President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

K-9

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You answer your own point. He'll put on a show, deport a few people, build a few miles of wall, pump sone money into border security and declare job done. And his supporters will also declare 'job done'.

They'll be distracted by whatever crisis and wedge issues of the day.

The last 18 months of trying to hold him to his statements was a complete joke. He won't be any more accountable to his campaign rhetoric as president.

The same people who hate Obama care will love 'Trump Care' once he fiddles without a bit.

I don't think you can just disappear the wall stuff. As long as there are too many immigrants and too much crime, it will always be an issue.

hatrickpatrick

Stealthfins wrote: »

Was Assad attacking yazidis,christians,sunni,sufi,shia and bahi people ?

Was he not provoked by rebels.

You're only getting one side Of The story.

He was an undemocratic dictator who used lethal force against initially peaceful protesters.

I find it rather disturbing how many people here are willing to defend dictatorships just because the only current alternative is worse. It's ok to regard them both as utter scum. Anybody who clings to power and forcefully suppresses public dissent should be condemned, regardless of the wider circumstances.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

I don't think you can just disappear the wall stuff. As long as there are too many immigrants and too much crime, it will always be an issue.

If sexual assault and racism aren't an issue, what on earth makes you think piddling campaign rhetoric will be a problem for him?

Stealthfins

alastair wrote:

Assad was oppressing all Syrians. He wasn't 'provoked by rebels' - he was 'provoked' by widespread dissent by Syrians in the face of a tanking society, and a police state that was dissapearing, torturing, and killing entirely legitimate protesters. Just because ISIS are responsible for well known atrocities doesn't make Assad any sort of good option.

OK how did Assad start oppressing all Syrian's.

Did he make a public statement,saying you're all going to be opressed ?

Show me the proof how he opressed Christian's and yazidis,and no spin please.
If you can prove it I'll change my mind.

Earthhorse

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was up against someone with a track record in politics. The people wanted Trump.

I'm not disputing that he won the election!

He doesn't have public service experience but I'd argue that his entire career has been politics.

I know you would but his career has been in real estate, reality TV and licensing.

Are we talking about whether he'll do what he said in the campaign and build a 1,000 foot wall, ban all Muslims until 'we figure it out' or whether he'll be popular and get reelected? He won't bother with the former and he'll smash the latter.

I'm talking about wherever he'll do anything on climate change, pursue more isolationist policies etc. I wouldn't be so confident that he'll maintain his popularity; there are far too many variables. We'll see.

How higher your expectations in the primaries? How high were your expectations in the general election? And how high are your expectations now?

If you're talking about my expectations of Trump's popularity; when he was half way through the primaries I knew he was going to be their nominee and I was never confident of Clinton winning. But governing is different to campaigning and Trump himself is unpredictable. We likely won't see any meaningful change in his poularity for the first two years no matter what he does.

KingBrian2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So disenfranchised are some of those who voted for him, if he achieves 30% of what they wanted they will give him a pass.

Congress had a very low approval rating before this election. They were getting nothing done. Glenn Beck led a Tea Party march on Washington. This time it could be different I don't see the Democrats winning the mid term elections next time and even if they should today's Republicans might act sooner than the Democrats did when they got into office with President Obama. A lot of those Democrats got in on the coattails of Obama and unlike the Trump Republicans they had nothing in common with him.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He was an undemocratic dictator who used lethal force against initially peaceful protesters.

I find it rather disturbing how many people here are willing to defend dictatorships just because the only current alternative is worse. It's ok to regard them both as utter scum. Anybody who clings to power and forcefully suppresses public dissent should be condemned, regardless of the wider circumstances.

But that's not true. You taking the narrative of the spin doctors. President Assad was a secular leader and his actions did not merit an attack on the country. President Obama himself was against attacking Syria despite his red line speech. What Assad did do was perfectly reasonable he defended his country from foreign terrorists most of whom came in through Iraq and Turkey. These are the facts. Their were not peaceful protestors in Syria. Their were Islamists looking for a fight on the street.

Dohnjoe

Stealthfins wrote: »

OK how did Assad start oppressing all Syrian's.

