Game Over for Assad

Russia has a naval base in Syria at Tartus, so they can project their power in the Mediterranean, what do they care about a handful of dead civilians?

The killing will continue until all the civilians are dead, there will be no military intervention.

Let's get Captain Price in there!

The Assad Regime has defied Arab league peace plans,
They have killed thousands of innocent citizens,
Syrian troops have opened fire on the Turkish border which is essentially an act of war against Turkey!!

There is no more excuses for the Assad regime, they have been extremely uncooperative with the west, with the Arab league, with the UN in every opportunity given for peace. The game is up for Assad, UN troops should already be in the country fighting against the regime, our air force should be pounding the hell out of the Assad palace, and the supporters of the regime and those responsible for committing crimes against humanity should have been trialled and already executed.

I would love to see the regime fall and for a free and democratic Syrian government to take over. Of course the situation is much more complicated, there are divisions within the free Syrian army and those who take power could bring the country back into an autocratic and totalitarian regime, another civil war could break out in Syria. Regardless this current oppressive and criminal regime must go!!

I think all sides America and her allies and Russia and China want to see peace in Syria and for the country to become more stabilised, this is about the only thing they can agree on. The rest does all come down to imperialism.

Russia doesn't want to lose an ally and doesn't want to lose it's control over this area. They sell weapons to the regime and they have a strategically important naval base in the country. Russia isn't as corrupt as the Syrian regime but there is corruption within the political system they may be scarred that if we start intervening in countries to remove regimes we may also one day do the same in Russia. They are scarred America will gain control of this area.

US Secretary of state Hillary Clinton has expressed that Russia can still maintain an ally and a port city when the regime has been toppled, of course the new Syrian government is going to be friendly with a country that has supported and defended the regime that oppressed them, especially when Syrian citizens have burned Russian flags.

America stands to gain another ally and remove Russian influence from this area. Contrary to common knowledge there is also oil in Syria. Should we intervene in Syria that gives the west more influence in Syria, Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan leaving Iran surrounded and exposed. We could even one day try to establish missile defence shields within the region as we are doing in Eastern Europe, which would damage Russia's nuclear capabilities and effectively remove all Russian influence over the area.

I wouldn't agree with the accusation that this is 'American imperialism' however, it is at the least 'Western Imperialism' however I wouldn't even say it is imperialism as we are not exactly conquering other countries, we are removing corrupt regimes and trying to establish a democracy for the people of those countries to govern themselves. Which is something I would support, especially when the people of Syria themselves are crying out for western intervention.

Regardless we can not directly intervene in Syria at this time, least we risk a major war with Russia, China and Iran. We can only supply the Syrian free army with arms, training and military intelligence, as well as resorting to covert operations, just as long as we don't get caught.

The Russian people also need to put massive pressure on their government to stop supporting the regime in Syria and stop vetoing UN military intervention.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Have you asked yourself why the US wants to topple the Assad regime, and not, let's say the arguably even more oppressive regime of the King of Saudi Arabia?

Simply because the opportunity is there in Syria for removal of the regime, with the people in direct revolt and the army split between the Syrian army and rebel free Syrian army. There is greater opportunity in Syria than there is in Saudi Arabia which would involve directly going to war with an entire intact nation which no one would support and the fact Saudi Arabia is an ally anyway.

As for why we intervened in Libya and not Syria well apart from Russia and China vetoing military intervention at the UN. Libya was a much more easier country to liberate seen as the war was fought in a narrower area along the Mediterranean between Tripoli and Benghazi, with both sides concentrated in one area all that was needed to be done was introduce a no fly zone to prevent the Libyan army from shelling the rebels and allow the rebels to advance to Tripoli.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Which it isn't. The recent propaganda about the massacre of 130 or so civilians (among them children) is just that. There have been no investigations about who the real perpetrators of that were, it was just blamed on government forces in the media. Their "evidence" was that the ammunition used is that of the Syrian Army. But they forgot to mention that the opposition group, the Free Syrian Army, consists of defectors.

From the beginning of the conflict, every attack on civilians that occurred was blamed on the Assad regime without even any kind of investigation. It would be as if someone said that the soldiers that went coo-coo on a bunch of civilians in Afghanistan were given orders to do so by Obama directly.

If you're asking what's the best way to oust Assad, you've already fallen prey to the propaganda.

We know the Syrian government is killing and massacring civilians because we have seen it for ourselves we have informants in the country, we have seen videos and photographs taken by Syrian citizens on youtube which shows the killings and who is doing it.

