‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).
The Assads crushed islamic fundamentalism, restored order, enacted numerous reforms to consolidate their power, took away democracy, and the country saw a process of great economic expansion. So it was basically a benevolent dictatorship. And it's ironically, until the rise of islam supremacism in Syria and the start of the civil war, that Syria, under the Assads, has seen the best period of its existence for centuries.
Last edited by Rainman05; 09-09-13 at 07:03 AM.
The revolution in Syria is not about democracy. The rebels dont' want that. They want sharia law and islamic theocracy instituted. They are jihadists, not liberators.
So there is no good side in the Syrian conflict. There is just 2 sides of the same dictatorial coin. One is a secular dictatorship, the other is an islamic one. That's why I keep on saying, the only genuine course of action that the west can take to make sure democracy and civil rights are respected in Syria is to go in, full force, wipe the floor with both the rebel forces and the Assad regime, and then restore democracy, and get out.
See my previous post too.
Which is by far an excuse of any and all of Assad's wrong doings.
I'm of the mindset that we should not be the world police and if the U.N. authorizes any action to be taken, it should be taken by all of the U.N. and not just the U.S.