Fixed/rigged elections only. Extension of emergency powers (since '63). Non-aligned political opposition outlawed and oppressed. Harsh limitations on press freedom, freedom of speech, association, assembly. Severe human rights abuses record, including arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances

During and after the civil uprising in 2011, anyone protesting the regime, regardless or race/religion was considered an enemy or "terrorist". The subsequent violence is well documented.. in fact everything is well documented

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fixed/rigged elections only. Extension of emergency powers (since '63). Non-aligned political opposition outlawed and oppressed. Harsh limitations on press freedom, freedom of speech, association, assembly. Severe human rights abuses record, including arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances

During and after the civil uprising in 2011, anyone protesting the regime, regardless or race/religion was considered an enemy or "terrorist". The subsequent violence is well documented.. in fact everything is well documented

Your forgetting your applying different standards to Syria that you apply to every other country when they are at war. Syria was being attacked by the US. It is well documented that the US supplied arms to the Free Syrian Army so Syria was in a state of war against US forces. Emergency legislation is the result of being in a war.

People get arrested during wartimes. Martial law is imposed and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood like it or not was pronouncing a Jihad in Syria. So Assad was fighting a war against Islamic terrorists within the country and the actions of the US gvt. I pose this question to anyone on this topic. Was not the US in a state of war against the Syrian Arab Republic at this time? The US had just invaded Iraq and moves were coming from Israel to attack Syria.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your forgetting your applying different standards to Syria that you apply to every other country when they are at war. Syria was being attacked by the US. It is well documented that the US supplied arms to the Free Syrian Army so Syria was in a state of war against US forces. Emergency legislation is the result of being in a war.

People get arrested during wartimes. Martial law is imposed and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood like it or not was pronouncing a Jihad in Syria. So Assad was fighting a war against Islamic terrorists within the country and the actions of the US gvt. I pose this question to anyone on this topic. Was not the US in a state of war against the Syrian Arab Republic at this time? The US had just invaded Iraq and moves were coming from Israel to attack Syria.

There was a civil war in Syria before anyone else got involved. Assad lost any legitimacy to govern once he started murdering people on the street. The FSA are at war with the dictatorship of Assad. That doesn't mean Syria (which had no agreed governance at present) is at war with anyone. There's an ongoing civil war, with different supporters behind different group. And the U.S. had not just invaded Iraq. They had been there for years beforehand, and were winding down their presence.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

There was a civil war in Syria before anyone else got involved. Assad lost any legitimacy to govern once he started murdering people on the street. The FSA are at war with the dictatorship of Assad. That doesn't mean Syria (which had no agreed governance at present) is at war with anyone. There's an ongoing civil war, with different supporters behind different group. And the U.S. had not just invaded Iraq. They had been there for years beforehand, and were winding down their presence.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 followed by the surge in 2007 and paying off the Sunni tribes that followed. When the Arab uprisings began in Tunisia and Egypt President Morsi when he got into office declared a Jihad on the Syrian Arab Republic. I call that war situation. All of these events are recorded facts. The Syrian gvt had to respond by combatting the terrorists operating in the country. A bit rich for the American to be accusing the Syrians of focusing their energies on combating groups like the Muslim Brotherhood when they did the same in Iraq and Israel does in Gaza.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria was being attacked

From March 2011, Assad was using his military, internal security and militias to quell civil unrest. As a result of the violence his military forces subsequently fractured and the defectors formed the FSA

It wasn't until later in the conflict that the FSA (and other groups) received limited non-lethal and lethal supplies/support from external countries such as the US

Assad was fighting a war against Islamic terrorists within the country

Assad was violently quelling mass domestic protests. Over the years, as the situation deteriorated significant numbers of foreign jihadists, brigades and other groups joined the conflict.

As I've mentioned (I think several times by this stage), the Bush administration used the same revisionism you are employing - they claimed that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaeda in Iraq. Whilst largely false it became a self-fulfilling prophecy because after the initial invasion, as the insurgency grew, foreign fighters and jihadists were drawn to the conflict including Al Qaeda

FrancieBrady

Looking at his appointments today, he seems to be surrounding himself with the type of people who will push his agenda.

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From March 2011, Assad was using his military, internal security and militias to quell civil unrest. As a result of the violence his military forces subsequently fractured and the defectors formed the FSA

It wasn't until later in the conflict that the FSA (and other groups) received limited non-lethal and lethal supplies/support from external countries such as the US



Assad was violently quelling mass domestic protests. Over the years, as the situation deteriorated significant numbers of foreign jihadists, brigades and other groups joined the conflict.