We also have known for years that the Syrian regime has oppressed it's own people and we know about things like torture.

There is also testaments and video footage of Syrian citizens that inform who is responsible, would they lie about who is responsible when there entire families have been gunned down or tortured and killed.

There are testaments from army defectors who have stated that they were expected to shoot civilians or else they themselves would be executed.

Granted it's not illogical to assume that the Syrian free army hasn't been responsible for misfiring or killings of civilians, especially since a lot of them are army defectors and a lot of them where responsible for killing civilians when in the army.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Yes, but then the question becomes why is Saudi Arabia an ally and Syria not? That wasn't meant as a literal question, I was just asking it to challenge the official narrative that a group of "freedom fighters" are opposing a "brutal regime" and that the US needs to destroy that regime in order to "keep the peace and spread democracy".

Are you saying that US military and economic intervention in Syria is justified because the media narrative has already been set?

Politics, Bashar Al Assad was educated in the west and his wife Asma Al Assad is British so perhaps we thought Assad would bring reform to Syria. Regardless Syria is a Russian ally anyway and so we couldn't ally with it.

We don't necessarily like Saudi Arabia, but it benefits us to be allied to them for the time being anyway due to oil and it benefits Saudi Arabia because they have someone to sell oil too and because they have a strong ally that especially has a strong navy to protect the gulf. Also as an ally we can try to push for some reform and try to get them too agree to things.

The part in bold, it won't just be the US that gets involved in Syria if military intervention passes through the UN. The free Syrian army some of them will be freedom fighters but a lot of them won't be and a new regime could take place when the current Assad regime is ousted, however it does give the chance for some change to happen to the country, Syrian people won't stop pushing for democracy and the Assad regime needs to be removed to bring greater peace back to the country.

What's important is that the regime goes and some peace is restored to the country although it's likely that democracy will be a long process in the country, just as it's likely to be that way with Libya and Eqypt.

@Raain

Do you honestly believe that the West is interested in a democratic Syria given their very consistent track record of toppling democracies and replacing them with dictatorships? There is very good reason to be suspicious of their calls for Syrian democracy. If the West was truly interested in supporting democracy worldwide, they could start by withdrawing their support from corrupt dictatorships all over the world that are just as oppressive as Assad, if not more so.

In your post, you also said that the West is interested in peace in Syria. Nothing could be further from the truth. How else do they expect to get rid of Assad and transform Syria into a puppet state that will accede to US economic interests at the expense of the Syrian people? The fact that the CIA along with British and French special forces have been training the FSA in Turkey (for a while now) along with the media's condemnation of the Syrian regime for the recent Homs massacre ahead of any kind of investigation should be enough to disprove any illusions that the West wants peace for the Syrian people. Their calls for the Syrian regime to adhere to "peace plans" and "cease fires" are in bad faith. They essentially state the Assad should sit on his hands while an armed insurrection takes place in his country. The US and her allies know that no leader of any country would ever accept such a deal, but it helps justify further economic and military intervention in Syria.

The rest of your post mentioned goals that are essentially imperialistic. How many Syrian men, women, and children do you think should die in pursuit of such noble goals as weakening Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East?

We know the Syrian government is killing and massacring civilians because we have seen it for ourselves we have informants in the country, we have seen videos and photographs taken by Syrian citizens on youtube which shows the killings and who is doing it.

We also have known for years that the Syrian regime has oppressed it's own people and we know about things like torture.

There is also testaments and video footage of Syrian citizens that inform who is responsible, would they lie about who is responsible when there entire families have been gunned down or tortured and killed.

There are testaments from army defectors who have stated that they were expected to shoot civilians or else they themselves would be executed.

Granted it's not illogical to assume that the Syrian free army hasn't been responsible for misfiring or killings of civilians, especially since a lot of them are army defectors and a lot of them where responsible for killing civilians when in the army.

We don't know anything. There have been no independent investigations, as of yet and witness testimony is known to be unreliable. Not because these people would lie but because witnesses can be mistaken or confused or selectively reported on.

I also find it interesting how you think that whenever the FSA kills a civilian it's because of a "misfire" and whenever government forces do, it's an intentional act of oppression.

EDIT: We also know that things like torture and various human rights abuses have been perpetrated by the US and its allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. But you won't hear anyone in mainstream political discourse saying that this justifies armed insurrection against the governments of these countries.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Do you honestly believe that the West is interested in a democratic Syria given their very consistent track record of toppling democracies and replacing them with dictatorships? There is very good reason to be suspicious of their calls for Syrian democracy. If the West was truly interested in supporting democracy worldwide, they could start by withdrawing their support from corrupt dictatorships all over the world that are just as oppressive as Assad, if not more so.

