• 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!

Assad or ISIS ?

Assad or Isis ?


  • Total voters
    33
Wrong! When the US decides that some "evil" (whatever that truly is) must be gone, the replacement tends to be worse. Besides looking about the planet deciding what government must be gone isn't your role in life, nor is it that of the US governments, despite it's behavior.

What does it have to do with the US?
Assad is evil by every human standard, he's been gassing his own people on the streets.
If you don't find him evil it's due to your ridiculously immoral standards and due to the fact that you yourself are a promoter of evil.
 
Saudi kings are never better than Assad

As a matter of fact, I am not of that opinion. They are certainly and probably sorrowfully not democrats, but they have not yet gassed their own population as the Assad dynasty has nor mowed down demonstrators. Till they do, they are not as bad.
 
I do not think that there would be a coalition effort if only the two options were available. My position is: Neither.
 
What does it have to do with the US?
Assad is evil by every human standard, he's been gassing his own people on the streets.
If you don't find him evil it's due to your ridiculously immoral standards and due to the fact that you yourself are a promoter of evil.

Or just a pro-Russian nationalist pretending to be an American. You know, like "Salt," have you seen Salt with Angelina Jolie? The Russian agent is sent to grow from childhood and pretend to be American but always works against it from within.
 
Or just a pro-Russian nationalist pretending to be an American. You know, like "Salt," have you seen Salt with Angelina Jolie? The Russian agent is sent to grow from childhood and pretend to be American but always works against it from within.

That movie sucked.
 
Do you have anything to say about Assad's murder of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Lebanon? How about his backing of sectarian and neo-Nazi political parties in said country? He and Hezbollah have both wreaked havoc upon Lebanon that the most ardent Arab-hating Israeli nationalist could only dream of.

That's true. But I was taking issue with your comment that Israel unintentionally targets civilians. In the same Lebanon, in 2006, they destroyed thousands of civilian apartments, killed 1,200 civilians, created another 3/4 of a million refugees, bombed bridges, dams, airports, roadways, and in so doing, destroyed 3 billion dollars worth of non military civilian infrastructure. At any rate, Assad in Syria is preferred to an Islamic State in Syria.
 
What does it have to do with the US?
Assad is evil by every human standard, he's been gassing his own people on the streets.
If you don't find him evil it's due to your ridiculously immoral standards and due to the fact that you yourself are a promoter of evil.

I haven't promoted any evil. And you have no evidence that president Assad is gassing people on the streets.
 
I haven't promoted any evil. And you have no evidence that president Assad is gassing people on the streets.

Right because Assad's use of chemical warfare against civilians is a myth spread by Washington, it's all the US fault eh?
And you my friend are evil incarnate, you never waste an opportunity to promote anything that is wrong on this planet.
Funny that you call him 'president' though, I had the feeling those needed to be elected.
 
Right because Assad's use of chemical warfare against civilians is a myth spread by Washington, it's all the US fault eh?
And you my friend are evil incarnate, you never waste an opportunity to promote anything that is wrong on this planet.
Funny that you call him 'president' though, I had the feeling those needed to be elected.

Lol. What are you a preacher or something. We had a SCOTUS pick a president, I suppose they can come variously. Why would you call somebody your friend that you believe to be "evil incarnate"? And when do I promote everything wrong on this planet?

Assad is president of Syria, like it or not.

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact, I am not of that opinion. They are certainly and probably sorrowfully not democrats, but they have not yet gassed their own population as the Assad dynasty has nor mowed down demonstrators. Till they do, they are not as bad.

in saudi arabia there cant even be any protestor or demonsrator in the streets.you guess what it means ?
 
What does it have to do with the US?
Assad is evil by every human standard, he's been gassing his own people on the streets.
If you don't find him evil it's due to your ridiculously immoral standards and due to the fact that you yourself are a promoter of evil.
his father was evil too but nothing happened to him :lol:
 
When compared to islamists of course anyone should prefer the Assad regime.

Then again a regime not led by a sociopath would be more capable of consolidating power over the country, thus making it harder for groups like Isis to take root. There was no ISIS when Iraq was a parliamentary democracy back in the 1950s.