As I've mentioned (I think several times by this stage), the Bush administration used the same revisionism you are employing - they claimed that Saddam was sheltering Al Qaeda in Iraq. Whilst largely false it became a self-fulfilling prophecy because after the initial invasion, as the insurgency grew, foreign fighters and jihadists were drawn to the conflict including Al Qaeda

Those mass domestic protests you speak of were staged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I don't believe any of those propaganda news outlets that claim they were against the Syrian gvt. On the contrary we do know that Syria was and has been used in the past to harbor Islamist cells, this is not knew to Syria as most Arab countries have dozens of Islamists.

What I have always argued is that the protests were violent in nature and encouraged from abroad. One is reminded of the Ukrainian, Venezuelan uprisings that had the backing of America intimately involved, I highly suspect a CIA involvement in all these revolts. If that claim is true that this does constitute a form of stealth war which merits actions to safe guide the gvt of the country coming under attack.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

But that's not true. You taking the narrative of the spin doctors. President Assad was a secular leader and his actions did not merit an attack on the country.

Syria has been an enemy of Israel since its formation in 1948.

Syria and its regine were the principal opponents of Israel in the 6 Day War in 1967, the yom Kippur war in 1973, and the Lebanese conflict in the 80's into the 90's.

Israel took the strategically vital Golan Heights in 1973 and has been holding them ever since.

Trump and the USA support Israel unconditionally. If Assad and his family are allowed to resume control of the country it will be on Israel's terms.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those mass domestic protests you speak of were staged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I don't believe any of those propaganda news outlets that claim they were against the Syrian gvt. On the contrary we do know that Syria was and has been used in the past to harbor Islamist cells, this is not knew to Syria as most Arab countries have dozens of Islamists.

What I have always argued is that the protests were violent in nature and encouraged from abroad. One is reminded of the Ukrainian, Venezuelan uprisings that had the backing of America intimately involved, I highly suspect a CIA involvement in all these revolts. If that claim is true that this does constitute a form of stealth war which merits actions to safe guide the gvt of the country coming under attack.

The uprising, and the protests were not staged by anyone. You choose to believe whatever you like, but you don't get to claim that mass protests against the Assad regime were not against the Assad regime. Islamist cells being harboured in Syria is somewhat at odds with the reality of the regime there. Mere membership of the Muslim Brotherhood was punishable by execution, and Assad's da had massacred tens of thousands of their supporters in Hama in '82. The Assad's were more than happy to work with Shia Islamist groups like Hezbullah though, and still are, given that they're currently fighting for Assad.

The uprising against Assad had essentially no MuslimBrotherhood involvement until late 2011, and even then, they were cautious about getting involved, as they had no real effective base remaining in Syria after years of purges. Once the resistance against Assad started to fragment, various other, more organised players came in to fill the void. The truth of the how events developed is rather more complex then your pat CIA theory. In reality the US was late to the party, and has less leverage than many other players.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those mass domestic protests you speak of were staged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I don't believe any of those propaganda news outlets that claim they were against the Syrian gvt.

No idea where you get this admiration for the syrian ba'athist regime. The Syrian dictatorship of the Assad family has been running the country by "emergency powers" since 1963. The Constitution has been suspended so citizens have few rights.

The Syrian citizens have been resisting and protesting for almost fifty years. Its not some new idea. Tens of thousands of them have been massacred over the years.

TepinTheGreat

InTheTrees wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those mass domestic protests you speak of were staged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I don't believe any of those propaganda news outlets that claim they were against the Syrian gvt.

No idea where you get this admiration for the syrian ba'athist regime. The Syrian dictatorship of the Assad family has been running the country by "emergency powers" since 1963. The Constitution has been suspended so citizens have few rights.

The Syrian citizens have been resisting and protesting for almost fifty years. Its not some new idea. Tens of thousands of them have been massacred over the years.

And Libya and Egypt were bastions of peace and democracy after overthrowing those regimes.

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The media never stopped talking about his moving positions. IT. DIDN'T. WORK.

Nor will it work when he changed his positions that in the future.

Anyone who thinks a trump will be a 1 term President is deluding themselves. Take an objective look at the last 18 months. The normal expectation that a politician will explain their work and show the outcomes, went out the window. He's not going to start explaining himself now.

You do make some good points, but the thing that could bite Trump in the ass for the next election is that he did actually have a lot of genuine, desperate voters who he promised to make things better for - the rust belters expecting to see all their towns (and there are thousands, even tens of thousands, of those towns, suburbs and smaller cities) brought back to some form of prosperity with an emphasis on blue collar/low-to-semi skilled (as well as highly skilled, though typically more along the lines of trades etc) have been conned.

