US changes it's stance on Assad

I don't remember there being a speech where he stated this. It has more to do with actions taken.

Here's an article that can help. If you don't like the source, it at least lets one know where else to look.

One can also find stuff under wikileaks.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Regime_change_in_Syria

 

Your ignorance - despite being shown what the situation is - is palpable. And you never back anything you say up with links - like I do.
Your desperation to apologize for support of terrorists is wearing thin and you keep misrepresenting my position (straw man fallacy) so you have something to argue against because you can not deal with the main issues.

I never said that the Sunni majority in Syria switched to being terrorists. What is BS is you continually making straw man arguments.

There are many problems in Syria. One of the problems is that the country has a whole lot of Islamist extremists who hate individual rights and freedoms and want to turn Syria into a Strict Sharia Theocracy. You are correct that Assad is the root of the problem in this respect because he does not want a Strict Sharia Theocracy and allows far more freedoms than other ME countries who have Sharia Law.

This issue has been going on for decades. What turned this already volatile situation into a humanitarian crisis was major nation states giving arms and support to the Islamist Extremists.

 

Don't you think that Putin is in for the long haul?

 

Yet another straw man. Do you have nothing but logical fallacy. It is like every post now that you misrepresent my position so you have something to attack.

You are the one who is apologizing for arming radical Islamists. As said to you previously - the Syrian people did not really like Assad but they hate the rebels far more. Just because the people fighting for Assad do not want nation states arming terrorists in their country, or the terrorists to take over their country and strip them of their freedoms ... does not mean these people are in love with Assad or like the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians are being killed.

Your desperate and your arguments are turning into a fallacious puddle of nonsense.

 

OK so this is all left wing conspiracy theory. Never mind.

 

Bang on ... It is a disgusting precedent on the Global Stage. When other countries do the same we cry foul - what are we to say when they respond "We are just following your lead".

 

So assad is fighting to keep a secular Syria. If the sunni majority do not like a secular state, then he needs to kill out all enemies to a secular state. You do not give in to the sunnis who want to rule over the shia and Christians, in radicalism. At least a sane, reasonable person would not want to replace the only secular muslim nation left with a cancer. Look at what the sunnis have done in the rest of the middle east for god's sake. Your position is just unreasonable, and destructive of secular rule in the middle east.

 

Again, the US recognized Assad as an unacceptable leader of Syria in 2001.

Blaming that on Assad opposing strict Sharia makes no sense. We saw him as unacceptable for very different reasons.

And, your avoidance of those reasons leads you to conclusions that are just plain not acceptable.

 

Hillary has been the weakness of the Hillary dems.

 

No, I've told you several times that I'm not in favor of arming terrorists.

You can back off that accusation when you would like to improve this discussion. It probably confuses some of these posts when I have to keep bringing that up.

The Syrian population will not accept ISIS. BUT, they ARE interested in a revolution - in deposing Assad.

To my ear, you say "rebel" as if that covered all those opposed to Assad.

So far, I haven't seen you distinguish between the majority Sunni population opposed to Assad and the terrorist element that these people are not in a position to remove, due to the ongoing civil war.

 

No, Bush moved against Assad in 2005 - well before there was any significant radical/terrorist movement there.

The planning for that came well before.

Whether Bush decided to make a speech about it is irrelevant.

As noted, there was even congressional activity involved.

 

I don't see evidence that Assad is "fighting to keep a secular state".

The USA does not support the idea of killing those who don't like their leadership. We're in favor of democracy.

ISIS certainly wants a radical version of religious government. But, they are a tiny percent of Sunnis in Syria. Killing ISIS by slaughtering Sunnis is not just immoral - it's absolutely preposterous. There is no chance of that succeeding in any goal in which we have an interest.

 

The only lack that Hillary had was being likeable.

She has been a Republican target since 1992.

I don't believe anyone could remain likeable given that level of assault.

Her policy direction is clearly far superior to anything the right wing had to offer. It would have been hard for Dems to dump such a qualified leader over the issue of being liked.

 

Again, I don't see evidence of Assad fighting to keep a secular state.

Yes, ISIS wants a strict religious rule. But, that doesn't mean it is anywhere near what Sunnis want, let alone the population as a whole.

I suspect you are confusing ISIS with Sunni. The catch with that is that ISIS is a tiny sect and the world of Sunni Islam rejects them as apostates.

 

I should have mentioned that another flaw in this claim is that the Syrian judicial system IS Sharia.

