On February 08 2012 03:06 hypercube wrote: Maniac, you are misidentifying the main question. The interesting point is whether intervening would make things worse or better. Some are saying that based on the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and a lesser extent Lybia, things could get much worse.
How exactly could it get worse?
If you can't answer that question yourself then you aren't looking at the situation objectively.
Noone is discussing military intervention at an international level, as you are implying. It was a simple UN-resolution condemning Assad and calling on him to step down, because you lose all legitimacy if you kill about a 100 of your civilians in a one-sided slaughter on a near daily basis.
I'm with you that a military intervention might not be the best solution at the moment, but what exactly is the problem with a (almost pointless) resolution? I can't see how you can defend China/Russia blocking it. Assad should not be in control of Syria anymore.
I wasn't implying anything. Maniac posted something about ignoring national sovereignty. I said that many would agree but you still have to make sure your interference had a mostly positive effect. Zalz's suggestion that any kind of interference against Assad is bound to be positive is ludicrous.
I'm not really supporting Russia's veto. I suspect a UNSC resolution that doesn't threaten force would be useless though. Assad made his decision to try to cling to power at any cost and he seems to have enough support to ensure that baring foreign intervention.
The legitimacy argument is a non-sequitur. Assad didn't have legitimacy in the first place because he wasn't elected in free and fair elections. Can you have less legitimacy than none at all? Maybe, but I don't see how this matters.
On February 08 2012 03:06 hypercube wrote: Maniac, you are misidentifying the main question. The interesting point is whether intervening would make things worse or better. Some are saying that based on the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and a lesser extent Lybia, things could get much worse.
How exactly could it get worse?
If you can't answer that question yourself then you aren't looking at the situation objectively.
Did you even look at the UN resolution that got vetoed?
On February 08 2012 05:44 hypercube wrote: I wasn't implying anything. Maniac posted something about ignoring national sovereignty. I said that many would agree but you still have to make sure your interference had a mostly positive effect. Zalz's suggestion that any kind of interference against Assad is bound to be positive is ludicrous.
I'm not really supporting Russia's veto. I suspect a UNSC resolution that doesn't threaten force would be useless though. Assad made his decision to try to cling to power at any cost and he seems to have enough support to ensure that baring foreign intervention.
The legitimacy argument is a non-sequitur. Assad didn't have legitimacy in the first place because he wasn't elected in free and fair elections. Can you have less legitimacy than none at all? Maybe, but I don't see how this matters.
Legitimacy doesn't need free and fair elections. All you need to be Legitimate is the ability to control the territory. ie Bejing is the "Legitimate" government of China, even though it has neither free nor fair elections, because what Bejing says, generally goes.
That means if I want to deal with people/stuff in on mainland China, I talk to Bejing.
If the international community decides Assad is illegitimate, then they start talking to someone else when they want to do stuff in Syria. (causing Assad to further lose power over Syria)
So a resolution that specifically prohibited the use of force by other nations would be weak... but not Totally useless.
On February 08 2012 03:06 hypercube wrote: Maniac, you are misidentifying the main question. The interesting point is whether intervening would make things worse or better. Some are saying that based on the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and a lesser extent Lybia, things could get much worse.
How exactly could it get worse?
I also like to know how Iraq could possibly get any worse then it was under Saddam. Even if it becomes a dictatorship again, it would still be a long way off from Saddam's Iraq.
In Syria the government is firing on it's own people.
I am not entirely sure how it can get much worse unless they improve their aim.
There's a strong argument that the sectarian in-fighting would be worse in a Syria without anyone on top than it has been in Iraq. But you're right, Assad is basically looking to completely eliminate the uprising and he's done it in the past. Then again, so had Saddam but it wasn't an immediate issue when we entered. But that's neither here nor there.
It would basically be a humanitarian intervention at the moment, as it's an extremely one sided civil war. The Libya experience isn't quite so relevant, because the battle was not as uneven and Libya was not as well armed. The Syrian military would back down very quickly against a NATO/Turkey/US led opposition and probably without much bloodshed but there's a very legitimate question of how long it would last, especially as more and more weapons are flooding to the rebels each day. The weapons aren't enough to combat tanks, but it is enough to destroy a peace agreement.
Russia's case against it is mostly for its own defense, but I don't see how their solution or a non-forced appeasement can possibly happen. It's just a matter of time before the West decides it can't wait any longer, and then you've got a new clusterfuck. It'd be nice if the US refrains from leading it this time, though.
On February 08 2012 03:06 hypercube wrote: Maniac, you are misidentifying the main question. The interesting point is whether intervening would make things worse or better. Some are saying that based on the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and a lesser extent Lybia, things could get much worse.