You are right that the hardliners and those who are more interested in the Republican party than they are their own country (we've actually got one or two like that on here, of our US based posters - it's a really worrying dynamic over there, even far moreso than you see in Ireland with FF/FG), but the rust belters are the ones who swung the traditional Democrat firewall in Trump's favour.

When the reality begins to set in that he couldn't care less about them or their jobs (and even if he did, the issue is extremely difficult to fix with so many places having so little industry, and the likes of Walmart playing a larger role than people might think), there are going to be a lot of angry people who at this moment are still enamoured with what Trump has promised. After all, they've been getting screwed by Democrats and Republicans alike since Reagan (the die-hard Republicans comparing Trump to Reagan not too surprisingly miss this point). The fact is, things have degraded so badly and so gradually (and so vastly across large, large areas of land - see: travel/commute/etc) that there is no easy, quick fix for that. The problem is... a pretty simple quick fix 'bring the jobs home' plan is exactly what Trump has been selling them for more than the last year.

Bringing corporate jobs home from the likes of Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, etc won't do a thing to help this either, since a) it won't happen, and b) if it did, they would not be locating in the rust belt, but rather the west coast or a major eastern city.


---

Not fully relevant to the thread, but this is a very good documentary (93% on Rotten Tomatoes) on the Walmart effect in small US cities/towns, it's really not something to be understated in terms of how much harder those 'one stop shop' megastores make it to reinvigorate those towns.

alastair

TepinTheGreat wrote: »

And Libya and Egypt were bastions of peace and democracy after overthrowing those regimes.

Egypt had a post-regime democratically elected coalition government led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which managed to adher to the rule of law, and vote in a new constitution. Back to a military dictatorship now though. Tunisia fared better, and Libya fragmented into tribal disputes after an initial promising start to from the transitional government and national elections.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those mass domestic protests you speak of were staged by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

That's a made-up fact to suit a personal narrative

Dohnjoe

TepinTheGreat wrote: »

And Libya and Egypt were bastions of peace and democracy after overthrowing those regimes.

They aren't. There isn't a choice between dictatorship and perfect peaceful society. It's a blurred trade-off dependent on hundreds of changing factors. A potentially worse future against a potentially less-worse future.

hatrickpatrick

Stealthfins wrote: »

OK how did Assad start oppressing all Syrian's.

Did he make a public statement,saying you're all going to be opressed ?

Show me the proof how he opressed Christian's and yazidis,and no spin please.
If you can prove it I'll change my mind.

You are aware that Assad's regime does not allow political opposition and free elections, right? That by pretty much every definition of the word, Assad is a dictator?

alastair wrote: »

Egypt had a post-regime democratically elected coalition government led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which managed to adher to the rule of law, and vote in a new constitution. Back to a military dictatorship now though. Tunisia fared better, and Libya fragmented into tribal disputes after an initial promising start to from the transitional government and national elections.

Correct, and note that the West, despite all of its drum-beating for "democratic regime change" when it suits a Western ulterior motive, seems to find this perfectly acceptable.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

But that's not true. You taking the narrative of the spin doctors. President Assad was a secular leader and his actions did not merit an attack on the country. President Obama himself was against attacking Syria despite his red line speech. What Assad did do was perfectly reasonable he defended his country from foreign terrorists most of whom came in through Iraq and Turkey. These are the facts. Their were not peaceful protestors in Syria. Their were Islamists looking for a fight on the street.

Are you perhaps unaware that Syria's ruling Ba'athist party, of which Assad is the latest president, does not allow political opposition? Are you perhaps unaware that an election which is unopposed purely because of coercion can never be described in any way as an actual election? Democracy in Syria is a farce. Whether he is secular or not is beside the point, he is a dictator.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about - apparently dictatorship is ok now as long as the dictator does "good" things - in this case, being a secular leader. That's just not how it works. All barometers of civilised society involve political freedom.

InTheTrees

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you perhaps unaware that Syria's ruling Ba'athist party, of which Assad is the latest president, does not allow political opposition? Are you perhaps unaware that an election which is unopposed purely because of coercion can never be described in any way as an actual election? Democracy in Syria is a farce. Whether he is secular or not is beside the point, he is a dictator.

Its a mystery why some posters here idolise the ba'ath party dictatorships.