In terms of finding a long term solution what one needs to do is look at parts of the world that where previously marred by war between competing fundamentalisms, and look and how these issues where solved. If you take Switzerland for example (which a few hundreds years ago had frequent civil wars between different sects) this problems were solved by a form of government that actually represented people and allowed them to resolve their grevences democratically. This in tern allowed the country to develop, which improved education and solved the issue of fundementalism.

People will of course say that Switzerland is Switzerland and Syria is Syria, but we have to ask why both countries are the way they are, and remember that we were pretty similar not too long ago.
 
Lol. What are you a preacher or something. We had a SCOTUS pick a president, I suppose they can come variously. Why would you call somebody your friend that you believe to be "evil incarnate"? And when do I promote everything wrong on this planet?

Assad is president of Syria, like it or not.

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media
Most Syrians back President Assad

Then why would he not hold a presidential election, allowing him to garner more support from the international community?
 
Then why would he not hold a presidential election, allowing him to garner more support from the international community?

Very difficult to hold elections, with any sense of legitimacy, when your country is torn apart in a civil war, a war against terrorism, in a country that's nearly fractured in thirds with different powers in control, and foreign fighters supported by neighboring Arab States as well as Western powers pushing for "regime change" and control of the country, don't ya think??
 
That movie sucked.

Off topic, but I liked it.

Anyway, I propose calling users that pretend to be from another location just so as they can propagate their polar positions of that locations from there as - Salties (i.e., after the movie Salt).
 
Very difficult to hold elections, with any sense of legitimacy, when your country is torn apart in a civil war, a war against terrorism, in a country that's nearly fractured in thirds with different powers in control, and foreign fighters supported by neighboring Arab States as well as Western powers pushing for "regime change" and control of the country, don't ya think??

They did hold parliamentary elections in 2012, as well as a consitutional referendum, likewise Lincon was elected in your own country during a civil war.
Syrian parliamentary election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise the 'Al' Assad family have been in power since 1971, why has there never been a vote if they are so popular?
 
Then why would he not hold a presidential election, allowing him to garner more support from the international community?

This is the same kind of nation building mindset that continually gets us in trouble in the Middle East. We assume that because democracy works for us, it would work everywhere. Look at the history of the middle east however. Hussein was a strongman and tyrant in Iraq. We removed him and staged elections. Then Obama pulled us out with no plan to stabilize the country and look at it now. Kadaffi was a strongman in Libya. While he wasn't a US ally, he held the nation together and dealt with it's tribal eccentricities. We supported his ouster. Now Libya is a stronghold for terrorists. Then we supported the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. We supported the Muslim Brotherhood and replaced a leader who was friendly to the west with a group hostile to the west. Thankfully Egypt is now in control of a more moderate regime, who we are not supporting as we should in it's battle against radical Islamists. I have no idea why we oppose Assad in Syria other than he is friendly with Russia.

The Middle east is a safer place when it's individual countries are controlled by strongmen and tyrants. The mindset on the Arab street can identify with this type of governance and honestly don't have the cultural underpinning to deal with the strife that democracy brings to tribalism and cultural divides. Leave them alone to stew in their own misery.
 
This is the same kind of nation building mindset that continually gets us in trouble in the Middle East. We assume that because democracy works for us, it would work everywhere. Look at the history of the middle east however. Hussein was a strongman and tyrant in Iraq. We removed him and staged elections. Then Obama pulled us out with no plan to stabilize the country and look at it now. Kadaffi was a strongman in Libya. While he wasn't a US ally, he held the nation together and dealt with it's tribal eccentricities. We supported his ouster. Now Libya is a stronghold for terrorists. Then we supported the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. We supported the Muslim Brotherhood and replaced a leader who was friendly to the west with a group hostile to the west. Thankfully Egypt is now in control of a more moderate regime, who we are not supporting as we should in it's battle against radical Islamists. I have no idea why we oppose Assad in Syria other than he is friendly with Russia.

The Middle east is a safer place when it's individual countries are controlled by strongmen and tyrants. The mindset on the Arab street can identify with this type of governance and honestly don't have the cultural underpinning to deal with the strife that democracy brings to tribalism and cultural divides. Leave them alone to stew in their own misery.

