It seems that Government is much more interested in pursuing its own aims and ambitions than that of the vast majority of Americans. What do I mean? It seems as if some form of military intervention is so probable its not whether we should intervene but how to do so. Missiles and naval bombardments or proxy-style (aka supplying rebels with weapons). The Government has given repeatedly its list of reasons why we (notice the word "we") should support them in their efforts to overthrow Assad and replace him with the rebels. I am not going to reiterate those reasons save the overriding one: humanitarian. "Humanitarian." The Government's case is that because Assad is such a bad man and has inflicted so many human rights abuses on the hapless Syrian people that it is our moral imperative, our divine duty, to engage and destroy this man and wipe him off the face of the Earth. To those who support this policy, you deserve to be labeled warmongers and babykillers. You openly and shameless support making war upon a nation that has harmed not one American and that has actually secured the religious liberties of millions of minorities (Alawites, Syrian Christians, Nestorians, Assyrians, Shi'ia, and yes, even Jews). Yes, this wicked, evil man protected the rights of minorities while our allies like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia trample upon their own citizens. And yes, Assad did crush the ability of Syrians to successfully organize against him (he never claimed to be a democratic leader btw). If you claim that humanity begs us to intervene then you'd better come up with better premises for your argument because its flawed. Now on to why I support Assad. But first the conditions on which I am judging him. First off, he is not a democratic leader and isn't claiming to be. Syria doesn't have a free democratic society like most of Western Europe and the US/Canada. Hard lands make hard men. Hard men make for hard leaders and Assad is a hard leader. He's also protected Syria for over 40 years. Through the Cold War. Through the creation of Israel. Through the upheaval Saddam caused in 1991-1992 in his invasion of Kuwait. Through the turmoils radical Islam stemming from the 9-11 attacks. He didn't do this by cuddling and singing campfire songs with his opposition. He crushed them as swiftly and brutally as he would have been had he allowed his opponents to gain the upper-hand. Assad has kept Syria out of the War on Terror. Syrians make up VERY VERY VERY few of the radical extremist fighters (unlike our "ally" Saudi Arabia). He worked WITH the US and Russia in fighting AL-Nursa and other AL-Qaeda linked groups. He has been an opponent of terrorism which is another reason why I believe he should remain in power. Thirdly, this is really not because of Assad but because of the alternative. I do not want to see Syria governed by al-Nursa. The rebels are terrorists. There is no democratic movement among them. There is no "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in their rallying cries. They scream for death and blood and jihad. To prove this point, here is just a few of the many, many DOCUMENTED evils of the rebels: Persecution of Alawites http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/al...urkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=54073&NewsCatID=352 Murdering Christians http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/08/syrian-rebels-take-christian-village/2781763/ We already designated them as terrorists http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html The rebels are little more than thugs http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Anguish-Syrian-mother-saw-son-shot-dead.html The UN official in Syria admits that the rebels themselves used chemical weapons to draw the US into the war http://guardianlv.com/2013/08/syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-carried-out-by-rebels-says-un/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons I feel that this is enough information to digest for a while and all of it leads to my main point: these rebels SHOULD NOT govern Syria. Assad hasn't done ANYTHING like this for over 40 years. These rebels have done all and more in less than 2. He may not be great, but I don't see anyone saying we should intervene in Sudan with millions dead. You really thing Assad is worse than Omar al-Bashir? You need to fix your priorities ASAP if you do.
Assad Jr. did not protect Syria for over 40 years, the butcher became leader on 2000 ( 13 years ago ). The main problem that you wrote "he is not a democratic leader and isn't claiming to be" is well known, that's why many Syrians want him out !! Have you forgotten the big demonstrations 2 years ago ? Assad is not worse than Omar al-Bashir, same sh!t.
I doubt that Syrians have a coherent idea of what to do in a possible democracy (look what is happening in Egypt) but they have to start from somewhere. I do not agree that all rebels are jihadists , maybe half or less than half from them are but there is also a big number of republicans . The best option in my opinion is both him and the rebels to sit and negotiate , they can cooperate to kick the foreigners and the fundamentalists out (great chance to do so) and afterwards Assad will proceed in democratizing the country , allowing parties to be formed , free media etc . Syrian society can use more freedom but without power gaps for various "brotherhoods" to slip in .
