It's not that I'm making president Assad a sympathetic figure. I don't deny that Syria wasn't run like Canada or France. But it would seem that you deny that he has, according to NATO 70% support of his people. (I think Obama has 40% right now.
) as has been pointed out by other posters here multiple times, those people over there don't respond to democracy quite the way that westerners do and they are much more use to autocratic rule. Did you hear a lot of news coming out of Syria before this civil war. Anyway, those types of leaders over there of course are never going to tolerate protests for reform, and when it's tried in countries like Bahrain where we're not interested in "regime change" we stay the hell out of the way and let them smash it down. Saudi Arabia could use its share of reform if you wish to hold ME countries to western standards, but do you think for one minute that the US would be supporting all these same players were they over there doing the same thing? This crap is NOT about humanitarian rescue, its about "US interests" under the guise of humanitarian aid. So I ain't listened to this ****. And you need only look around the region where the US has "intervened" and not in one single case are things better. Is there a week goes by that you don't hear of car bombs somewhere in Iraq? That wasn't going on there when Saddam Hussein was in power.
Here's the deal, if its not too late it could be close to it for Syria. The nasty people the US is supporting will keep that country in chaos and dysfunction that it NEVER saw under president Assad. And if it goes that way, I won't be one of the ones to share any of the blame. I am sick and disgusted with US intervention in that region, sick and tired of those people over there dying to our drone attacks and outright bombings and I will never support our "missions" there, ever! Understand?