How exactly could it get worse?
I also like to know how Iraq could possibly get any worse then it was under Saddam. Even if it becomes a dictatorship again, it would still be a long way off from Saddam's Iraq.
In Syria the government is firing on it's own people.
I am not entirely sure how it can get much worse unless they improve their aim.
There's a strong argument that the sectarian in-fighting would be worse in a Syria without anyone on top than it has been in Iraq. But you're right, Assad is basically looking to completely eliminate the uprising and he's done it in the past.
Sectarian violence from paramilitaries like the Free Syrian Army are starting to account for a lot of civillian casualties, bombing trains, gas pipelines, and buildings. The report from the Arab League mission head report that Assad's government has released thousands of political prisoners and withdrawn tanks from major cities. That said, Assad is still a brutal dictator who opened fire on protesters and whose security forces regularly engaged in torture and other human rights violations. But the violence in Syria right now makes it uncertain who will step into power and how, if the Assad government falls.
But Zalz, that party you call nazi isn't even in power in Syria. It's very clear we see this from opposite perspectives.
You and the rest are advocating for fake democracy and fake freedom! You think Syria's going to instantly turn into a democracy after Assad's gone? Democracy isn't just about elections and choosing who to be president, it's a whole damn culture that we should stop trying to force it down someone else's throats. Your style of democracy doesn't fit everywhere.
Supporting freedom fighters in your opinion must mean to support foreign intervention, which i don't. I don't support wars. Would i have supported foreign intervention in Rwanda's case? Yes i would totally have!
Do i support the stop of violence between opponents and assad's side? Yes i do. I don't want this to turn into a civil war but i don't want a foreign war on Syria to bring one of the sides in power.
What can go wrong? See Libya... the western intervention only put islamists in power who will guide after Sharia's law. I view this as a step backwards from Gaddafi. Have there been democratic elections in Libya so far? Do you remember about the killings of black people after NTC came to power?
On February 08 2012 19:02 Pika Chu wrote: But Zalz, that party you call nazi isn't even in power in Syria. It's very clear we see this from opposite perspectives.
You and the rest are advocating for fake democracy and fake freedom! You think Syria's going to instantly turn into a democracy after Assad's gone? Democracy isn't just about elections and choosing who to be president, it's a whole damn culture that we should stop trying to force it down someone else's throats. Your style of democracy doesn't fit everywhere.
Supporting freedom fighters in your opinion must mean to support foreign intervention, which i don't. I don't support wars. Would i have supported foreign intervention in Rwanda's case? Yes i would totally have!
Do i support the stop of violence between opponents and assad's side? Yes i do. I don't want this to turn into a civil war but i don't want a foreign war on Syria to bring one of the sides in power.
What can go wrong? See Libya... the western intervention only put islamists in power who will guide after Sharia's law. I view this as a step backwards from Gaddafi. Have there been democratic elections in Libya so far? Do you remember about the killings of black people after NTC came to power?
Also I was reading a couple of days ago about the withdrawl of many NGO's from Libya on account of the continued torture of prisioners by the NTC. Libya is in a state of disarray and on the brink of civil war.
On February 08 2012 19:02 Pika Chu wrote:You and the rest are advocating for fake democracy and fake freedom! You think Syria's going to instantly turn into a democracy after Assad's gone? Democracy isn't just about elections and choosing who to be president, it's a whole damn culture that we should stop trying to force it down someone else's throats. Your style of democracy doesn't fit everywhere.
Fake democracy? Fake freedom? Point out where I ever called for anything.
Also, I won't even entertain the notion that "Arab's can't handle democracy."
There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
If a people want a certain course of action then they can vote for it. If they don't want to vote for it, then why should a dictator force it on them?
I won't stand for any "Ooh well, they are Arabs, they don't know any better, they need someone to tell them what to do."
Supporting freedom fighters in your opinion must mean to support foreign intervention, which i don't. I don't support wars. Would i have supported foreign intervention in Rwanda's case? Yes i would totally have!
No you wouldn't. During the Rwanda case there would be the same nonesense about how "its an internal conflict," and you would have the same position as you do on Syria.
The only reason you say differently is because we know what inaction in Rwanda led to and you need to be a psychopath to argue that we should not have intervened. But the truth is that during the event itself, you would most likely be advocating the same inaction.
Do i support the stop of violence between opponents and assad's side? Yes i do. I don't want this to turn into a civil war but i don't want a foreign war on Syria to bring one of the sides in power.
The UN resolution called for a stop to the violence. It would have done exactly that.
