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

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.