Yes I do believe the west is interested in a democratic Syria, that will have the same aspirations as western nations and will cooperate much more.

Democracy is difficult to achieve it is not necessarily our fault if it doesn't work out and a regime takes power.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

In your post, you also said that the West is interested in peace in Syria. Nothing could be further from the truth. How else do they expect to get rid of Assad and transform Syria into a puppet state that will accede to US economic interests at the expense of the Syrian people? The fact that the CIA along with British and French special forces have been training the FSA in Turkey (for a while now) along with the media's condemnation of the Syrian regime for the recent Homs massacre ahead of any kind of investigation should be enough to disprove any illusions that the West wants peace for the Syrian people. Their calls for the Syrian regime to adhere to "peace plans" and "cease fires" are in bad faith. They essentially state the Assad should sit on his hands while an armed insurrection takes place in his country. The US and her allies know that no leader of any country would ever accept such a deal, but it helps justify further economic and military intervention in Syria.

Yes I do believe that the west and Russia also is interested in peace in Syria, but this will never be achieved with the Assad regime still in place when the regime has murdered thousands of civilians, Syrians will never won't to be governed by Assad there needs to be a change in government for greater peace to take place, at least to stop the killing of civilians. Although there will likely be fighting between lots of different factions wanting control over Syria so lasting peace will take a while to achieve and a UN peacekeeping force will need to stay in Syria for a while.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

The rest of your post mentioned goals that are essentially imperialistic. How many Syrian men, women, and children do you think should die in pursuit of such noble goals as weakening Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East?

I don't necessarily want to weaken or remove Russian and Iranian influence in the middle east, I just want for the violence to stop for oppressive regimes to eventually fall one by one and democratic nations to take there place.

I was just highlighting motivations from both Russia and America which are essentially imperialistic although I would support the US and Western nations intervening in Syria.

I would support Russia intervening also just as long as the current regime goes and they allow for Syrians to govern themselves. Logically they should do this as they can still keep an ally and a port city, and it stops the killings of civilians.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

We don't know anything. There have been no independent investigations, as of yet and witness testimony is known to be unreliable. Not because these people would lie but because witnesses can be mistaken or confused or selectively reported on.

I also find it interesting how you think that whenever the FSA kills a civilian it's because of a "misfire" and whenever government forces do, it's an intentional act of oppression.

Really I think we know a great deal about what is happening in Syria and the Syrian people are not stupid and neither are we, it's blatantly obvious that the regime is responsible for massacring civilians. There is footage of it.

These conspiracy theories that it was just made up by the media so we can intervene are really just stupid.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

EDIT: We also know that things like torture and various human rights abuses have been perpetrated by the US and its allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. But you won't hear anyone in mainstream political discourse saying that this justifies armed insurrection against the governments of these countries.

That wasn't the point being made, the point being made is that we know for a fact that Syria kills it's own people.

Hopefully he and his ice queen wife will soon be hanging from a rope. :-) I wonder how many pairs of shoes she owns while her people are living in abject conditions and being massacred daily.

Originally Posted by Raain

Yes I do believe the west is interested in a democratic Syria, that will have the same aspirations as western nations and will cooperate much more.

What evidence do you have that this is the case? In more cases than not, when the US says its goal is to "spread democracy", it has done just the opposite (the only exceptions I know of are Germany, Japan, and Israel).

Democracy is difficult to achieve it is not necessarily our fault if it doesn't work out and a regime takes power.

So if we succeed in creating a democracy we can deservedly pat ourselves on the back, but when we "accidentally" put a dictator in power instead it isn't our fault?

Note that I said "If the West was truly interested in supporting democracy worldwide, they could start by withdrawing their support from corrupt dictatorships all over the world that are just as oppressive as Assad, if not more so." Do you honestly believe that Western aid to brutal dictators that destroyed people's democratic movements and committed numerous atrocities such as the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, or Suharto in Indonesia was by accident?

Yes I do believe that the west and Russia also is interested in peace in Syria, but this will never be achieved with the Assad regime still in place when the regime has murdered thousands of civilians, Syrians will never won't to be governed by Assad there needs to be a change in government for greater peace to take place, at least to stop the killing of civilians. Although there will likely be fighting between lots of different factions wanting control over Syria so lasting peace will take a while to achieve and a UN peacekeeping force will need to stay in Syria for a while.