Then i would refer to you to post 87. The arab world has more experience of parliamentary democracy then many realize (again see Iraq and Syria in the 50s) and even before independance they had limited parliamentary representation under the Ottoman Empire. The greater part of Western intervention in the region has involved imposing dictatorship and opposing demcracy rather than vice versa,

As for Mohammed Morsi I think what's often underestimated is that it was popular protests against the Muslim Brotherhood (including many former supporters) that triggered the military coup. The only thing that has prevented a return to democracy is that the military has used the crisis to prolong its undue influence in the country with the help of its supporters in the West, making it very much a microcosm for the regions politics as a whole.
 
Last edited:
They did hold parliamentary elections in 2012, as well as a consitutional referendum, likewise Lincon was elected in your own country during a civil war.
Syrian parliamentary election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise the 'Al' Assad family have been in power since 1971, why has there never been a vote if they are so popular?

Yes, they held some elections that no one considers legitimate, that far too few were able to participate in. People are trying to just survive in Syria right now.

NATO reveals 70% of Syrians support Bashar al-Assad
 
Then i would refer to you to post 87. The arab world has more experience of parliamentary democracy then many realize (again see Iraq and Syria in the 50s) and even before independance they had limited parliamentary representation under the Ottoman Empire. The greater part of Western intervention in the region has involved imposing dictatorship and opposing demcracy rather than vice versa,

As for Mohammed Morsi I think what's often underestimated is that it was popular protests against the Muslim Brotherhood (including many former supporters) that triggered the military coup. The only thing that has prevented a return to democracy is that the military has used the crisis to prolong its undue influence in the country with the help of its supporters in the West, making it very much a microcosm for the regions politics as a whole.

The world has changed since the 50's. Radical Islamists and the creation of Israel post WW2 have galvanized the Arab street. Our efforts at nation building starting with the Shaw in Iran have all resulted in one disaster or another. My vote is to let the tyrants tyrant and let the people under them either suffer or revolt. We should not involve ourselves in their system of government.
 
The world has changed since the 50's. Radical Islamists and the creation of Israel post WW2 have galvanized the Arab street. Our efforts at nation building starting with the Shaw in Iran have all resulted in one disaster or another. My vote is to let the tyrants tyrant and let the people under them either suffer or revolt. We should not involve ourselves in their system of government.

Again none of those things would have happend under a government that actually represented people. I fear you are putting the cart before the horse here.

The surreal thing about ISIS is that their idealogy is actually very new. Their 'caliphate' is a actually a lot more radical then most historical ones (including the Ottoman empire which legalized homosexuality in 1858). On the contrary Islamism came as a result of imposition of dictatorships on the region during the cold war.
 
Last edited:
Cause opinion polling the one of the most opressive states in the world is oh so reliable. Call me old fashioned but i prefer to rely on elections.

Yes, I see. And I believe that's what you folks do. Syria isn't your business. British imperialism in earnest, ended sometime ago, thankfully. Nobody holds president Assad up as any sort of model. Syria was however in far better shape when he had full control, than it is now. And this was a NATO report, not just any old poll. Decades of US/UK intervention, interference, nation building, regime change and exploitation have netted a Middle East in complete chaos. Maybe I'm old fashion, but I don't prefer chaos to containment.
 
Again none of those things would have happend under a government that actually represented people. I fear you are putting the cart before the horse here.


I agree with that, sort of. I'm all for power to the people but I'm not for forcing power on the people which is what our efforts at nation building have been. If they want a tyrant, let them have one. If they want to overthrow the tyrant, let them try. In the end, just as in this country, we all get the government we deserve.
 
Very difficult to hold elections, with any sense of legitimacy, when your country is torn apart in a civil war, a war against terrorism, in a country that's nearly fractured in thirds with different powers in control, and foreign fighters supported by neighboring Arab States as well as Western powers pushing for "regime change" and control of the country, don't ya think??

Torn apart by civil war? That's weird, in the last elections 'president' al-Assad got 88.7% of the votes. So he says anyway. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom