There is a difference between not jumping into a burning building and not shooting someone running away from you. Once they're fleeing, shooting them is not self-defense just because you're afraid they might come back in the future.
If you don't believe that, when does it stop being self-defense? Maybe they'll come back a decade from now, then surely it's self-defense to break into their home and kill them in their sleep to protect yourself.
Only an incompetent or malicious leader would appoint people who will prevent them from doing what they were elected to do.
It's not a virtue to let the system stop you from helping the people who elected you in the name of compromise or norms or whatever, it's a betrayal of the voters.
I will say the same thing in 2028 if the dems somehow win with a centrist who immediately ties their hands behind their back by appointing future enemies to positions of power.
You mean the legitimate government of Syria and the militaries they invited to help them fight ISIS, Al Nusra, and other US proxies?
Iran's General Solomeni was viewed across the middle east the way Americans view General Patton for coordinating an effective opposition to ISIS while the US continued to arm them via "Free Syrian Army" factions that either joined or immediately handed their equipment to ISIS and bomb people on both sides.
Appointing people who will do what you tell them is basic effective governance. The alternative is people who will prevent you from doing what you were elected to accomplish.
Imagine if Biden appointed a head of the DEA who agreed to legalize cannibis, a head of the department of education who agreed to delete all student debt, a head of the DoJ who threw Trump in prison, etc.
This would be a good thing if the party was doing it to accomplish good things instead of Trump.
Reminder that America, Turkey, and Israel are occupying ~40% of Syria, including the oil fields and are stealing the oil and food from those regions, and occasionally bomb Syrian forces.
While Assad is not blameless, our actions certainly don't improve the stability of Syria.
Edit:
That any of these posts are getting downvoted is mindboggling. These rebels are HTS organization, which is what fucking al-Nusra renamed itself to.
These guys beliefs and actions aren't meaningfully different from fucking ISIS.
Ah yes, the people calling out the democrats for facilitating genocide are responsible for the democrats loss. If nobody called them out, genocide would have been extremely popular.
Of course, if we had the power to sway the election, I wonder why the democrats didn't just listen to us and stop facilitating genocide.
There is a difference between not jumping into a burning building and not shooting someone running away from you. Once they're fleeing, shooting them is not self-defense just because you're afraid they might come back in the future.
If you don't believe that, when does it stop being self-defense? Maybe they'll come back a decade from now, then surely it's self-defense to break into their home and kill them in their sleep to protect yourself.