The Assad family were brutal bloody dictators who have been suppressing their people for fifty years.

hatrickpatrick

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a mystery why some posters here idolise the ba'ath party dictatorships.

The Assad family were brutal bloody dictators who have been suppressing their people for fifty years.

It's similar to how technocratic governments in Europe have been cheerleaded by many of the same posters. They do not fundamentally believe in democracy as the cornerstone of civilisation. They are concerned entirely with ends, regardless of means - therefore if a government's policies are "good" in their eyes, it doesn't matter whether they are democratically elected or not.

Personally I'm the opposite. No leader can be described as a good leader, even if they make gold rain from the sky and have a zero poverty rate, unless they are backed by free and open democratic elections. A dictator is a bad thing regardless of his or her actions in office - the very fact of being a dictator makes that person's regime automatically a bad thing. No actions undertaken in office can offset the fundamental nature of being an unelected leader - especially one who uses physical violence to retain power.

BuilderPlumber

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a mystery why some posters here idolise the ba'ath party dictatorships.

The Assad family were brutal bloody dictators who have been suppressing their people for fifty years.

It is not that people idolise these dictators but they are the lesser of 2 evils. What would happen if Assad was overthrown? The best case scenario is it becomes another Iraq or Afghanistan. The worst case scenario is a so-called 'Islamic fundamentalist' dictatorship forms. Sadly these countries are not ready for democracy and this is due to years and years of poor policies in and towards countries like Syria.

BuilderPlumber

InTheTrees wrote: »

Syria has been an enemy of Israel since its formation in 1948.

Syria and its regine were the principal opponents of Israel in the 6 Day War in 1967, the yom Kippur war in 1973, and the Lebanese conflict in the 80's into the 90's.

Israel took the strategically vital Golan Heights in 1973 and has been holding them ever since.

Trump and the USA support Israel unconditionally. If Assad and his family are allowed to resume control of the country it will be on Israel's terms.

Whatever one thinks about Israel one thing its government are not is fools. They are very tuned into what goes on around them. Israel fought wars with all these countries like Syria and Nasser era Egypt but never went as far as overthrowing their regimes. The reason for this was because they knew that keeping these guys in power but under control kept even worse enemies of Israel at bay. Even when Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear plant, they stopped at this and did not attempt an invasion of Saddam's Iraq. If Israel really wanted to in the past, they could drive through Syria taking out Assad and then onto Iraq to take out Saddam. But they saw the dangers of doing so.

America under Bush rushed in and decided Saddam had to go and left the mess we now have. US, Russia, Israel, etc. now ALL regard Assad in some role as vital for getting Syria more stable. Assad's father waged wars against Israel but Assad has not done so and has used proxies instead. Israel regards Assad as the lesser of 2 evils: the alternative, an ISIS or al Nusra controlled state would be much more dangerous and would not respect the borders of other countries in the region. Assad knows this and this is forgive the pun his trump card.

alastair

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It is not that people idolise these dictators but they are the lesser of 2 evils. What would happen if Assad was overthrown? The best case scenario is it becomes another Iraq or Afghanistan. The worst case scenario is a so-called 'Islamic fundamentalist' dictatorship forms. Sadly these countries are not ready for democracy and this is due to years and years of poor policies in and towards countries like Syria.

The liklihood is the balkanisation of Syria, not another Afghanistan. Syria was always an uncomfortable conglomeration of people who had no real sense of national community. But that's a better outcome than an ongoing secret police state that doles out executions for ideological opposition.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you perhaps unaware that Syria's ruling Ba'athist party, of which Assad is the latest president, does not allow political opposition? Are you perhaps unaware that an election which is unopposed purely because of coercion can never be described in any way as an actual election? Democracy in Syria is a farce. Whether he is secular or not is beside the point, he is a dictator.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about - apparently dictatorship is ok now as long as the dictator does "good" things - in this case, being a secular leader. That's just not how it works. All barometers of civilised society involve political freedom.

You keep missing the point the opposition in most Arab countries and Syria is not an exception to this is full of Islamists. These countries are not Democratic bastions like the US was in the early 19th century with its own constitution. Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy and Pakistan and other Islamic Nations all have sectarian policies. Syria is a secular state in a region full of extremists and the fact that you won't admit that says it all. Even Israel is not a full democracy.

