Text 10231, 382 rader
Skriven 2013-09-12 19:53:34 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 10227 av alexander koryagin (2:5020/2140.2)
Ärende: Putin Blinks
====================
Hello Alexander,

 LL>>>>> President Barack Obama wins... Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad
 LL>>>>> wins... Russian President Vladimir Putin wins... The French
 LL>>>>> win...

 WD>>>> The Syrian people lose and their misery continues while the
 WD>>>> aforementioned individuals congratulate themselves.

 AK>>> The civil war in Syria is the product of the US and Europe.

 LL>> The current civil war, as the previous dictator of Syria had his
 LL>> own civil war to contend with. Is it just "the product of the US
 LL>> and Europe" as you suggest? No.

AK>That war had its own reason (the rebels then didn't shout that they
AK>fight for democracy),

You're right.  They all shouted "Allah Akbar!"

AK>>but the current war in Syria is connected with NATO's intervention
AK>in Libya directly.

Libya and Syria are two very different cases, and should not be linked
together as one.  For example, the uprising in Egypt may have inspired
people in other countries to attempt doing the same, but that does not
necessarily mean that the "Arab Spring" was successful everywhere.  As
I mentioned in my last message, The Domino Effect is a theory that has
long been refuted.

AK>If NATO had not been intervened in Libya there would not have been
AK>the civil war in Syria.

Opposition fighters would love other countries to bomb the Syrian
regime to smithereens - whether it is NATO, the US, the French, the
Chinese, or whoever else that has the planes, ships, missiles, and
bombs to do so.

In regards to Libya, US President Obama acted on his own authority
to use US forces to back NATO, without ever asking the Congress for
any authorization to use military force.  No such action has been
taken by NATO or the US in regards to Syria - although it has been
threatened.

 LL>> different factions, including factions within the US and Europe.
 LL>> For example, there are terror groups (including elements of
 LL>> al-Qaeda) that are active within Syria. Who is sponsoring those
 LL>> terror groups? Is Iran sending help to Hezbollah? Is the Syrian
 LL>> regime doing the same? And what about Hamas? I highly doubt that
 LL>> either the US or Europe is helping Hezbollah or Hamas.

AK>Al-Qaeda, Hesbollah entered Syria after the civil war had started.

There have always been factions fighting against the Syrian regime,
even before the present Syrian regime took power.

AK>The latter entered just recently, and, BTW, fight against Al-Qaeda
AK>(sunni) fighters. But I repeat that Libyan invasion was the trigger
AK>of the civil war in Syria.

Hezbollah has been active in Syria for decades, even though their
fighters prefer to do their thing in Lebanon - and in Israel if
given the chance.  Groups affiliated with al-Qaeda are known to be
active in Syria - as well as in many other places.  However, not all
opposition fighters are terrorists or members of terror organizations.

 LL>> smaller minority is Shiite (Alawite). Alawites are akin to being
 LL>> heretics of the Shiite faction of Islam. Heretics of heritics.
 LL>> Bashar al-Assad is a (Shi'a) Muslim of the Alawite sect. A heretic
 LL>> in the eyes of most Muslims, including most Muslims within Syria.

AK>It doesn't mean that the majority of Syrian population is against
AK>Assad.

Most people in Syria do not care about Assad one way or the other.
They simply want to live their own lives in peace, without their lives
being disrupted by violence or war.

AK>Syria has got great achievements under his rule.

Syrians have made great achievements throughout history, not just
under Assad's rule.

AK>Assad says truth

What is truth?  Who's truth?  One man's truth is another man's lie.

AK>-- he cannot fight with the rebels by himself, alone --

Only a Ninja warrior can do that.  And Chuck Norris.

AK>he has a great support around Syria.

Chuck Norris had the Texas Rangers to back him up.
The real Texas Rangers.  Not the baseball team.

 AK>>> It is easy -- you spill blood and NATO forces will do all the
 AK>>> dirty work for you.

 LL>> And it was Libyans themselves who overthrew Moammar Qadhaffi, not
 LL>> the US or NATO.

AK>What a lie. ;-|

Like every politician in the known universe, I never lie.
I am just more expeditious with the truth.  :)

 AK>>> The half-stunned bad president will be passed to the opposition
 AK>>> rebels on the plate with a blue rim.

 LL>> Nah. Russian President Vladimir Putin will invite him to a party in
 LL>> Moscow. Or perhaps in Sochi to enjoy watching Syrian athletes try
 LL>> to win a gold medal in... in... in... something.

AK>I don't think that Assad fears of being killed.

Really?  Let's see what happens if he tries doing what Pope Francis
did in Brazil.  :)

AK>In general all people are mortal and die sooner or later.

Most people would prefer later rather than sooner.

 AK>>> The US and Europe did not realize only one important thing -- such
 AK>>> a way to capture power is a very seductive thing.

