Game Over for Assad

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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

First thing, I partly agree with you I do not think the US government is very itnerested in democracy in Syria, or anywhere in the Middle East.

I got several.

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

What did the Bolsheviks have to do with democracy?

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.

OK please, "elected" is not the same as democratic, if any government in the US tried the same measures as people like Mosadeqq in Iran, Allende in Chile or the sandinistas, you would be rightfully outraged.

These were demagogic governments taking advamtage of poor, desperate and poorly educated populations, to monopolize state power for their regimes. By confiscating private property, redrawing electoral lines, fixing elections, censoring the media, making thuggish bands outside the army/police to enforce their will, etc. This is why they pissed off so many people in their country, making the coup possible. See the big protests against Mosaddeq or Allende by a wide part of the society, just before these military coup's.

I do not support military coup against them and I am not defending the US actions, which of course were usually short-sighted and only serving immediate economic interests. But those governments were not "democratic".

Originally Posted by Catenaccio

What did the Bolsheviks have to do with democracy?

Well, what did the Russian Czar have to do with democracy?

As for the Bolsheviks, they were a democratic movement.

OK please, "elected" is not the same as democratic, if any government in the US tried the same measures as people like Mosadeqq in Iran, Allende in Chile or the sandinistas, you would be rightfully outraged.

These were demagogic governments taking advamtage of poor, desperate and poorly educated populations, to monopolize state power for their regimes. By confiscating private property, redrawing electoral lines, fixing elections, censoring the media, making thuggish bands outside the army/police to enforce their will, etc. This is why they pissed off so many people in their country, making the coup possible. See the big protests against Mosaddeq or Allende by a wide part of the society, just before these military coup's.

I do not support military coup against them and I am not defending the US actions, which of course were usually short-sighted and only serving immediate economic interests. But those governments were not "democratic".

Well, what's your point. Were the US supported regimes that followed somehow better or more democratic?

Of course there were corrupt practices under these democratic governments. But that doesn't mean they weren't democratic. The US used to restrict the vote to land-owning white males and enslaved a large portion of its population. Was it not a democracy?

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

As for the Bolsheviks, they were a democratic movement.

OK I thought you were genuinely concerned about democracy and then I read this. It tells me everything I need to know.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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

Well there is no 'proof' that the US is interested in establishing democracy in Syria.

There is no reason though as to why the US would not be interested in establishing democracy in Syria. The reasons I gave is that I thought it would likely benefit the US and the west to have another democratic ally in the middle east.

You have claimed also that the US would be interested in preventing democracy in Syria or prolonging the violence and didn't really give any evidence, and the fact they are training the FSA isn't evidence of them wanting to prolong violence or prevent the country from becoming a democracy.

That said though I don't believe that establishing a democracy in Syria is the only motive the US might have for military intervention and may not even be there main motivation. I already mentioned that earlier.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

Just because a government is democratically elected doesn't make it a democracy, it has to act like a democracy once elected.

In a lot of those cases it seems the motivation for intervening was to prevent a communist government coming to power.

There does seem to be a rather large degree of imperialism involved though and I don't really agree with what the US did.

I'll put my hands up and say also that I don't really know very much about these conflicts and regime changes, partially why I asked you to give an example of a country that was fully a democratic country before until the US removed them from power and a dictatorship took control.

Most of this all happened a while ago anyhow our policies could have changed now, especially when we have seen how military intervention worked in Libya it's an example of how it could work in future instead of supporting the regimes.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

Ok fine fighting and war isn't peace but it can bring about peace by removing the 'bad guy' especially when it becomes the only option as in the case of Syria.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

Well that could happen, I agree with you in fact it's probably likely that another dictator would come to power although maybe not, and the Syrian people aren't going to accept another dictatorship they are going to keep working towards democracy granted it could take years and there could be a lot more fighting.

The present regime though needs to go because it at least gives the chance for some good change to happen and because it is the only way to get the killing of civilians to stop and try to bring back some stability to the country.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

You didn't directly state that but in some places seems like you are implying it:

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".

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.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

I did in fact know that, there motivation was to get them to fight against the soviet union, I don't really agree with what they did.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

It's hardly going to get any better with Assad still in charge.

What you said is just opinion as well.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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.

Russia also wants peace on it's terms. Both countries want peace though it's in both nations interests that the country is stabilised for Russia because of trade reasons and because they have a naval base there for America, because it prevents Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

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!

We don't do what the Syrian regime does though massacring and torturing our own people also we have a democratic government in place Syria does not. The US and western nations are not regimes. Yes maybe we do have human rights abuses although this is not against our own people and I never said I agreed with it either.

Originally Posted by Psychosmurf

Of course there were corrupt practices under these democratic governments. But that doesn't mean they weren't democratic. The US used to restrict the vote to land-owning white males and enslaved a large portion of its population. Was it not a democracy?

If there were corrupt practices then no they were not truly democratic.