Your not even beginning to mention the Illegal occupation of Palestine which resulted in the relocation of Arabs to Syria which the Assad Presidency backed. Nobody ever asked the Arab on the street of Damascus did they want an exodus of Palestinians living in their country. What we see is that Israeli and American lives matter more than Arab lives. Syria has to put up with a state grabbing its territory and killing Arabs. Under these circumstances President Assad still is the most popular leader in his country. Along comes the US wanting to impose western standards and let the Muslim Brotherhood come to power and make the country more like Saudi Arabia.

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Whatever one thinks about Israel one thing its government are not is fools. They are very tuned into what goes on around them. Israel fought wars with all these countries like Syria and Nasser era Egypt but never went as far as overthrowing their regimes. The reason for this was because they knew that keeping these guys in power but under control kept even worse enemies of Israel at bay. Even when Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear plant, they stopped at this and did not attempt an invasion of Saddam's Iraq. If Israel really wanted to in the past, they could drive through Syria taking out Assad and then onto Iraq to take out Saddam. But they saw the dangers of doing so.

America under Bush rushed in and decided Saddam had to go and left the mess we now have. US, Russia, Israel, etc. now ALL regard Assad in some role as vital for getting Syria more stable. Assad's father waged wars against Israel but Assad has not done so and has used proxies instead. Israel regards Assad as the lesser of 2 evils: the alternative, an ISIS or al Nusra controlled state would be much more dangerous and would not respect the borders of other countries in the region. Assad knows this and this is forgive the pun his trump card.

It is funny Israel views the world like that given Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran are all more powerful and worse Muslim states than Syria and Israel does not try to go after these players.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's similar to how technocratic governments in Europe have been cheerleaded by many of the same posters. They do not fundamentally believe in democracy as the cornerstone of civilisation. They are concerned entirely with ends, regardless of means - therefore if a government's policies are "good" in their eyes, it doesn't matter whether they are democratically elected or not.

Personally I'm the opposite. No leader can be described as a good leader, even if they make gold rain from the sky and have a zero poverty rate, unless they are backed by free and open democratic elections. A dictator is a bad thing regardless of his or her actions in office - the very fact of being a dictator makes that person's regime automatically a bad thing. No actions undertaken in office can offset the fundamental nature of being an unelected leader - especially one who uses physical violence to retain power.

Societies can be very repressive the world shows us that. Places like Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Iran & Serbia are not nice places. Gvt's can have a mitigating effect on the divisions within a society. They can serve all the people well whereas the racial and tribal divisions we see in a multicultural society are ugly and disturbing.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Along comes the US wanting to impose western standards and let the Muslim Brotherhood come to power and make the country more like Saudi Arabia.

You get this doesn't make a jot of sense? The U.S. were not involved in the Syrian uprising, and they have no plan to 'impose western standards', the Muslim Brotherhood don't have any real military leverage in Syria, and where the Muslim Brotherhood have actually governed; Egypt, it was nothing like Saudi Arabia, because, in fact they have very different ideologies?

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

You get this doesn't make a jot of sense? The U.S. were not involved in the Syrian uprising, and they have no plan to 'impose western standards', the Muslim Brotherhood don't have any real military leverage in Syria, and where the Muslim Brotherhood have actually governed; Egypt, it was nothing like Saudi Arabia, because, in fact they have very different ideologies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHA-0EmkoC8

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHA-0EmkoC8

Is there supposed to be some point to this?

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You keep missing the point the opposition in most Arab countries and Syria is not an exception to this is full of Islamists. These countries are not Democratic bastions like the US was in the early 19th century with its own constitution.

I'm aware - that's precisely what I'm condemning.

Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy and Pakistan and other Islamic Nations all have sectarian policies. Syria is a secular state in a region full of extremists and the fact that you won't admit that says it all. Even Israel is not a full democracy.

Syria is a secular state, I admit that. As far as I'm concerned it counts for f*ck all as long as its leadership is not democratically elected. I am not a fan of Israel either, where in hell did you get the idea that I was? O_o

Your not even beginning to mention the Illegal occupation of Palestine which resulted in the relocation of Arabs to Syria which the Assad Presidency backed.

I didn't see how it was relevant to this thread, but I of course condemn this in the strongest possible terms, and always have.

Nobody ever asked the Arab on the street of Damascus did they want an exodus of Palestinians living in their country. What we see is that Israeli and American lives matter more than Arab lives. Syria has to put up with a state grabbing its territory and killing Arabs.

So hold on. You're saying that Assad backed this even if ordinary Syrians may not have wanted it - so you are in fact admitting that Assad is not in fact a good leader?

