fine, multiple evils
There are more than two parties involved
well i would consider the syrian arab republic and the ba'athism that drives it to be a more or less positive force
You idiot
the phrase wasn't supposed to be taken literally
"lesser of two evils" simply means "one choice is better than the other"
But the west supports th rebells @nic
Sure, herpa derp
also it would be better for the european people to support the syrian government over the rebels
Yeah, exactly
Based Knopfler supports the states and they don't support Assad
it wouldn't be for western capitalists, however
Fucking imbecile
So I don't kbow... you think Assad will win? @nic
I just don't tolerate fools
He clearly has no clue about the conflict
@Deleted User dunno how you cope with yourself then <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>
GOT ME
Brilliant come back
thanks I thought so
ya because we love when the US props up dictators
He shouldn't be debating about it if he has absolutely no idea what's going on
my oh my how things have gone full circle
He can say that he doesn't know
Instead of pretending to have any insight on it
I have some knowledge I am by far not the most well researched on the matter
@obrallaghan Well it's either a dictator or a bunch of crazy rebells this time
ok
but I have some idea as to what is happening
Take your pick
I'm sorry
@nic I take everything I said back
I don't think you're an idiot/imbecile/stupid
I retract my statements
syria's political system was actually liberalized a lot in response to the protests
i dunno if there would have been a proper civil war had it not been for western interference
@Baraban had Russia not used their veto power, NATO could have established order in the country and allowed for the people of Syria to decide how they are governed
power hungry islamists knew the west would have their back
The war started way before the west interfered @versterven
the Syrian refugee crisis is a horror show and is not in the best interest of anyone anywhere
it happened within the context of arab spring