Russia simply wanted to keep their friend Assad in power. The violence has only grown worse, and that is the course of action you have ended up supporting.
What can go wrong? See Libya... the western intervention only put islamists in power who will guide after Sharia's law. I view this as a step backwards from Gaddafi. Have there been democratic elections in Libya so far? Do you remember about the killings of black people after NTC came to power?
A step backwards from Gaddaffi.
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
Also I was reading a couple of days ago about the withdrawl of many NGO's from Libya on account of the continued torture of prisioners by the NTC. Libya is in a state of disarray and on the brink of civil war.
I like this phrase "On the brink of civil war."
It lets you suggest the worst of the worst, but if people ask for evidence, you can just say it's "on the brink." When eventually there is no civil war, you just say "well I said on the brink, clearly they dodged a bullet."
You can predict the worst and already dig in for when you turn out to be incredibly wrong. The ultimate hollow argument.
A quick scan through Youtube videos that people somehow manage to upload shows you what the situation really is. Idlib, Hama and especially Homs are being shelled relentlessly and obviously civilians are the ones paying the price.
It would be foolish to think that the West wants to intervene to 'save' civilians, but it would be even so more to think that Russians are trying to look at the situation objectively (don't forget they have a naval base in ?Latakia?). Every one thinks for their own's interest.
Leaving Assad in power would just strengthen his dynasty and by removing him you could open Pandora's box because of all those possibilities regarding sectarian clashes and so on. So what's the solution? If you don't do anything, Assad remains in power, Russia still has its ally and you have 'few' massacres here and there. If you intervene you could trigger WW3. Both ways civilians die. Now you could say that better let few thousands people slaughtered than risk war on a world scale, but how would you feel if your whole family was slaughtered?
That's the harsh reality about politics. Either decision will have tremendous consequences and solving this politically has grim chances for success. What do you think?
On February 08 2012 22:30 zalz wrote: There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
A step backwards from Gaddaffi.
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
On February 10 2012 23:31 3Form wrote:Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
It is very simple. A true democracy is one in which:
1) The votes are honestly counted and there is so little counting corruption that you can honestly say that the will of the people has been expressed.
2) The ellected officials have actual power.
3) The people are allowed to hear and express all opinions. If certain thoughts are not permitted (socialist ideas for example) than the people never had all the facts needed to make up their mind.
4) Free press that can report honestly on the actions of the government, this mostly ties back into 3.
People need to have a decent view on what reality is like and then they need the ability to vote and influence the course of these events.
So yes, of course the west is a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
If a dictator is doing the will of the people then why do you need a dictatorship? Elections would have the same result, except that people could actually oust the dictator if he goes off the rails.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
What gives me the right to impose what i perceive to be correct upon other people?
I simply state the baseline that needs to exist in every nation in the world. From there, people can do as they see fit. The only thing that matters is that the people have control over their own nation, because it is their nation. And only a real democracy can achieve that.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
Ah, the age old argument that because Gaddaffi provided healthcare and education, he can in turn have political dissidents hanged in public and hunted by assasination teams.
Are you honestly suggesting that every Libyan that was born, was the property of the state from birth? Not allowed to ever speak his own mind? Not even when he runs away from Libya?
And for what? An education? Some healthcare? That seems like a cheap price for ownership over human lives. Not to mention he paid for all of it by stealing the oil that never belonged to him to begin with,
Sweden provides healthcare and education. If the main Swedish political party began to execute dissidents in public, would you honestly argue that the Swedish people need to suck it up because they are getting free healthcare?
On February 08 2012 22:30 zalz wrote: There are two things that every society must eventually get to. Freedom of speech and democracy. True democracy cannot exist without free speech, so the two are connected at the hip.
Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted. A country belongs to its people and the people decide its course. Its not up for negotiations either. All dictators will be put to death in the end.
Come on man, you seem to be intelligent - stop being so naive. Define a "True democracy" please. Which Western democracies are really examples of shining beacons of populist rule? Representation by an oligarchic political caste is hardly a democracy.
Dictators as well, you use the word as if it has some sort of evil significance, as if all dictators are brutal and oppressive. Stop twisting words. Should a dictator be put to death if he has the backing of the people to which the country belongs? Case in point being Hugo Chavez.
What gives you the right to impose what you perceive to be correct upon other people? "Democracy is the only system of government that can be permitted." What on earth do you have up your backside? Your own head? I'd rather have a "benevolent dictator" than the system you call "Democracy".
I suggest you go and read some documentation on the human rights violations under Gaddaffi. But do it before you have lunch. Wouldn't want you to throw up.