Democracy will never come to Syria because the FSA (the supposed democrats) are also fighting with and along side al-Nursa, a terrorist group. They lack the popular support needed to win. They only control the rural regions and a few villages. The few villages they've captured recently have seen horrible atrocities done in the name of this so-called "democracy." If the rebels wanted to sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution, they would have done so, not fought a senseless war killing over 100,000 people. A peaceful resolution where the FSA and Assad (or even his wife) discuss a basic truce (ie fighting ends in exchange for allowing UN inspectors and peacekeepers to begin demilitarizing the cities). I don't put much faith in peace talks that have no tangible action attached to them so to begin the talks, I think turning over chemical weapons to Russia/some other international nation is an excellent first step to show that Assad is serious about peace. The rebels should respond by turning over the jihadists amongst them. The Syrians are starving and jobless so to them, a lot of rights and liberties are quite useless. Basic freedom of speech/press/religion/etc should be granted in a simple, no-nonsense constitution where Assad stakes his right to rule based on his observance and enforcement of said constitution. In other words, he "backstabs" the democrats, he nullifies his right to rule. It's kind of like applying the divine right of kings/ mandate of heaven to the Middle East where religion plays a MAJOR role in all life.
Victor Hugo said "Armies cannot stop an idea whose time has come," and the idea of democracy has come to the Mid-East, but you are right, leave Syria to the Syrians. If the US is really itching to use some Tomahawk missiles they might better be deployed against the elite royal family of Saudi Arabia, a country where one cannot practice Christianity in public, where converting from Islam is a capital offense, where women cannot own property, which is the only country in the world where women cannot drive cars, and where most of the 9/11 hijackers originated.
Democracy will never come to Syria ?? - Democracy will never come to Arabs !! Can you prove that the rebels killed 100000 people ? Probably not . Assad is the blame 50% or even more.
Democracy flies in the face of over a 1000 years of Islamic philosophy. Do you really think a few American missiles are going to effect the socio-political change necessary to undue all that? Islam is not democratic. 99.99% of the Middle East's population is HIGHLY religious, carefully observing the tenets of Islam. Unless atheism or some other religion overthrows the authority of the Qu'ran and the clergy, you might as well try to breathe underwater. It is better to adopt OURSELVES to the culture/thought of the Middle East and not force them to adopt Western-style democracy. What do I mean? Support rulers who will protect their people and promote their welfare. By rulers I mean dictators/tyrants/First Citizens/etc. Democracy, politics, and such are as foreign to them as one can get. And I never said that the rebels were solely responsible for all 100,000 dead. This "civil" war did that.
Democracy came to Iran in 1953, and the US and England overthrew it with Operation Ajax. Democracy came to Egypt, and CENTCOM sat back and let it turn back into a military dictatorship, if it didn't actually help orchestrate the coup.
No, it just isn't compatible with a Western, liberal type of Democracy. Nonsense. This is simply the coward's way out. The Arabs are never going to learn to live together when you have a dictator always reminding them that without him, they're screwed. Standard orientalism.
Standard orientalism? The caliphates/autocracies were uninterrupted for over 1000 years. Whether it was a Turkish/Arab/Mongol/etc it always ended with "Empire." There were never self-governing city-states like in Italy or Switzerland. No republics or even attempts at a legislature. It was raw, brute power. Democracy requires a citizenry who do not settle differences at the point of bayonet. Regarding Iran, then why didn't democracy just come back? It's not like the US/UK supported the Ayatollah. It's because democracy cannot last. Regarding Egypt, Morsi was legally, constitutionally, turning Egypt from a secular state to an Islamic Republic like Iran. The military and THE VAST MAJORITY of people supported his removal because he was that bad of a guy. He crushed dissenters and tolerated/supported the killings of Coptics. If you call him a democratic leader than you need to rethink what democracy means. Name for me one, uno, ein, example of a indigenous, Arab/Middle-Eastern democracy that survived for at least 5 years before it ended in a bloody coup/war. I dare say that you cannot. Don't claim the pre-Revolution Iran. The fact that the Islamists were powerful enough to control the state shows that the democratic movement was not as strong as is currently believed and that Islamists enjoyed greater popularity and/or fear.
