posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Trajan
Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
So Assad has done a speech condeming the Civil War? He caalls opponents of his regieme terrorists? Can Assad then please explain how innocent
civilians peacefully protesting be classed as terrorists? Can he please explain how children he has killed via his army be called terrorists? Does he
shed a single tear for them? I think not!
One has to ask WHY he is making this "speech" now? Is it because the rebels are closing in on him and he is feeling threatened? If Assad truly
wanted peace he would open up dialogue with the opposition and form a coalition government of national unity. Not exclude them out altogether. Sure
there are some Al Quidea terrorists inside Syria, of that I have no doubt. But frankly Assad brought this on himself. He could have prevented all of
this by listening to his people in the first place and be prepared to be pragmatic and allow reforms to take place. It would have saved 60,000 lives.
Quite frankly Assad has lost any claims to legitimacy. He needs to go now and be replaced by someone more willing to come to a political settlement
with ALL parties. Assad himself should be preparing himself for a trial and a long stint in prison. And that is being let of lightly. I am sure there
are others who would gladly take him out and have him shot.
You do realize that Assad has called for dialogue between his regime and opposition for quite a while now, and that it was/is the opposition who
refuse, don't you?
Also, all parties aren't going to be involved in any U.S.-approved Government. Remember Libya and Gaddafi?
Libya has descended into tribal warfare and power struggles ever since Gaddafi had been toppled... Go Democracy?
Assad called for dialogue only after he realized that the apposing forces might just win. By then why would the rebels want to negotiate when they now
have a chance to do it their way on their own terms?
I agree with the rest of your post.
Situations like this is where some people say the U.S. should stay out of others' business. But looking at it from the U.S. government perspective
why not take advantage of an opportunity to turn the tables to your advantage if it can be done without stirring the pot too much?
Don't get me wrong if I was in charge I wouldn't kill women or children on purpose in the process but I can't say that I wouldn't put a few cooks
in the kitchen.
This is what many countries are doing in Syria. And if those countries didn't go in there covertly like they did then Assad likely would have long
smashed the resistance by now. Those governments that have their guys in there might not know full well each others objectives but they know where
each other are and are staying out of each others way. Also, it is likely that some of their objectives are one and the same i.g. topple the Assad
regime. And, it is likely that some of these are working together in these covert operations.
And in the end it is those governments (US, SA, UK, France and Turkey) that will be the leaders of much of the opposition forces and are now in a good
position to negotiate advantages to their respective governments.
This is the way it works, no country would be left alone to have their own civil war among themselves, even if the U.S.A. went into civil war say
because the government passed a law that banned guns other governments would get involved in hopes that they could turn the tides to their
This is the way it is. All that we can do is try to control our own government as much as we can by way of voting, petitioning, protesting or whatever
means. Other than that speaking from an American perspective we have limited control over what our government does and we don't always agree with our
governments policies, but all we can do is all we can do and the actions of our government is largely out of our hands. The U.S. government is going
to reach as far as they can within the boundaries set forth by the laws enacted by the people and THEN go a kilometer further.