Neither was the US a true democratic nation when it did not have universal suffrage for males and females rich and poor and when it enslaved it's own people.

Originally Posted by Raain

Well there is no 'proof' that the US is interested in establishing democracy in Syria.

Is there no evidence either? If there is, then present it. And if not, don't believe it.

There is no reason though as to why the US would not be interested in establishing democracy in Syria. The reasons I gave is that I thought it would likely benefit the US and the west to have another democratic ally in the middle east.

The same could be said of many cases of US interventionism, but most of them did not end up democratic.

You have claimed also that the US would be interested in preventing democracy in Syria or prolonging the violence and didn't really give any evidence, and the fact they are training the FSA isn't evidence of them wanting to prolong violence or prevent the country from becoming a democracy.

I gave plenty of evidence. There are numerous examples where US intervention resulted in the formation or perpetuation of decidedly undemocratic governments. The fact that the West has been training the FSA in and of itself is not evidence that they are preventing the country from becoming a democracy, granted. However, I did not say that I considered that fact to support the hypothesis that they are trying to prevent democracy.

But I did say that they were arming the FSA in order to facilitate violence. And the fact is evidence for the hypothesis.

If it is, as you believe, the case that arming them is not evidence of their intentions to bring about civil war, then would it be the case that not arming the rebels is evidence of their intentions to bring about civil war?

Just because a government is democratically elected doesn't make it a democracy, it has to act like a democracy once elected.

In a lot of those cases it seems the motivation for intervening was to prevent a communist government coming to power.

There does seem to be a rather large degree of imperialism involved though and I don't really agree with what the US did.

Now you're just moving the goalposts. The issue of whether or not these states were "really democracies" is irrelevant. The issue is were these states more or less democratic after US intervention. And I think that all of these cases are perfect examples where the states became significantly less democratic.

I'll put my hands up and say also that I don't really know very much about these conflicts and regime changes, partially why I asked you to give an example of a country that was fully a democratic country before until the US removed them from power and a dictatorship took control.

There's a reason you won't find any examples where the US has toppled a strong democracy, and why it only seems to bully weak ones. Consider what it would take, for example, to bring down the government of France as opposed to the government of the Dominican Republic. A military operation to depose the French government would be met with an extreme amount of opposition from the French government and military given that France is very wealthy and has the resources with which to put up a real fight. The Dominican Republic was nothing like that.

Most of this all happened a while ago anyhow our policies could have changed now, especially when we have seen how military intervention worked in Libya it's an example of how it could work in future instead of supporting the regimes.

The possibility that our policies could have changed does not mean that our policies indeed have changed. You're just trying to rationalize away disconfirming evidence.

Ok fine fighting and war isn't peace but it can bring about peace by removing the 'bad guy' especially when it becomes the only option as in the case of Syria.

Why is removing Assad "the only option"? The only option for what? Peace?

Well that could happen, I agree with you in fact it's probably likely that another dictator would come to power although maybe not, and the Syrian people aren't going to accept another dictatorship they are going to keep working towards democracy granted it could take years and there could be a lot more fighting.

The present regime though needs to go because it at least gives the chance for some good change to happen and because it is the only way to get the killing of civilians to stop and try to bring back some stability to the country.

You assume that the Syrian people aren't working towards democracy.

You also seem to think that the most likely outcome is just another dictatorship. I agree with that, but you forgot to take into account the fact that Syria will have a dictatorship and a war, and economic ruin along with it. How this is better than the current state of just dictatorship, I don't know.

You didn't directly state that but in some places seems like you are implying it:

I do believe that media coverage is biased towards US interests, but I never said that the media is under the direct control of the US government nor that the US is seeking violence for the sake of violence.

I did in fact know that, there motivation was to get them to fight against the soviet union, I don't really agree with what they did.

The question was how best to promote peace abroad, and you argued that non-interventionism would allow Al-Qaeda to attack us and destroy other countries. I was pointing out that it was precisely US interventionism that is responsible for Al-Qaeda's existence in the first place.

It's hardly going to get any better with Assad still in charge.

What you said is just opinion as well.

I never said that things will get in better with Assad still in charge, just that Syria at war with itself would be much worse.

Russia also wants peace on it's terms. Both countries want peace though it's in both nations interests that the country is stabilised for Russia because of trade reasons and because they have a naval base there for America, because it prevents Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold.

You're missing my point. I was trying to say that the US is interested in peace only when peace serves its interests.

We don't do what the Syrian regime does though massacring and torturing our own people also we have a democratic government in place Syria does not. The US and western nations are not regimes. Yes maybe we do have human rights abuses although this is not against our own people and I never said I agreed with it either.

If Syria was a democracy that perpetrated crimes against humanity in the US instead of on its own population, would that be acceptable?

If there were corrupt practices then no they were not truly democratic.

Neither was the US a true democratic nation when it did not have universal suffrage for males and females rich and poor and when it enslaved it's own people.

Again, a non-issue. See above.