Is autocracy always bad? One has to ask, if the system is benign, why replace it? I know you'll come back with 'will of the people' stuff but has democracy always made people happier or allowed them to live better lives? Most Americans assume democracy is the only valid political system but I would disagree. I don't dismiss or disagree with democracy but I don't exclude other forms of government either.
Of course democracy is not the only valid system but autocracy is bad because it promotes uniformity , uniformity leads to conservatism and social stagnation .
Hogwash. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy The caliphates were generally more democratic and progressive for their times. Islamic Spain is a case in point. We all know what happened when the Europeans took back the country. But it is a Democracy, just not a Western, liberal type of Democracy. The military should have no say in the matter (democracy, right?), and the people should have waited for the next elections to remove him (if indeed the vast majority wanted him out). The rest of what you wrote is hyperbolic nonsense.
You cannot blame "miss civil war" ... Assad is the blame. - - - Updated - - - Indeed democracy cannot last with Muslims.
Britain is a democracy and has all of the above. Can you honestly say America has none? I suspect you're promoting democracy because you've been told it's right but not looked at other systems of government. There are many successful countries with happy populations that have never seen an election. I would argue; if a population is happy and not oppressed by their leaders, democracy isn't needed and will probably disrupt a perfectly good society.
Assuming you use real facts and indisputable ones at that, you cannot state that the Middle East is "ready" for democracy. What Iran has is not a democracy. What Egypt has is it not a democracy. Even BRIC countries like Brazil and India have very successfully pulled off a transition to democracy but only after conceding that those Greeks had it right. They didn't entrench themselves in age-old traditions of despotism like what is the current state of the the Middle East. Many have embedded themselves in the pursuit of a global caliphate. Or at least the destruction of the US, UK, and Israel. You don't think so? Then why is radical Islam so prevalent? It's not? What about the thousands and thousands of jihadists in Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan-Pakistan? Yemen? Egypt? Iran? The very fact that Iraqi jihadists are expanding into Syria should be highly troubling. The so-called moderate Muslim community is silent because it is non-existent, at least in the Middle East. There is a large culture of fanaticism. Fanaticism that opposes democracy. Fanaticism that operates without regard to international bodies the UN or sovereign states like Russia or the US. Until Muslims ON THEIR OWN reject jihad and radicalism and have their own soul-searching period the Middle East will be as war torn as it has since Muhammad began raiding caravans.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy I can not honestly say anything about the continent , some countries are okayish while others are just bad , Costa Rica is nice tho. People in Bahrain are happy does this mean that they are not stagnated as society ? Happiness is not always connected to progress , stone age natives in the Amazonas and Borneo are happy ... I was told nothing, i am honoring my Athenian tradition . "Successful countries" ? define success ... and not use any country less than 1000 years old because almost everyone can be good for few centuries before they royally screw up. Happiness is just a feeling , our ancestors did not left Yemen because they were unhappy there but because they had to .
Try to directly address the arguments raised in this thread, and then maybe we can have a proper discussion. There is so much crap in this block of text that I don't know where to begin.
Is the US droning of political activists and/or terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Mid-East improving the situation for average people there? Would "Yanqui Go Home" be likely to worsen the situation any? Do you suppose that US forces leaving the Mid-East would lessen the likelihood of Muslim attacks on the US, or encourage them "because Muslims hate American freedom" like Hannity says?
Actually, American military forces are more or less pulled out of the Middle East. Drone strikes in Yemen are down in coordination with the Yemenese government to fight the rebels there (that country is experiencing its own, smaller civil war). We provide billions to Pakistan. Were that government to topple, radicalism would sweep in and plunge the country into war. While the current government is by no means upright, it is more desirable to civil war, assuming you actually care about the people.
