the best option is the current one, where the vermin kill each other. Iranian special forces are killing Al Qaeda, and the Ba'athists are killing the Muslim Brotherhood. It drives a wedge between the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, which is a good thing, if you want to stop an Iranian nuke. If you want to go after Iran, go after Iran.

The Best Way to Stop an Iranian Nuclear Weapon is to let Syria fester

[Viennacon]

I agree wholeheartedly. As terrible as the images coming out of Syria are, we don’t have a horse in this race, and in terms of our interests, Syria remaining in chaos is a good scenario. While Romney means well, I think he’ll find very quickly when he gets into office that we cannot supply anybody because we have no idea who are radicals and who aren’t. If Assad wants to anthrax his own people, go ahead. A nation with a population of six loses all geopolitical significance anyway.

[ZULU]

And the best option is the current one, where the vermin kill each other.

BINGO!

[9YearLurker]

I agree all around—especially with your further take on Syria.

Conservatives’ backing of anything that vaguely sounds like Reagan’s strong-military policy for the Middle East has got us far afield and has done more than anything to discredit conservatism in the US.