@TimeToTurn:
Democracy has troubles where it exists in Africa and elsewhere, corruption is rife, but it is still preferable to a strongman dictator who cannot be reasoned with. The death toll from their tyranny attests to that. You admire the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it will never happen the way Marxists say they want it to happen. Whenever communism has occurred the dictatorship part never seems to die, but this is because the far left have proven themselves to be authoritarian. And blatantly so too; no conspiracy theories need to be invented about illusions of choice or about the theory of false consciousness. Yes, there's a problem with vested interests in such in the west, but there is a choice, we do have the ability to elect our politicians, which is infinitely preferable to none whatsoever. Dissent is permitted in the west without intimidation, but this is not the case elsewhere. That instantly makes western democracies superior to Russia, Iran, China and elsewhere. If a misdeed has been committed by the west domestically or abroad there is a greater chance of it causing outage, not so in Russia or elsewhere, as dissent is quashed. We do have inquiries into our conduct abroad (see Chilcot). These three things make me trust the USA and UK's foreign policy, flawed as they may be, over others.
Following Syria's model of the 00s would be disastrous, as this was what caused instability when the people had had enough of tyranny, lack of affordable food, inflation, stagnating economies and the like. If others followed Syria's model revolution would be more likely and the government would respond by turning the situation from mass protests to civil war. You bring up the admirable traits of some dictators, but they are not the norm, and these admirable traits have not been found in Assad.
You keep inferring that Assad is the least worst option, but how do you gauge this? He's killed by far the most in Syria, alongside his Russian allies, he's spawned a calamitous refugee problem which is spilling into Europe, he caused this damn mess by firing on his own people. He made little effort to reform or improve living conditions for Syrians in 2011; this was an avoidable war. It was preventable by him, but as this war wasn't committed by a western power you'll say that it's not, forgetting that it's not just the west who has agency. Saddam was not the least worst option available either, unless you consider a genocidal thug to be the only option available to Iraq. Other nations, even Middle Eastern ones didn't have strongmen as repugnant as him, so permitting this was not the only option.
As for the Baghdad bombings, wasn't that just because of war? What did you expect them to do in a warzone, drop flowers? You'd say that the Iraq War was unjustified, but so was the Syrian War started by Assad. I'm being sardonic with that question, because civilian casualties as a result of western action is a tragedy, and we have rightful sympathy towards the victims and criticism of the USA and others for doing so when it occurs. There are troubling alliances with the west (see Saudi Arabia), but the answer isn't in supporting, minimising or defending other sickening regimes.
You cite family bonds being broken by US airstrikes for motivation for someone to join ISIS, but neglect to use that logic for what's going on in Syria. The relatives of the deceased from Assad's bombs, using this logic, would surely be prone to becoming radicalised if this was the case, especially as far more are dying as a result of Assad than the USA in the region. Of course this ignores that the root cause of Islamism isn't foreign interventions or Assad, but Islamic ideology itself, but there is some truth behind it in terms of why it can prosper in Syria. The Islamists can use it as a successful propaganda tool to Muslims in Syria or abroad; they can present themselves as the main force to combat Assad.
As for what happened after the Iraq War, and the rise of ISIS, it wasn't because of the Iraqi army melting away in the face of a US tool. Both the Baathists and Islamists were insurgent against the American 'imperialists.' Saddam helped culture an environment in which Islamism could prosper with his faith campaigns, so I'm not surprised that many of the Baathists then joined Islamic State after being toppled and aided their rise (here).
"A noble lie (dickish as it can be) in the end at worst, but at best, you have people who want to shake up the status quo more than your usual election."
Dishonesty against liberal democracy is not a noble lie when it is used to reduce trust and bolster support for extremist ideologies, which have little respect for accountability. It's not noble to lie about 'neoliberalism', 'neoconservativism' or the 'system' to gather support for someone who doesn't care about the things they're using to implant doubt in others. It may be seen as a means to an end to produce the end of the current hegemony, but it can have drastic consequences if intolerant, illiberal demagogues like Trump are elected in through using such methodology.
The 'noble lies' of the Brexiters against the EU could have drastic consequences if their promises don't come to fruition. If immigration isn't reduced, if wages still stagnate and if the UK's exit from the EU is not smooth (bear in mind some want a complete cut off from the EU, which presumably means the common market, thus making the exit more complex) the far right will use it to their advantage.
"Either decisive support to overthrow Assad"
There was a movement to do that, but it was opposed on the grounds of it'd make things worse or because of warmongering, often from voices on the left.
"But war dead. Take a just war--WWII for instance."
Syria isn't a just war, Assad isn't targetting infrastructure to damage the rebels' infrastructure, he's intentionally killing civilians. Some of the dead in WWII from Allied bombing was done for revenge against the Nazis' far worse campaigns. It doesn't stop us from being able to be sympathetic towards the victims, despite any justifications. Such bombing campaigns in Syria are a consequence of Assad attacking protesters, they're done to quash any dissent, and not all from Islamists. War in Syria wasn't even attempted to be just, heck Assad wasn't even willing to reform, find solutions to the protesters' grievances (e.g. high unemployment rates) or seek compromise to avoid conflict. He swiftly turned to violence to suppress dissent and preserve his power, thus exacerbating the situation, which led to him bombing those who had risen up against him to keep control.
"The US might just be stupid enough to start WWIII, over, say, a bunch of rocks near China, or maybe instead, 7 million people (regarding the Baltic) who will trade one garbage regime for another."
An outward looking foreign policy does not mean war. Support for allies at risk of other powers does not mean instant conflict, nor does giving support absolve any other nation from taking exception violently. Russia and China have their own agencies, and they are ultimately responsible for any aggression against other sovereign nations should they not bow down to their whims. No-one's suggesting the USA should go to war over the Chinese interest in the Spratly Islands, nor because of Russia's actions in eastern Ukraine, but refuse to support allies and combat the rise in their own expansionism will lead to a scenario where war is likely. If the west is to appease Russian interests in Ukraine then they're not going to stop there. Their response is not purely a response to western antagonism and ignoring Russian interests in Ukraine is not going to stop them from furthering it, as they will be only empowered to pursue their interests further, and as this happens war is more likely. As Hasan states, the Baltic States and eastern Europe have functioning democracies, which are far more palatable than what they would be under Russian influence. Russia's allies are heavily corrupt, more so than the likes of Latvia and Lithuania, with no democratic freedom and intolerance of dissent, so I don't see why a Russian influenced Ukraine, Latvia or Lithuania would be any different. Bemoan it all you like, but the freedoms enjoyed in the democracies of eastern Europe are far superior to the authoritarians Russia promotes, and we should support those in these countries who do not want to be under the jackboot of Russian imperialism.
Your views are not atypical of the far left, as I'm sure many SWP members would not choose to live in Russia. However, as they view the west as the hegemonic evil it leads them into minimising and apologising for the aggression, war crimes and human rights abuses of anti-western forces, whilst bemoaning the alleged lack of respect for such in the west. Arguments like "we're just as bad" find their way into their debates quite readily as a result, yet despite saying this they rarely actually condemn anything the anti-western nations do like they do with the west. They might not support their ideologies directly, but they do place trust in their media and can't seem to shake the obvious differences with regards to a disregard for human rights and democratic freedoms from the anti-western forces and the west. Of course you are one man, I'm sure you would have many differences with the SWP and other hard left groups, but you do have commonalities.