Under these circumstances President Assad still is the most popular leader in his country. Along comes the US wanting to impose western standards and let the Muslim Brotherhood come to power and make the country more like Saudi Arabia.

The difference is that Saudi Arabia is not democratic. Its theocratic legal regime was not chosen by the people but imposed upon them. Ergo, it is automatically a bad thing. If on the other hand the people had chosen it, it would be a democratic outcome - not one that I would favour obviously, but the nature of democracy is that you accept the wishes of the majority of the citizenry in who they choose to vote for.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Societies can be very repressive the world shows us that. Places like Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Iran & Serbia are not nice places. Gvt's can have a mitigating effect on the divisions within a society. They can serve all the people well whereas the racial and tribal divisions we see in a multicultural society are ugly and disturbing.

How ironic - do you know what all of the countries you listed in this post have in common?

I'll give you a hint: It has to do with how their leadership came to power and whether the general population was given a choice, and repeated opportunities to reconfirm that choice. In the civilised world, we refer to those events as "open elections".

alastair

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How ironic - do you know what all of the countries you listed in this post have in common?

I'll give you a hint: It has to do with how their leadership came to power and whether the general population was given a choice, and repeated opportunities to reconfirm that choice. In the civilised world, we refer to those events as "open elections".

I'm at a loss what Serbia is doing in that list. Democratic for a decade, and not known for much in the way of oppression. As for the bizarre critique of multiculturalism...

KingBrian2

Assad gvt has actually been engaging in peace deals with both Israel and Turkey during his tenure. Here have a look at the details and background info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province


So the image that is being presented in not one reflective of the Syrian gvt and your attacks are more aimed at the position of dictatorship which many countries have and which are allies of the US. The world is not black or white but certainly the Syrian gvt was far from the menace portrayed in the media and by interest groups.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Assad gvt has actually been engaging in peace deals with both Israel and Turkey during his tenure. Here have a look at the details and background info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province


So the image that is being presented in not one reflective of the Syrian gvt and your attacks are more aimed at the position of dictatorship which many countries have and which are allies of the US. The world is not black or white but certainly the Syrian gvt was far from the menace portrayed in the media and by interest groups.

I never hid the fact that my attacks are aimed at the position of dictatorship. I do not support any dictatorship, full stop. The world is not black and white, but democratic government is a fundamental barometer of how civilised a society is. Many countries also have the death penalty, corruption in justice and politics, famine, civil war etc - does the widespread nature of these ills make them somehow defensible?

I fail to see the relevance of dictatorships being allies of the US government. The US government is not a friend of democracy and their dishonest rhetoric in this regard is something that has sickened me throughout my entire life.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

I'm at a loss what Serbia is doing in that list. Democratic for a decade, and not known for much in the way of oppression. As for the bizarre critique of multiculturalism...

Serbia had a poor human rights record.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I never hid the fact that my attacks are aimed at the position of dictatorship. I do not support any dictatorship, full stop. The world is not black and white, but democratic government is a fundamental barometer of how civilised a society is. Many countries also have the death penalty, corruption in justice and politics, famine, civil war etc - does the widespread nature of these ills make them somehow defensible?

I fail to see the relevance of dictatorships being allies of the US government. The US government is not a friend of democracy and their dishonest rhetoric in this regard is something that has sickened me throughout my entire life.

You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse. Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state. The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler. If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Assad gvt has actually been engaging in peace deals with both Israel and Turkey during his tenure. Here have a look at the details and background info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province


So the image that is being presented in not one reflective of the Syrian gvt and your attacks are more aimed at the position of dictatorship which many countries have and which are allies of the US. The world is not black or white but certainly the Syrian gvt was far from the menace portrayed in the media and by interest groups.

Assad was a menace to his own people. That's the reality presented in the media. And Bashar was an eye doctor in London in 1991, so no idea what the Madrid conference has got to do with anything.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse. Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state. The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler. If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.

The protests had nothing to do with Alawites. They had to do with ****ty governance, and rapidly thereafter, the detention, torture and murder of protesting Syrians.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Assad was a menace to his own people. That's the reality presented in the media. And Bashar was an eye doctor in London in 1991, so no idea what the Madrid conference has got to do with anything.

Is he a menace like Gaddafi which the west illegally went after and has resulted in the refugee crisis. What I was getting at is the spin that President Assad is an unreasonable terrorist supporter when his actions say otherwise. The PLO was signing a peace treaty with Israel and Syria was prepared to agree to a treaty not unlike Sadat's Egypt. Had Syria agreed to a treaty with Israel we would not be hearing about a potential attack in the country from foreigners.