 LL>> One does not capture power. One grabs it, and holds on to it, for
 LL>> as long as possible. Preferably forever. Or at least until losing
 LL>> one's head. That is why Bashar al-Assad will never leave. He is
 LL>> hooked on power. But there can be no permanemt solution to the
 LL>> Syrian crisis until he leaves office. Which is to say gone (or
 LL>> forcibly removed) from power.

AK>There was democratic elections in Syria and the opposition didn't
AK>recognize their results.

Why should anybody want to recognize elections that have been rigged?
Unless you are a "yes man" to a dictator, that is.

AK>Then was the Libyan trigger and the civil war began.

The action in Libya may have inspired opposition fighters in Syria.
But that is not the same thing as being a "green light" being shown
by the US and Europe for opposition fighters to begin a civil war
in Syria.

AK>The US and Europe are in Syrian blood, I repeat it.

One can make a good argument that the US and Europe should have
done more to discourage opposition fighters from starting a civil
war in Syria.  One can make a good argument that the US and Europe
should have done more to bring all sides (pro-Assad and anti-Assad)
to the negotiation table.  One can even make a good argument that
by doing little or nothing the US and Europe are complicit in
continuing a civil war that never should have been started in the
first place.  But to say "The US and Europe are in Syrian blood"
is a bit of a stretch.  After all, blood is thicker than water.
And right now, there is a river of blood flowing through Syria -
to the tune of 100,000+ lost lives.

 LL>> It is known that the Syrian regime used sarin nerve gas on its own
 LL>> people on August 21. U. N. inspectors have gathered evidence that
 LL>> hundreds, perhaps well over a thousand, Syrian civilians have been
 LL>> killed by sarin nerve gas. The use of chemical weapons alone is
 LL>> reason enough to call for the removal from power of Bashar
 LL>> al-Assad. If the man cannot control his own stockpile of chemical
 LL>> weapons, what other weapons (or form of warfare) can he be trusted
 LL>> with? For this reason, and others, the US President has publicly
 LL>> stated Bashar al-Assad must go. The Russians know what the Syrian
 LL>> regime has done, and agree (in private) with US President Barack
 LL>> Obama that Bashar al-Assad must go.

AK>There must be elections -- that is the only legitimate way to remove
AK>Assad from power.

Saddam Hussein held elections in Iraq.  Saddam Hussein won every
election by a landslide.  His opponensts were often jailed.  And
sometimes shot.  Or hanged.  Which is why so very few Iraqis even
bothered to run for office, much less for presdident.

AK>If Syrian people want it - Assad will lose its power.

How many elections did Adolf Hitler lose?
How many elections did Benito Mussolini lose?
How many elections did Josef Stalin lose?
How many elections did George W. Bush lose?

Hitler gained power in Germany through legal means.  Mussolini gained
power in Italy through legal means.  Stalin gained power in the USSR
through legal means.  George W. Bush gained power in the USA through
legal means, even though he cheated not once, but twice.

Legitimate power is based on the will of the people.  What do the
people want?  If the people want a populist as their leader, why should
the people be denied that choice?  We had such a leader in Huey P. Long.
But a doctor went and shot him dead, thus saving President Franklin D.
Roosevelt from losing office.

Imagine what would happen if some madman assassinates Bashar al-Assad.
Who do you think will be blamed?  What do you think would happen next?
Such an action, in theory, could ignite the beginnings of WWIII.

AK>Elections may be(probably must be) under international control.

It would be better for Syrians to conduct their own elections.
International observers could be present, but it should be the
Syrians themselves who conduct (and control) the elections.

AK>Obama has no right to say that President of the independent country
AK>must leave his post.

As a private individual he has no such right.  However, the US
President, speaking on behalf of the USA, as part of the international
community, does indeed have a voice in that matter.  Why?  Because the
use of chemical weapons has been banned by the international community,
and it is known that sarin nerve gas has been used in Syria.

 AK>>> The only way out of this situation is to admit that the Syrian
 AK>>> rebels do not represent the state majority.

 LL>> President Bashar al-Assad represents less than 10% of the people of
 LL>> Syria. The amount of territory within Syria he presently controls
 LL>> is getting smaller and smaller with each passing day. At some
 LL>> point, his very presence will become not even noticed, as the
 LL>> territory he will control at that point will be only one or two
 LL>> blocks within the confines of the city of Damascus.

AK>It is your number. You think that if a person was not born an
AK>allawite he must want to kill Assad. It is not true. That's why Assad
AK>has so many fighters on his side.

The Syrian regime has killed over 100,000 Syrians (opposition
fighters and civilians) through the use of conventional weapons
alone.  The killings will continue for as long as the Syrian
regime remains in power.  The longer Assad remains in power,
the less popular he becomes.  The opposition fighters may not
be popular either, as they are just as guilty of killing people
as the Syrian regime.  But keeping Assad in power is not going
to make the Syrian people happy.

 AK>>> The subject for negotiation on this table is one -- to stop
 AK>>> fighting and hold fair elections.