I don't necessarily want to weaken or remove Russian and Iranian influence in the middle east, I just want for the violence to stop for oppressive regimes to eventually fall one by one and democratic nations to take there place.

I was just highlighting motivations from both Russia and America which are essentially imperialistic although I would support the US and Western nations intervening in Syria.

I would support Russia intervening also just as long as the current regime goes and they allow for Syrians to govern themselves. Logically they should do this as they can still keep an ally and a port city, and it stops the killings of civilians.

What evidence do you have that they're interested in peace, when there is clear evidence to the contrary?

If we are serious about promoting peace we can do that best by not starting wars and tearing other countries to pieces by fermenting civil war. We did the same thing in Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda and look where that got us.

Western military intervention (which will no doubt result in tens of thousands of civilian casualties) to remove dictators (supposedly) is not justified until we stop sending economic and military aid to brutal dictatorships and repressing democratic movements.

Really I think we know a great deal about what is happening in Syria and the Syrian people are not stupid and neither are we, it's blatantly obvious that the regime is responsible for massacring civilians. There is footage of it.

These conspiracy theories that it was just made up by the media so we can intervene are really just stupid.



That wasn't the point being made, the point being made is that we know for a fact that Syria kills it's own people.

Yes, we do know that the Syrian regime was responsible for civilian deaths in the past. I am not saying that these atrocities are fabrications. What I want to point out is the hypocrisy of the West in its calls for peace while arming rebels and waging economic warfare, its calls for fairness and objectivity to Russia and China while condemning the Syrian regime ahead of any investigation, and its calls for democracy and respect for human rights while it destroys democracies, supports dictators, and is guilty of human rights abuses itself.

We also know for a fact that the US and its allies are responsible for killing thousands of civilians and various human rights abuses. But you have not addressed the question of why the Syrian government should be destroyed for these crimes, while Western governments should not be.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

What evidence do you have that this is the case? In more cases than not, when the US says its goal is to "spread democracy", it has done just the opposite (the only exceptions I know of are Germany, Japan, and Israel).

What evidence have you got that the US is not interested in establishing democracy in Syria, spreading democracy is in the intrest of the United States since it makes the world a fairer and safer place, and it makes countries more cooperative with the US and other democratic nations.

You also said previously that the US has removed democracies from power and replaced them with regimes, when has this ever been done? name one country.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

So if we succeed in creating a democracy we can deservedly pat ourselves on the back, but when we "accidentally" put a dictator in power instead it isn't our fault?

Well we do our best to insure that a dictator does not come to power, and that there is a transfer to democracy, but democracy isn't easy to achieve it's a long process and if it fails it's not always our fault, but at least the people may have had a small taste of freedom and they won't give up on pursuing democracy.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

What evidence do you have that they're interested in peace, when there is clear evidence to the contrary?

The fact they want to intervene militarily in Syria and the fact they are training the free Syrian army is evidence to you that we don't want peace?

We want to remove the criminal regime in charge so that there can be peace.

Your views on this seem to be based entirely on conspiracy theories:

'The Media is controlled by the government and is misinforming people so we will intervene in Syria.'
'The US wants to prolong violence in Syria for the sheer sake of it.'

Both views are just ridiculous really.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

If we are serious about promoting peace we can do that best by not starting wars and tearing other countries to pieces by fermenting civil war. We did the same thing in Afghanistan with Al-Qaeda and look where that got us.

Yes because allowing Al-Qaeda to train terrorists and take over countries is the way to promote peace.

all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

We didn't start this war, that started with the attacks on September the 11th 2001.

Unless you believe that's a conspiracy as well.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Western military intervention (which will no doubt result in tens of thousands of civilian casualties) to remove dictators (supposedly) is not justified until we stop sending economic and military aid to brutal dictatorships and repressing democratic movements.

Do you think the situation could possibly get much worse in Syria? thousands of civilians are already being killed and this will only get worse if we don't intervene.

We don't send military aid to brutal dictatorships, we do supply them sometimes with weapons and economic aid though. Do I agree with that no of course not, but I don't think it makes it unjustifiable to remove a regime when the opportunity presents itself.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Yes, we do know that the Syrian regime was responsible for civilian deaths in the past. I am not saying that these atrocities are fabrications. What I want to point out is the hypocrisy of the West in its calls for peace while arming rebels and waging economic warfare, its calls for fairness and objectivity to Russia and China while condemning the Syrian regime ahead of any investigation, and its calls for democracy and respect for human rights while it destroys democracies, supports dictators, and is guilty of human rights abuses itself.

