US : Assad no longer 'has to go' ??

[MicroBrew]

Why Assad No Longer 'Has to Go'

For years the US insisted Assad must go but as of late they don't specifically mention that. So a change of tune on America's part , after considering the options of a Sunni takeover are far worse?

Rewind to 2011 and below is Obama's statement on Assad.

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.

Fast forward to last Monday , and here is Kerry's comment on Syria.

It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-assad-no-longer-194845470--politics.html

 

[JungleKungFu]

Don't tell John McCain, he might have a heart attack.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

If the US is finally awakening to the fact that Assad is our natural ally against Islamic terrorism and Sunni extremism, then colour me surprised.

You know, as the US has been arming the rebels and shitting on Assad for how many years now?

 

[Orgasmo]

If anything, I would give weapons and supplies to Assad to help him against the jihadists. Syria is now a magnet for Islamic fundamentalist scums, and keeping them in Syria to be culled is one of the best things to happen. Between Islamic crazies and secular dictators, I know which one I'll pick.

 

[lapollarecords]

he never had to go. same for Saddam, Gadaffi and all the other assholes that ruled the region with iron fist.

 

[Orgasmo]

he never had to go. same for Saddam, Gadaffi and all the other assholes that ruled the region with iron fist.

What does it tell you about the region and its people when Iraq, Libya and Syria were in better shape when the asshole dictators were firmly in power?

 

[RubberGuard5]

What does it tell you about the region and its people when Iraq, Libya and Syria were in better shape when the asshole dictators were firmly in power?

That american style democracy isn't suitable for every culture on the planet. They need a strong leader/dictator to function.

 

[Chinballs]

That american style democracy isn't suitable for every culture on the planet. They need a strong leader/dictator to function.

Because, above all, democracy is what the wars on that region brought? :icon_neut

 

[RubberGuard5]

Because, above all, democracy is what the wars on that region brought? :icon_neut

Well, that's the usual american excuse when they bomb someone. Saving people from evil dictators by bombing them.

Democracy has to come from within. It's done with better education and cultural development. If the west really wants to transform these countries, instead of bombs, throw free quality education on them. The society would transform itself in 50 years.

 

[Flamma]

If you don't have a strongman you get Islamist terror groups who will impose their values by force or a pious malleable electorate.

 

[Banchan]

he never had to go. same for Saddam, Gadaffi and all the other assholes that ruled the region with iron fist.

If this is true, how do you explain the explosion of ISIS in Syria ? The current state of Syria disproves everything you said. Assad rules with an iron fist and he isn't afraid of using chemical weapons on his detractors. So how did ISIS become such an epidemic if an iron clad dictator in your opinion keeps radical power vacuums from taking over?

 

[Banchan]

If anything, I would give weapons and supplies to Assad to help him against the jihadists. Syria is now a magnet for Islamic fundamentalist scums, and keeping them in Syria to be culled is one of the best things to happen. Between Islamic crazies and secular dictators, I know which one I'll pick.

Assad is an Islamic crazy. He is partly to blame for ISIS in Syria. Notice how the spread of ISIS is the only thing keeping him off the Take Him Out Murica(!) list? ISIS (and Iran) saved this guy's life. If he were a Jew, this angle would already be conspiracied to no end. Fortunately he's Muslim and no one talks about them for fear of being Charlie Hebdoed.

 

[Phelly2]

My personal opinion is we needed someone to fight in order to stay relevant in the middle east. (i.e., to keep military forces there)

Assad was it until ISIS reared its head.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, that's just my guess.

I found it interesting that we started arming Syrian rebels when we knew full well that many of them had ties to Al Qaeda. Obama(and others) were pushing for bombings against Syria(Assad) but the US population was collectively against it.

Then all of the sudden, ISIS is wrecking havoc with US weapons. Next thing you know, we're all clamoring to fight ISIS and suddenly Assad is an ally. It just seemed all too convenient.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

 

[grimballer]

it took this long to realize that?

whats next?

coop with iran?

 

[Perfidious]

If this is true, how do you explain the explosion of ISIS in Syria ? The current state of Syria disproves everything you said. Assad rules with an iron fist and he isn't afraid of using chemical weapons on his detractors. So how did ISIS become such an epidemic if an iron clad dictator in your opinion keeps radical power vacuums from taking over?

Maybe I'm wrong but the civil war in Syria wasnt a religious issue at first. As far as I know, the crazies didnt pop up until after the Syrian government lost control of shit.

So in a sense, he is still right (if I am correct. Information is always changing regarding issues in the ME)

 

[Lovestorm]

Syria must be sharing the oil now.

 

[Bargey]

If anything, I would give weapons and supplies to Assad to help him against the jihadists. Syria is now a magnet for Islamic fundamentalist scums, and keeping them in Syria to be culled is one of the best things to happen. Between Islamic crazies and secular dictators, I know which one I'll pick.

Pretty much a no brainer. Should have been a no brainer 2 years ago; one of the biggest foreign policy screwups. Didn't Saddam teach them anything?

 

[Rod1]

If this is true, how do you explain the explosion of ISIS in Syria ? The current state of Syria disproves everything you said. Assad rules with an iron fist and he isn't afraid of using chemical weapons on his detractors. So how did ISIS become such an epidemic if an iron clad dictator in your opinion keeps radical power vacuums from taking over?

Have you just recently read about this?

Foreign troops armed with western troops and trained by gulf states is what caused the problems, Syrian civil war is a misnomer considering the amount of foreign intervention in the conflict.

 

[Straight Right]

Assad is an Islamic crazy. He is partly to blame for ISIS in Syria. Notice how the spread of ISIS is the only thing keeping him off the Take Him Out Murica(!) list? ISIS (and Iran) saved this guy's life. If he were a Jew, this angle would already be conspiracied to no end. Fortunately he's Muslim and no one talks about them for fear of being Charlie Hebdoed.

Assad is an alawite. Thats a bizzare sect of islam with christians things but he isnt a religious freak at all honestly. The alawites do possess the majority of good jobs in the army, but thats just intelligence. They arent trying to convert anyone and dont kill muslim because they are sunni or they dont kill Christians.. You may hate Assad but religion is not important for him