This is a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If Assad stays, so does the iron fisted oppressive leadership. If he is deposed, in comes first the power vacuum & fight for power. Then comes the Islamic brotherhood with their own strict sharia interpretation and iron fisted oppressive leadership. Democracy does not work in the middle eastern Islamic countries. Ask any true Muslim what he would choose. Democracy & democratically elected government or sharia & theocratic caliphate.
Are all the Muslims in Indonesia not true Muslims? That nation has the largest Muslim population in the world. They've had a female head of state that was elected. But I would rather have the people of the middle east choose the type of leadership they'd want than an oppressive dictator. It may not be what we'd like, but it's their choice. Isn't freedom important to people in the U.S. ?
No, because I don't see why a country needs to go Islamist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.
If they do, then hope they learn from their mistake. Make sure they know that a democratic form of govt. will receive aid, and have allies, and that a fanatical Islamist govt. will have sanctions imposed against them. But either way it isn't for an outsider to decide what's irresponsible for them or not. They need to make their own decisions on how to run their nation.
The problem is that nations do not exist in a vacumn. What they do affects us, and affects everyone across the world. And to sit back, and just let world events turn into a direction which hurts the US is lazy and completely irresponsible. If Syria falls to Islamism and hurts us, do we just sit back and watch? What if the entire Middle East does? It's no different from Henry Wallace's sanctimonious crap that preserving America's moral integrity was more important than preventing Western Europe from falling to Communism.
So you think state sovereignty is a higher good to be preserved than human dignity, women's rights, children's rights, religious freedom and other rights we in the Western world would consider basic rights? Not to mention the potential threat of a later war from extremist governments gaining power? So if there is a free election, some party gets 60 % and then proceeds to enact laws which allow no religious freedom, no freedom of the press, puts certain segments of the population in camps, and so on - you would say "hey, it was their choice, it was a free election, we have to stay out of it?"
Living under a brutal dictatorship does not allow for preserving human dignity either. We don't know that an extremist govt. would take over. As for your hypothetical either you didn't read my earlier post or you didn't understand it. I said that if they chose an extremist govt. they should face sanctions, no aid, isolation, and pressure on other nations to do the same. Make it as close to impossible for them to exist as possible. That's not staying out of it. But an extremist govt. is no worse than a brutal dictatorship. The only difference might be that the people chose that extremist govt. So in the sense of allowing them freedom, that was the greater option.
correct, and they need to be made aware that choosing to live under an extremist form of govt. will have an impact on their daily lives. They will have few if any trading partners, sanctions, lack of aid, and other essentials to running a nation. But in the end, it is still their choice. If, they are made aware of the consequences and still choose that path, it's more free than living under a brutal dictatorship. Again, that's a big "if"
Let's say a small country has 100 billion in resources per year. 10 million people. 1 % are the ones who are in control of money and power. They control 50 billion of those 100 billion. Now you go for sanctions, no aid, isolation. The available resources shrink to 50 billion. Who do you think will really suffer from this? The 1 % who are in control or the other 99 %? That is a very cynical approach. Basically you are saying "they chose their own fate, bad luck for them". Plus, you ignore the fact that usually, extremist governments will be brutal dictatorships at the same time. You present the two as an alternative, when in reality, one either is the other or leads to the other.
The 99% can change their form of govt. Yes that's usually true of extremist govts. Right now we are talking about Syria. We know we have a brutal dictator. We don't know what the Syrian populace would choose if they got rid of him.
Like in Syria? Who says they can change it? The Libyans could not change it for 40 years. Yeah, maybe they can eventually change it...but who knows when.
It isn't 99% at the moment, but other nations should give aid to those opposing Assad, and if your hypothetical came true, they should give aid to groups that oppose the extremists. You prefer to have a murderous dictator in place?
Yes, the Libyans could not change it because Qaddafi was in charge- similar to how Assad is in charge in Syria. We don't know what sort of government the Syrians will form. Maybe it will be a sectional one like Libya, maybe one divided between the military, intellectuals, and Islamists like Egypt. Maybe they will be the next Turkey or Iran or India- there's no way to know for certain. Like you and IzakDavid13, the thought of a Taliban like state in Syria frightens me, but we don't know for certain if that will form. We do know that Assad will become more oppressive as long as his regime is in power.
No, which is why I said measures that will help keep that from happening. But if there are going to be two choices of horrible govt. types, and one is chosen by the people of Syria, and the other isn't, I think the bad govt. chosen by the people of Syria at least for that moment allowed them the freedom to do that, and would be better for them learning from any mistakes they made when forming their govt. That would lead to better chance of improvement in the future. Furthermore nations that take a stand against Assad and are in favor of Syrians choosing their own govt. are more likely to be seen as being on the side of the populace rather than against it. That's important for a lot of reasons. Among them is the fact that you can have more influence over the type of govt. they end up choosing in the end. Another reason is the fact that people won't volunteer to blow themselves up and you, if they perceive that you are in favor of them making their own decisions, rather than oppressing them. But you've offered nothing to stop Assad, and seem to prefer him over a form of govt. that Syrian people choose themselves.
How do we know what the majority of people in Syria wants? Just because there are a lot of people protesting does not mean they are the majority? Did you send Gallup in there? Where did you get that from? I have no idea why we would not take Assad down like we did with Ghaddafi. I don't know. I see the pros and cons of being interventionist vs. "just let them sort it out in their own country". You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I say let them choose. But then, if they choose someone like the Germans chose the Nazis, at some point you will have to intervene. Assad has so much blood on his hands, that point might have come. But I am not too optimistic that if something like the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, that people will be better off.
Jack Nicholson once said, 'You can't handle the truth!' That is so true for many on this board, but many just have a distorted veiw of the truth and don't want to see the truth. Thank God for the few level headed folks out there that can see what is really happening out there and are not looking through rose colored glasses. Thanks for 'keeping it real'
I can't believe Syrian human rights are being discussed this way, absolutely disgusting. It's crazy how the same people continuously fall for the "the Islamists are coming to get you!!" BS. The only reason America faces threats from Islamists and opposition from Muslim people is because of the imbalanced support for Israel and deployment of US + allies' troops in the Middle East. This is a matter of fact, I have posted the statistics before, happy to do so again. To say that the danger of an democratically elected Islamic government needs to be contained by interfering with their RIGHT to self-determination says two things: a) Protecting your own interests in Muslim territories is more important than Syrian right to self-determination. Let's be clear here that "protecting interests" means establishing control of oil supply and protecting profitable ventures through various agreements with leaders and in breach of any notion of sovereignty. b) You ignore the danger caused by your own country's pursuit and maintenance of self-determination on other countries, and infer that Syria or Muslim countries are unique in their potential dangers assuming the wrong people come into power. As if to say America is fairly under the control of Americans and the wrong entities/individuals have not amassed power and have not repeatedly guided the country to setting off global financial failure and attacks on the sovereignty of other countries via invasions, drone bombings, etc. In this very thread SamFisher has paraded around this idea that Romney would enact neocon policies. Is Romney in the US not the equivalent of Mursi, the head of the MB, in Egypt? What is the difference between THESE two? Should people interfere with the will of the American people if they don't like Romney, and America is already in the act of attacking a multitude of countries and would step that up under Romney? How is that any different than this fear that an Islamic party wins elections in Syria and the party enacts policies which lead to imperialism under the guise of defense? So unique, therefore we must interfere, right? At some point, you have to ask yourself if you are worried that these new potential powerhouses are really any different than those in the past in terms of being threats (look at Saddam and Gaddhafi)... or are we just saying that these people won't bend over for American and Israeli interests as much as the bribed and paid off leaders of the past? Assad is more friendly to non-Syrian interests than Syrian interests, and this is why these people prefer him. They couldn't give a damn if Assad murders all these children, even though Assad is allied with their greatest enemy. How are Syrian people supposed to look at this when they watch these "western" extremists say "maybe its better to keep Assad" knowing full well that he is murdering Syrians with impunity with the financial, military and United Nations support of Vladimir Putin, who is 99% of the time the arch nemesis of those very people. Frankly, I can't see how any support for him (or his equivalent with a clean sheet) can be seen as anything other than an act of war on the people of Syria. The people of Syria are extremely susceptible to conditioning right now given he trauma they've been through, and it is essentially a country full of potential terrorists right now. No money, slipping education, civil war, all the factors are in place. Interfering with their right to self-determination after they have suffered so long under the brutal rule of the Assad family is an invitation for terrorists. Those very same Syrians who are now turning into murderers to defend themselves may have overlooked the politics for decades, but now they have lost too much, and Assad Rule in 2013 would not be as peaceful to non-Syrian interests or to Assad himself as it would have been years ago. Whoever the people want will come to power or fight for power from this point onwards. It's just a matter of time, prolonged by the proxy games of Russia and the US and their allies. Better be on the right side (people) of a good thing (self-determination) and establish diplomatic relations with these people than become the country that preferred dead Syrians over happy Syrians. This is how you avoid terrorist attacks and keep money inside your economy so your politicians can't funnel it to oil companies and and big corporations while the corpses are still warm in whatever foreign country.
This is straight from Al Qaeda's propaganda book. Mathloom showing his true colors once again, acting as if any terrorism is just a reaction to "the evil USA and Israel". Absolutely not. If you have to ask...it just shows how crazy you are. More Al Qaeda propaganda. Everyone can see that Mathloom's mask has long been ripped off. He tried to play the reasonable guy for a while, tried to deceive and lie, even claimed he was not a Muslim, just to slip every so often and show his fanatism. Now that he is getting more heat, you can see the frustration in his posts, and his fanatism and blind hatred of the USA and Israel shows more and more. The posts become even longer and crazier. While he is trying a new tactic of not responding to me (because he knows he will get owned every time), I know he reads my posts. His posts are getting more and more desperate, fanatic and crazy. I am somewhat worried about his mental health.