 

Nope. He understands, what pressure on country brings his current position, and age, I think, is taking it's toll on him. I think he'd rather become a minister in next term, than a president. He has lots of political experience, but he is not as vigorous as before. Besides - country needs a smooth transition of presidental seat, so him getting elected on six more years in office practically not just be stretching the constitution and legitimacy to limits, but also his own health. He will be 69 on the elections, out of which he spends 18 on top of government, before that 90th, and before that service in KGB counter-intelligence in East Germany.

I am afraid to think, what amount of pressure this man withstanded. What amount ot hings he might have done, what amount of things he might have NOT done, and yet endlessly accused of. The constant pressure of dealing with all kinds of people, some of whom are totally principless, some are almost crazy, the hatred spilled on him in last several years, the pretty real risk of assasination attempts... Regardless of what kind of person he might be - he certainly has nerves of bulat steel. But even such man can bear that much pressure.

I, even out of just kindness can't push him into bearing this weight for six more years. Whatever he did - he made country stable, he kept it as one, and secured it from collapsing any time soon. He deserves to go in peace, democratically and ceremoniously. He deserves calmer old age, time with family and - what most important - living to see what consequences his decidions for country going to have.


Now, my personal sentiments to man who spent two decades on dog's work, aside - we grew too attached to him. We must move on with our country, seek out new people, capable of administrating it, if needed - reforming the state arministration, looking for a new ways to make distribution of budget more efficient, find ways to develop regions... Putin became like a brand. 'Reforms of Putin', 'Putin's plan', 'Putin's administraton', 'Putin's party', 'Putin's country'. If you slap his name on something - it suddenly becomes something important and reliable. In truth - it does not, We had plenty of times, when "Russia United", who literally had called themselves 'president's party' on last parlamentals, bring in government awful candidates, when they fail or when they are found being corrupted. Yet they keep riding the 'Putin' train and getting credit they don't deserve.

Plenty of people grew used to him, and don't bother much to think of alternatives - while we really should. Not because he's bad, but because we must always know the alternatives, keep our hand on pulse of events and be aware of what happens in world around, AND in our government. Knowing names, actions, opinions. Putin is so reliable, you can call him 'Captain Stability' - and there will be people who seriously agree he deserves such title, without even giggling for a single second. It was his thing, it was what people wanted, it was and is what he gave country - almost a two decades of inner stability. But now we need new blood, new ideas, and a fresh air, if we wish to continue existing.

I am fairly sure, that he knows and understands that, and won't even be presenting himself as candidate on the eletions. He hasn't did it so far, and it's less than half of year until the start of campaigns. I really think he is not going to do it. Not sure who "Russia United" will present as their candidate, but bet they will be fighting for theirs to win with all the vigor they have. Not sure I can be persuaded to vote for anybody presented by them, though. They really disappointed me with who they presented for our parlament.

 

You missed the point. The US publicly opposed secession while in secret it was aiding those countries in their quest for secession.

No, but I was in Iraq in 1991.

You wrongfully assume NATO would be involved, so you can forget about "1,500 jets waiting".

 

It's weird that you don't require any evidence to believe whatever you want.

 

Perfect voter? For the confidence men politicians.

 

Who cares what the US find's unacceptable and what they do not. The US has the worst track record in the world in relation to messing in the business of other nations. Not liking what another country does is not a reason to violate international law by supporting armed insurgency in that nation.

It is not like this is the first time the US has supported genocidal maniacs. It has been the rule over the past 4 decades rather than the exception.

Syria is a new low. Arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra is disgusting and hits a new bottom. This action created the worst humanitarian crisis of the decade 500,000 + killed, created the modern incarnation of ISIS and spawned the massive refugee crisis.

 

And the country becomes another Somalia.

 

You have been desperately apologizing for arming terrorists in Syria this whole argument. In the beginning you were in denial. Then on the basis of the overwhelming evidence provided you tried to switch the argument to the plight of the Sunni's and blamed Assad for the situation in Syria when clearly it was arming the radical Islamists by major nation states.

I stated clearly that many of the people now fighting for Assad opposed Assad ... now you make another misrepresentation by saying the rebels covered all that opposed Assad .. Mr. Strawman.

Then you make another strawman by saying I have not distinguished between Sunni civilians when I have stated clearly that not all Sunni's are Islamist.

Let me know when you manage to come up with something that is not fallacy or misrepresentation.

