• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Calls on Syrian President to Leave Power (about time)

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
25,763
Reaction score
21,419
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
U.S. Calls on Syrian President to Leave Power | C-SPAN

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this morning called on Syrian President Assad to step down and leave office. This announcement was endorsed by the European Union. The U.N. Security Council will also meet later today to discuss the situation.

In a written statement released from the White House this morning, Pres. Obama cited the Syrian people as motivating factor in the decision, "The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way." Obama also said the U.S. would not intervene in any transition of power and asked other countries not to impose their will upon Syria.

Looks like they finally said what the Administration has been dancing around for months.
 
I support the statement.
 
Well this isn't surprising, it was going to come sooner or later. However, I am worried seeing as how the West may be planning to intervene in Syria ("Beachhead for an Attack on Iran": NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria) (A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?). Even though the US has been saying that they won't intervene in Syria (Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight - Bloomberg) I still am not entirely believing them.
 
Well this isn't surprising, it was going to come sooner or later. However, I am worried seeing as how the West may be planning to intervene in Syria ("Beachhead for an Attack on Iran": NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria) (A "Humanitarian War" on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?). Even though the US has been saying that they won't intervene in Syria (Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight - Bloomberg) I still am not entirely believing them.

I seriously doubt the American electorate has the stomach for a fourth military conflict on their hands, the Administration would basically be shooting itself in the foot at this point. Sanctions and freezing financial assets seem to be as far as the Administration is willing to go at this point.
 
If Obama sent troops to Syria, he would lose what remaining support he has from the American left. Not to mention, his debt reduction talks would lose even more validity.
 
I support the statement but i will not and we should not support troops being sent in...
 
While I applaud the statement I have to wonder why it took so long make it.

I have learned that it's prudent to look beyond the surface of what Obama says and try to figure out what is really in play and how does Obama benefit politically from what he says, and while your try to figure that out, keep your eye on what he's actually up to, because the two things seldom match.

The very last thing we need is to become embroiled in another military conflict because since WW-II our politicians have been unwilling to face the reality that to win a War you have you have to be willing to do whatever is needed to win.

In dealing with with the threats we face today from a Gorilla or Insurgent conflict you have to take the gloves of and do what ever it takes using what ever you have to to win and you can only win by killing the enemy, and never, ever fall for peace overtures because the enemy will do or say anything to stall so they can regroup because they are not going to get all touchy feely and use diplomacy end a conflict.

They know people like Americans don't have the stomach for a long War of attrition, so they hit and run blinding into the civilian population using them as a shield.

I dealing with the Taliban or any Shiite based group are obligated to do or say anything to kill the infidels,and brothers and Sisters that is you and me.

The normal people in places like Afghanistan don't want to live under the feet of the Radical Shia based Taliban because they don't allow freedom of anything and are as repressive as the day is long. So what we have to do is look for a way to get those people on our side and when we go in to a town we have to do it with over whelming force and go door, to daoor seaching for the bad guys and their weapons.

Just a thought.
 
In dealing with with the threats we face today from a Gorilla or Insurgent conflict you have to take the gloves of and do what ever it takes using what ever you have to to win and you can only win by killing the enemy, and never, ever fall for peace overtures because the enemy will do or say anything to stall so they can regroup because they are not going to get all touchy feely and use diplomacy end a conflict.

rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-caesar_611x341.jpg


Those Damned Dirty Apes! Damn Them All To Hell!
 
Empty words for empty-brained people.
Assad will never back down, and those kinds of diplomatic condemnations do nothing to stop dictators.
It's just like condemning North Korea. Has absolutely no effect, nothing. Might as well as commend Assad
 
Empty words for empty-brained people.
Assad will never back down, and those kinds of diplomatic condemnations do nothing to stop dictators.
It's just like condemning North Korea. Has absolutely no effect, nothing. Might as well as commend Assad

Offer him a Time Share in Key West.

That oughta lure him away.
 
So if asking nicely for Assad to leave does not work what next... call in the French, the UN, and see if NATO can spare some time between Libyan sorties??
 
I seriously doubt the American electorate has the stomach for a fourth military conflict on their hands, the Administration would basically be shooting itself in the foot at this point. Sanctions and freezing financial assets seem to be as far as the Administration is willing to go at this point.