Even if the regime now in Libya was just as bad as under Gaddaffi, it would still be better because at least people can flee that regime. They couldn't flee Gaddaffi. Gaddaffi was well known for employing assasins to hunt down refugee Libyans, especially the more vocal ones.
I thought it was a well established fact that under Gadaffi Libya had the highest life expectancy, lowest child mortality rates and highest literacy rates in all of Africa. GJ bombing that back to the stone age. Oh wait, Libya wasn't within the Western Sphere, so the moment a valid casus belli appears our countries jumped on it. Just like Syria. Funny how countries that are already firmly in the Western Sphere get a virtually free rein to do what they want, as long as the oil keeps flowing. That's if you even consider a "humanitarian war" a just war.
The revolts started with protests and native revolutions in Arab countries. Civil war started in Libya long before the West got involved, and the Middle East's citizens clearly support the pro-Democracy movements. Syria is not Iraq.
The Arab League will ask the United Nations to form a joint peacekeeping force and appoint a special Arab envoy to try to halt the violence in Syria, members have agreed.
Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo on Sunday also decided to halt all diplomatic dealings with representatives of the Syrian government, though they did not demand the expulsion of Syrian ambassadors from member states.
The new efforts came a week after Russia and China vetoed a resolution at the UN Security Council that would have supported an earlier Arab League plan for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power and begin a transition to a new government.
But Nabil el-Arabi, the league's chairman, said he had received a message from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that expressed support for the league's efforts and an expanded "observer" mission. Lavrov earlier defended Russia's veto and subsequently visited with Assad in Damascus.
The league suspended an observer mission in Syria last month, and on Sunday Arabi accepted the resignation of Sudanese General Mohammed al-Dabi, who led the troubled mission. Arabi recommended appointing former Jordanian foreign minister and UN envoy to Libya Abdel Ilah al-Khatib as Dabi's replacement.
Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh, reporting from Cairo, said the request for a peacekeeping force raised a number of questions, including whether Syria would agree and which Arab countries might contribute troops.
According to the Dubai-based Al Arabiya television station, Syria rejected the new plan on Sunday night.
The United Nations has historically deployed armed peacekeepers only with the host country's consent.
BEIRUT -- Syrian rebels repelled a push Monday by government tanks into a central town held by forces fighting President Bashar Assad's regime in an 11-month conflict that looks increasingly like a civil war.
The military pressed its offensive on Rastan a day after the regime rejected Arab League calls for the U.N. to create a peacekeeping force in Syria and for an end to the violent crackdown on dissent. Damascus called the League initiative "a flagrant interference in (Syria's) internal affairs and an infringement upon national sovereignty."
With diplomatic efforts bogged down, the conflict is taking on the dimensions of a civil war, with army defectors clashing almost daily with soldiers. The rebels have taken control of small swathes of territory in central Homs province, where Rastan is located, and the northwestern province of Idlib, which borders Turkey.
The Britain-based activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least three government soldiers were killed in the attempt to storm Rastan, which has been held by the rebels since late January.
"Troops maneuvered by moving on the northern edge of town, then other forces attacked from the south," said Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Observatory. He said hundreds of army defectors were in control of Rastan.
Rastan, home to some 50,000 people, was one of the first areas in Syria where people took up arms to fight the regime.
As you may already know, islamists have a big role in the Arab spring. They were suppressed by previous regimes, but now got green light to come to power, having support of the West and Middle East monarchies.
And now the leader of Al-Qaeda has voiced his support for the Syrian uprising. He called on Muslims to join the opposition in Syria in their drive to oust President Bashar Assad. In an eight-minute video address posted on Sunday on a jihadist website, Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to aid the Syrian rebels.
On February 14 2012 20:32 GeyzeR wrote: As you may already know, islamists have a big role in the Arab spring. They were suppressed by previous regimes, but now got green light to come to power, having support of the West and Middle East monarchies.
And now the leader of Al-Qaeda has voiced his support for the Syrian uprising. He called on Muslims to join the opposition in Syria in their drive to oust President Bashar Assad. In an eight-minute video address posted on Sunday on a jihadist website, Ayman al-Zawahri called on Muslims in Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan to aid the Syrian rebels.
These islamist groups are generally the only forces that exist that are openly anti-government.
These totalitarian regimes are the cause behind these islamist movements having so much support. It is an easy thing to rally around. You can't outlaw the friday prayer, but you can outlaw a socialist gathering.
If these countries actually had open democracies, the people might not be forced to turn to islamists as their only way to resist their governments.
These totalitarian governments aren't the cure against these islamist groups, they are the cause behind their popularity.
EPT