 

It’s true that the GOP has attacked the Clintons non-stop for decades. But, in truth, the Clintons often brought it on themselves. And, it was far more than just likability that sunk Hillary.

I held my nose and voted for her, but it was the most painful vote I’ve ever cast. And I voted for her only because I believe she’s light years ahead of trump in terms of intelligence. In most ways I find them equally repulsive. And having Bill back in the White House is something I hated to even think about.

Hillary was a horrible campaigner, a lousy speaker (screecher, actually); she seemed distant and unapproachable. She would avoid campaigning for days at a time, but always made it to her fundraisers populated by billionaires. Mostly I feel she’s amazingly arrogant and entitled. She seemed to believe the presidency should be conferred on her, as if it were her due. I saw a televised interview in which she was asked about the election. She said, “Oh, I, will win.” She didn’t say it like a candidate. She said it as though it were preordained by God. This is an attitude I sensed in many of her interviews.

It’s true that she stated some policy ideas, but she’s owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by Wall Street, imo. So why would anyone believe that she cared enough about average Americans to follow through with those policy ideas? trump never had any coherent policy ideas. But he’s so inarticulate, that he usually comes off like a moron, so no one seems to expect much from him. And it never mattered to his supporters, that there’s no there, there.

During the primary, Dems should have gotten a clue when Clinton avoided interviews with the press (what was she hiding?). And the biggest tip-off of all was in plain sight all along: She couldn’t draw flies to her speaking events. Even though Bernie and trump were filling auditoriums with thousands and thousands of attendees, for every event.

There’s a lot more to it, of course, but the bottom line is: Hillary ran twice. She campaigned twice, badly. She wasted tens of millions of dollars in donated funds. She lost twice. She called the shots. She is responsible for her loss. Her, and the corrupt DNC, that she and Billdo ran as if they owned it. In the end, I felt Hillary was not “all there.” As if she were just going through the motions, like a pathetic, sad, robot.

Then there's the huge problem of a lack of trust...

 

That's interesting from your perspective. I see him as an ambitious man wh doesn't want to pass the reins on yet.

 

Except the facts contradict your beliefs. Here...

Shariah is not a synthesis of Ottoman, French, and Islamic law. The shariah that is still practiced in some parts of Syria, is limited to issues of personal status.

So, this is what one might see in a secular state, which protects the rights of its various religious minorities. Radical islam which took over Libya, and would do so in Syria do not protect other religions. They kill them.

Assad looks like a saint compared to his opposition. Syria is the last remaining secular state with majority muslim population. If assad is killed, exiled, the secular state is gone. It will be another Libya. Taking out the only secular states in the middle east was utter irresponsible stupidity, if the interests of the American people is considered. Who does it help in the US? Oil elites. What are they as a percentage of our population? Far less than even one percent. Why would anyone replace a secular leader, and destroy a secular state, which protected its religious minorities, and other minorities? We know who would benefit from assad's removal and the loss of a secular state. And it isn't the American people. And it sure isn't our national security that needs assad removed and a secular state destroyed. Would the Saudis benefit? Yes. Would the shariah law sunnis benefit? Sure. Israel? Yep. Would our oil elites like the Bush family benefit? Yes. But would the people of Syria benefit? Only the sunnis. What about the sunni Qatar? Yep, for they want a pipe line across Syria to pump their oil into Europe, hurting Russia. Who benefits from Qatar running their pipeline? Besides Qatar? Western oil elites. Syria stands in the way of western elites and making more money. Everything trumps assad and a secular state. Syria could chop off half their population heads, and they would not care, nor the US. As long as that pipe line is built across Syria. This is not my belief, as you have a belief. This is simple reality independent of any personal belief. Is it worth taking assad out and destroying the last arab secular state? So a few western oil men can get richer? Not in my universe it isn't.

It is none of my business, or your business, or the business of the US to insert ourselves, breaking international law, to help out a few rich elites. But they are thankful for people like you, but don't expect them to think any better of you. You are still unwashed dirty rabble, not worthy to step inside their homes, and in private they joke about how stupid our kind are, to support them in their profits, placing that above a secular nation in the middle east which protects all religions from those who would kill them for believing in the wrong religion. Profits are far more important than protecting religious and other minorities from slaughter and head removal. War is the racket of our elites. Which people like you and I die for. The highest decorated officer in history told you that long before you were born. You could not care less. ha ha ha