 LL>> Who is going to conduct the elections? Who is going to count the
 LL>> votes? Who is going to watch who counts the votes? Who is going to
 LL>> watch the watchers?

AK>People must learn to solve problems through elections.

What kind of elections?  The Vatican only has an election when
a pope dies, or abdicates.  And even then, it is by a small group
of cardinals who have been hand-picked by the dead pope(s).

Nah.  Elections are not always the best means to solve problems.
Mobs do that all the time.  Vigilante justice.  Men wearing white
sheets ...

AK>The more weapons they have the less probable that they can solve
AK>the problem in military way, especially, when both sides are strong.

Americans love their guns.  Two politicians found out the hard way
what happens when restrictions are placed on what kind of guns and
ammo Americans can buy.  American voters signed a recall petition,
the two politicians thus being recalled and removed them from office.

AK>So both sides must agree for elections under the UN supervision.

Why should Syrians subject themselves to outside supervision?
Democracy is not about allowing others to intervene in the choices
a people makes.  Would Russians allow Americans to supervise Russian
elections?  Would Americans allow Russians to supervise American
elections?  Of course not!  The same goes for the UN, which would
be seen in the same light.

AK>If one side is refused, the UN can act more actively and authorize
AK>intervention.

The Syrian people are capable of running their own affairs.
And they should be allowed to do so, without interference from
any other country, or by the UN.

AK>This way out could happen much earlier if the rebels didn't refuse
AK>consider Assad as a side worthy to negotiate with.

Assad must go, since the use of sarin nerve gas has been linked to him.
However, all major parties must be included in order for negotiations
to be fruitful.

AK>But the rebels has been waiting for NATO's jet-planes.

Wishful thinking on their part.

AK>That's why a peace process in Syria cannot gain in strength.

A peace process in Syria can gain strength.  But only if the major
players decide to work together, rather than against each other.
It is a given that Bashar al-Assad will refuse to cooperate, as
his only hope is to remain in power.  However, the US, Russia, and
France can get together and force the issue.

 AK>>> Did Assad use chemical weapon when attacking enemy positions?

 LL>> President Barack Obama says he did. UN inspectors claim to have
 LL>> gathered evidence that Syrian civilians were killed by sarin nerve
 LL>> gas on August 21. It is a known fact by all parties that the use of
 LL>> sarin nerve gas could only have been done by the Syrian regime.

AK>Assad knew that using chemicals can be equal to NATO's plus the US'
AK>invasion.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in his war against Iran.
And we approved.  Even though we knew he also used those weapons
on his own people - the Kurds.

AK>Explain, why he, fighting successfully against the rebels,
AK>could want to give such a pretext for invasion?

Saddam Hussein got away with it.  Until GWB came into power.

AK>No, he could not use chemical weapon.

President Barack Obama says he did.  UN inspectors claim they have
evidence he did.  As such, not only could he use chemical weapons, he
actually did.

AK>He is _the only side in Syria_ which doesn't interested in chemical
AK>weapon using.

No madman is going to admit to being a madman.

AK>He cannot have great gains by using it, but can have great problems
AK>with the US and NATO.

The US and NATO have not attacked Syria.

AK>Assad doesn't need NATO and the US invasion.

That is why he should strongly consider giving up those chemical
weapons, allowing the international community to destroy them.

 AK>>> Most probably they will use it in future.

 LL>> And if they do, blame it on the Syrian regime. That is why it is
 LL>> absolutely necessary to demand hard evidence to back up that claim.
 LL>> Otherwise, it would be too easy to start a war, a real war with big
 LL>> guns (and missiles) that could level entire cities...

AK>I think that chemical weapon was used by Al-Qaeda.

I would not doubt that.  However, it is known that sarin nerve gas
has been used.  And the use of sarin nerve gas could only have been
done by the Syrian regime.  Not by al-Qaeda or by any other terror
group.  Not only would it be politically dangerous to allow Assad
to remain in power, but it would also be immoral.  Especially when
those UN findings are publicly disclosed.

AK>First, they wanted to frame Assad and remove him by HATO's hands,
AK>second they wanted to show Israel that they do have chemical weapon
AK>and they will use it against Jews in future. It was a demonstration
AK>of power.

A "demonstration of power" to who?  To the Jews?  Do you realize
what Israel would do to Hezbollah if missiles loaded with chemical
weapons find their way to Tel Aviv?  Israelis will not bother to
ask permission from US President Barack Obama to conduct a military
strike.  Israel will act first, putting an end to the threat before
Hezbollah has the chance to load another missile, much less fire it.
Israel might even decide to nuke Damascus.  Just to show the Iranians
they mean business.

 LL>> We do not negotiate with terrorists. And we will not be blackmailed
 LL>> by the United Nations. Especially since the UN has no military of
 LL>> its own...

AK>Actually, by fighting Assad, the US helps terrorists, instead.

Yeah.  You right.  Best to let Israel handle it.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)