KingBrian2

Another aspect worth mentioning is that many factions don't want a peace deal between Israel and its Arab Neighbours. Not surprising when you consider all the Jihadists groups sprouting up. None of these people or organizations have any interest in a peace deal and are working to undermine relations between Jews and Arabs. Doing a good job at the moment since relations have really deteriorated since the early 00's and it wasn't great even back then.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Is he a menace like Gaddafi which the west illegally went after and has resulted in the refugee crisis. What I was getting at is the spin that President Assad is an unreasonable terrorist supporter when his actions say otherwise. The PLO was signing a peace treaty with Israel and Syria was prepared to agree to a treaty not unlike Sadat's Egypt. Had Syria agreed to a treaty with Israel we would not be hearing about a potential attack in the country from foreigners.

You do realise that simply throwing the term 'illegally' out there doesn't actually make the act illegal? The UN legally imposed a no fly zone on Ghadaffi's forces to end his mass bombing of Libyan citizens, and it wasn't just 'the west' that recognised the legitimacy of the transitional Libyan government before Ghadaffi was killed - your pal Assad included.

Ardillaun

What does all this sudden love for Russia from the Trumpkins/Paleocons mean for Europe? A free hand for Putin in the old Soviet Union? And maybe in Eastern Europe generally? It's a bit surprising that actual Europeans are cheering for an invasion of their continent.

Ardillaun

Assad has failed the basic test of a barrier state - he could not keep order and his continued rule has produced millions of refugees from his own country.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse.

Can't you attack both?

Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state.

I have never denied it, I just don't see it as being of any significance whatsoever.

The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler.

[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January–April_2011)

Seems incredibly political to me. Some highlights:

26 or 28 January, in the large northern Kurdish city of Al-Hasakah, a man, Hasan Ali Akleh, soaked himself with gasoline and set himself afire.

3 February, Syrian opposition groups called on Facebook and Twitter for a "day of rage" on Friday 4 February. This did not lead to protests in Syria on 4 February.

5 February, in the Al-Hasakah, hundreds demonstrated for political reform and an end to emergency law.

17 February, a demonstration was held, in the al-Hamidiya market in Damascus, in protest of a police beating of a shop keeper. Protesters chanted: "the Syrian people will not be humiliated".

23 February, Syria's justice minister defended the state of emergency by pointing at the state of war with Israel. A proposal of one parliament member to evaluate the harsh emergency laws was voted down with 249 against one MP.

1–17 March
6 March, in the southern city of Daraa, fifteen teenagers were arrested for writing "the people want the regime to fall" on walls across the city. Supposedly the military police tortured them, or had carried them handcuffed out of their classroom.
7 March, one day before the 48th anniversary of the 8 March 1963 coup d'état, which led to a permanent state of emergency in force ever since, thirteen political prisoners in Syria went on hunger strike, demanding an end to political arrests and the restitution of rights that have been removed from civil and political life.
10 March, dozens of Syrian Kurds started hunger strike in solidarity with those of 7 March.
12 March, thousands of Syrian Kurds protested in al-Qamishli and in al-Hasakah, on the day of Kurdish martyrs, commemorating the 30 Kurds that were killed by police after riots broke out at a football game in March 2004 (see 2004 al-Qamishli riots).
Tuesday 15 March, dubbed "day of rage" by activists, hundreds staged protests in Damascus and Aleppo, calling for democratic reforms. The protest in Damascus was violently dispersed, six protesters were detained by security forces according to a witness speaking to the BBC.

No, you're totally right. These protests had absolutely nothing to do with political oppression, police brutality, and violent suppression of dissent. :rolleyes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city, reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.

Demonstrators clashed with local police, and confrontations escalated on 18 March after Friday prayers. Security forces attacked protesters gathered at the Omari Mosque using water cannons and tear gas, followed by live fire, killing four.

But again, you're totally right. It wasn't political at all. Had nothing to do with people being sick of living under an autocratic regime without civil liberties or basic freedoms.

If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.

What has this got to do with anything? Why are you so obsessed with conflating religion with politics? The protests did not have a religious basis but a civil one - that much is blindingly clear to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The religious and sectarian elements arose far later - the initial spark of the uprisings was generally some incident of brutality or overreach by the unelected government in each of the states involved.