[Uncle Miltie]

“Russia needs to be threatened.”

Or joined. It depends.

There is a good case to be made that a pure defeat of ISIS is required by all civilized countries.

When Russia is accidentally on the right side of that fight, I wouldn’t take that as a reason to threaten them. That Russia is protecting Assad doesn’t mean we can be sanguine about ISIS. First, defeat ISIS. Then we can continue to discuss or prosecute war against Assad as necessary.

I would have taken Ukraine as a reason to threaten Russia.

So, theatre of battle matters. We should sometimes unite and sometimes oppose Russia, depending on the merits of the issue at hand.

[Smokin' Joe]

There is a pattern of destroying strong-man leaders in North Africa and elsewhere so the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliates can step in and declare a theocracy.

It didn't work in Egypt because tourism would have gone to nil if it had. The Military ousted the MB heir apparent.

Displacing Assad (who has a decent record for tolerating Christians and others) would only open up another opportunity for Islamist theocracy.

Assad isn't a nice guy--that won't get you to the top in that region, for the most part--but he was able to keep the dogs at bay.

Russia has the Islamic horde at their underbelly, and Syria is a good place to stop that. They haven't bought into the namby pamby version of multiculturalist dreck the West has been sold, and recognize the threat if Syria falls.