Just because we are arming the rebels doesn't mean we don't want peace, we want Assad to step down and we want the rebels to win so that hopefully a democracy will form.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

We also know for a fact that the US and its allies are responsible for killing thousands of civilians and various human rights abuses. But you have not addressed the question of why the Syrian government should be destroyed for these crimes, while Western governments should not be.

These human rights abuses are mostly torture allegations against terrorists, spys and prisoners of war. Do I agree with that no I don't, but does the West torture it's own civilians does it kill it's own civilians in mass numbers and does the west oppress it's own people?

You really can't compare the US and western democratic nations with brutal regimes such as Syria.

Originally Posted by Raain

What evidence have you got that the US is not interested in establishing democracy in Syria, spreading democracy is in the intrest of the United States since it makes the world a fairer and safer place, and it makes countries more cooperative with the US and other democratic nations.

Since you're making the claim that the US is interested in establishing democracy in Syria, the burden of proof is on you.

You also said previously that the US has removed democracies from power and replaced them with regimes, when has this ever been done? name one country.

I got several.

The US intervened on the side of the Tsar in the Russian Civil War against the Bolsheviks, but that effort failed.

The most famous example is probably Iran. In 1953, the CIA and the UK overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, and installed the Shah of Iran, who led a dictatorial regime.

In 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala.

The US and other Western powers overthrew the democratic government of Congo between 1960-65 and installed Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator.

After the dictator Trijulo (which the US supported) was deposed in the Dominican Republic in the 60's, the US helped overthrow the newly democratically elected government led by Juan Bosch.

The democratically elected government of Brazil was overthrown in a Coup which the US supported in 1964.

There were numerous attempts by the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected president Allende of Chile, and the US subsequently supported Augusto Pinochet's military junta. And his crimes against humanity are well known.

Between 1981 and 1990, the US supported an insurgency group, the Contras, against the democratic Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Well we do our best to insure that a dictator does not come to power, and that there is a transfer to democracy, but democracy isn't easy to achieve it's a long process and if it fails it's not always our fault, but at least the people may have had a small taste of freedom and they won't give up on pursuing democracy.

I think the above instances should be enough to show that the opposite is true.

The fact they want to intervene militarily in Syria and the fact they are training the free Syrian army is evidence to you that we don't want peace?

Last time I checked, military intervention was the exact opposite of peace. Orwell's phrase "War is Peace" is a disturbingly appropriate characterization of Western attitudes toward military intervention in the Third World.

We want to remove the criminal regime in charge so that there can be peace.

Just because we start the war, doesn't mean it isn't war. People will die. And in all likelihood Assad will be replaced with a dictator, the only difference is that the US will get to pick who it is and they will probably pick someone who will advance US interests in the region.

Your views on this seem to be based entirely on conspiracy theories:

'The Media is controlled by the government and is misinforming people so we will intervene in Syria.'
'The US wants to prolong violence in Syria for the sheer sake of it.'

Both views are just ridiculous really.

No, my views are based on historical evidence and sound judgment.

And I never said either of the things you said I did. Stop being dishonest.

Yes because allowing Al-Qaeda to train terrorists and take over countries is the way to promote peace.



We didn't start this war, that started with the attacks on September the 11th 2001.

Unless you believe that's a conspiracy as well.

I take it you didn't know that it was the CIA who created, trained, and supported Al-Qaeda in the Afghan conflict with the Soviets.

Do you think the situation could possibly get much worse in Syria? thousands of civilians are already being killed and this will only get worse if we don't intervene.

We don't send military aid to brutal dictatorships, we do supply them sometimes with weapons and economic aid though. Do I agree with that no of course not, but I don't think it makes it unjustifiable to remove a regime when the opportunity presents itself.

What is this... I don't even...

EDIT: And how do you know that it will get worse? The only people making things worse are the US and its allies by precipitating the conflict.

Just because we are arming the rebels doesn't mean we don't want peace, we want Assad to step down and we want the rebels to win so that hopefully a democracy will form.

I think you're right. I think the US wants peace on its terms. Peace any other way is unthinkable and is not "really peace", and that alone justifies bringing the country to civil war and the subsequent toll it will have on innocent human lives.

These human rights abuses are mostly torture allegations against terrorists, spys and prisoners of war. Do I agree with that no I don't, but does the West torture it's own civilians does it kill it's own civilians in mass numbers and does the west oppress it's own people?

You really can't compare the US and western democratic nations with brutal regimes such as Syria.

Right because when we do it, it's ok. How can anybody be so blind and ignorant as to not see the inherent justice of such a principle!