Yes, as well as engaging in covert operations to undermine and destabilize Syria (WikiLeaks Cables Show US Strategy for Regime Change in Syria as Protesters are Massacred | The Dissenter).
 
This kind of statement is NOT a good idea. If Assad is toppled, it won't be because of anything Obama said...in fact, it'll give Assad a nice soundbyte to show how the protesters are puppets of the United States and how he's standing up to imperialists. And if Assad holds on, then our relationship with Syria is icier than ever.

What is the upside to Obama issuing a statement like this?
 
It is a pretty weak statement. Have they already tried the “stop it already” statement? If so, have they pulled out the “we really mean it this time” statement? How about the “we’re getting mad” statement?

If all else fails, they could have an “Assad is a jerk” vote in the UN and then call him a jerk if it passes.
 
Empty words for empty-brained people.
Assad will never back down, and those kinds of diplomatic condemnations do nothing to stop dictators.
It's just like condemning North Korea. Has absolutely no effect, nothing. Might as well as commend Assad

I agree with you for the most part, but i'd like to add that it's better to be real and say something than to skirt around the issue and say nothing at all.

I'd also point out that obama signed an executive order introducing new sanctions, and while we could argue about the effectiveness of such sanctions, it's still doing something as opposed to just pure lip service. And at this point it's about all he can do.
 
This kind of statement is NOT a good idea. If Assad is toppled, it won't be because of anything Obama said...in fact, it'll give Assad a nice soundbyte to show how the protesters are puppets of the United States and how he's standing up to imperialists. And if Assad holds on, then our relationship with Syria is icier than ever.

What is the upside to Obama issuing a statement like this?

That's actually one of the reasons they hesitated so long, I suspect. In the end, I suppose they just decided that they had to "keep it real" and finally just say what they've been meaning to say for a long time, rather than engaging in doublespeak and dancing around the issue. It may be a symbolic shift between saying "we condemn whatever's going on over there" to saying "Assad needs to go," but it's still a significant shift in message nonetheless.

It is a pretty weak statement. Have they already tried the “stop it already” statement? If so, have they pulled out the “we really mean it this time” statement? How about the “we’re getting mad” statement?

If all else fails, they could have an “Assad is a jerk” vote in the UN and then call him a jerk if it passes.

In all honesty i think they already did something to that effect. And yes, I would agree that it's a weak statement, but that it was a statement that people just finally needed to have out in the open nonetheless. Pretty much any diplomatic statement that falls short of the threat of military force is "weak," IMHO.
 
Here is an example of fake activists and color revolutions ...

"An amusing example is the case of the blog "Gay Girl in Damascus", created on 21 February 2011. Edited in English by 25 year-old Amina, the website became a source of reference for Western media. Therein the author described the plight of a young lesbian under Bashar’s dictatorship and the day-to-day unfolding of the terrible repression unleashed against the revolution. As a gay woman, she garnered the protective empathy of Western web surfers who mobilized as soon as her arrest by the secret services of the "regime" was announced."

"However, as it happened, Amina was a fiction. Betrayed by his IP address, a US 40 year-old "student" was discovered to be the real author of this masquerade. This propagandist, who was allegedly preparing a PhD in Scotland, recently participated in a pro-Western opposition conference held in Turkey, urging for a NATO intervention. He quite obviously did not attend in his capacity as a student."

"What is particularly surprising is not so much the gullibility of the internet surfers who swallowed the lies about the fake Amina, but the outpouring of the defenders of freedom in support of those who trample those same freedoms."


"Reality reversal is a principle being applied on a large scale. We may recall the United Nations reports on the humanitarian crisis in Libya alleging that tens of thousands of immigrant workers were fleeing the country to escape from violence. The conclusion drawn and spewed by the Western media was that the Gaddafi "regime" had to be toppled in favor of the Benghazi rebels. And yet, it was not the government of Tripoli who was responsible for this tragedy, but the so-called revolutionaries in Cyrenaica who were hunting down black Africans. Stirred by a racist ideology, they accused them of being at the service of Colonel Gaddafi and lynched whoever they could get their hands on."

"In Syria, the images of armed groups perched on the rooftops and firing at random into the crowd or on police forces were broadcast on national television networks. Yet, these same images were relayed and used by Western and Saudi television channels to attribute these crimes to the government of Damascus."

The Plan to Destabilize Syria
 
Back
Top Bottom