The UK has free and fair elections. Even though there's a Queen, she has no effective power of state. The only advantage of democracy over any other system is if it assists the people of the country concerned. If the people, in general, are happy, well off and have no serious worries, does it really matter what political system is in force? In my opinion, if the people are content, there is no need for democracy.
Rubbish - it looks like you've swallowed Western Media crap - hook line and sinker , and not tried to check its veracity by examining the alternatives : Here's a start however , I suspect it'll just go over your head. Chinaman he say : "Closed mind same like closed book = block of wood " On the other hand if you're in a fair minded mood , perhaps some of the following might sink in : Is US General Wesley Clark a liar ? [video=youtube;dkamZg68jpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk[/video] Here's partial transcript : in post # 214 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=321391&page=22&p=1063086382#post1063086382 ... Relax - sit back and see if you can put yr entrenched /brainwashed opinions aside for a while and give fair consideration to some new information. Cheers.
By the way, not all rebels are terrorists. Al-Nursa has no support in the population of Syria, because the Syrians are not religious fanatics. They are accustomed to the high-society. It is the secular opposition initially opposed the Assad dictatorship, terrorists joined her later. So today, in case of victory of the opposition in Syria will not install the power of al-Nusra. In the worst case, Syria expects anarchy and disintegration into Sunni and Alawite parts. PS: May be, I made grammatical mistakes in this text. In this case sorry for my English.
It is true that the Syrians are probably the most secular of the Middle Eastern states. While there is a secular opposition, the fanatics are very powerful. In a letter today to Congress from the Syrian version of Parliament, they stated that there is strong evidence to indicate that al-Nursa used the chemical weapons (if you read the letter, it actually makes a lot of sense why the REBELS would want to use those weapons). If Assad is defeated, anarchy will most certainly reign. In anarchy, fanatics will gain control of cities and regions (or just hold onto the northwestern areas like they do now. In that case, how do you propose that the secular-democrats unite the nation? Wage yet another bloody war? And I suspect that when they start failing, the international community will be required to intervene to save democracy. Operation Iraq II. Or... We, the International Community, could support Assad's victory providing he adheres to a new Syrian Constitution or amending the current one to guarantee basic human rights. The Syrian Assembly/Congress/Parliament has been in operation since 1919. They will soon be a hundred years old. Granted, Assad did not rule the whole time, or even a significant part of it. But the Assembly has made it clear, there is a dire threat to the stability of Syria coming from jihadists. A threat that everybody is ignoring because it either doesn't suit the humanitarian interventionists (like Obama) or because doing so first requires the acceptance of radical Islam (which for whatever reason most Europeans object to). I have yet to hear of any reasonable talk about dealing with Syria's problems and not Obama's problem with Syria. This whole fiasco started off with Syrians protesting a corrupt government and within two years time, has escalated to a civil/religious war with over 100,000 dead. It is civil because it, at least initially, was between Syrians. It is morphing into a religious war as jihadists migrate there to participate in the mass murdering of war. Just look at Saudi Arabia which sent some 1000 death-row inmates (you know, convicted rapists and murders). Is this what the international community now stands for? Ruthless thug/mercenary soldiers, disregard for UN and International protocol, disregard for UN inspectors own personal testimony and investigation. What about the US/UK/France denying UN investigation for months?
Fanatics in Syria are very strong, but they have no support among the population of Syria, and in the case of the overthrow of the Assad regime will have no chance to retain their power over significant areas (except maybe only region of the middle Euphrates, where the positions of al-Nusra are strong). While it is not known exactly who used chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta, so any conclusions until the results of an independent UN expert unreasonable. Circumstantial evidence is on both sides. I'm afraid to deal with the Syrian crisis has no good options. Assad's victory in the civil war will mean the return of Syria to the 40-year period of dictatorship with a cult of personality, the one-party system and the extremely brutal repression of any opposition (such as it was in Hama in 1982, when the city was shelled artillery, air force bombed and killed nearly 20,000 people ). In the civil war has killed more than 100,000 Syrians, and the preservation of power for the Assad regime will make them die in vain. The ideal would be coming to power in Syria, the democratic part of the opposition, but this is impossible without military conflict with rebels fanatics. May be, for the U.S. and NATO would make sense to help for the democratic opposition by aircraft in this conflict? This operation will be "Yugoslavia-2", not "Iraq-2."
Do you think this situation is possible? Thats all true. Support any of the parties in the civil war by foreign countries (for this case - Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, Iran, Turkey...) is aggression, direct or indirect.
According to USA Today, it does. The last article actually contain the memo. So, the next time you go try and pull Wikipedia sources, please don't. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629 http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-arabia-death-row-inmates-sent-to-fight-assad-in-syria/5349416 http://www.aina.org/news/20130120160624.htm Also, why is this craze about making warfare "fair?" Because the rebels don't have aircraft, the US should enforce a no fly zone? Am I the only person who believes that position is about as absurd as one gets? If the US tries to do this, Syria might as well start conducting terror attacks on European citizens (specifically the French). Why not? It makes it fair since Syria can't use its airforce, France will have to tighten up its homeland security. If the US intervenes AT ALL, it becomes a participant. If it kills a Syrian soldier (or even a civilian) Assad has full international right and precedent to attack the US and its allies who supported the intervention. Which means, launching missiles into Jordan or Israel or Turkey. If I were Assad, I would unleash my arsenal upon the whole Middle East, bringing about absolute chaos. Good luck cleaning that up. Of course, I am not Assad and that scenario will never happen. Why? Because he's winning. The reason why the US/France are forcing war down their peoples' collective throat is because if they don't act soon, Assad wins and they can't attack a victor. The very fact that Obama is literally campaigning for intervention should raise a red flag. Other than Hitler, when did so-called democratic, Nobel peace-prize winning world leaders take weeks and months campaigning to go to war? Even George Bush didn't have to campaign for the war in Afghanistan, or even Iraq for that matter (though Iraq was much shadier but that is besides the point). Just like in the Parliament vote a few weeks ago, people in the West are sick and tired of wasteful, unnecessary wars. I personally believe that the British people made the right decision in opposing the war. And for the American denizens, I can't help but notice, that the majority of support from Congress on military intervention comes from the Democratic left. Is it just me or did this same group vehemently oppose Iraq? Historical note, it was the left that dragged the US into the Vietnam debacle. Initially, it too started off as a supply,train, maintain type mission. Until a forged naval encounter resulted in deployment of what would become 500,000 Americans of which 57,000 never came back. History repeats itself.
