• 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
Montecresto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well like i was just saying to sawdust if anything our involvement in the region is more characterized the imposition and support of dictatorships against democracy rather then visa versa (and we are seeing the fruits of this policy in Iran*). And the UK (alongside France and the US) has been at the forefront of this for its own economic and percived geostrategic interests. On the contrary what you are arguing is an extention of the old colonialist argument that brown people cannot be trusted to vote and that we need to keep them inline.


*Not that Iran is, for the most part, Arab, just a pertinient example.
 
Apocalypse said:
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:
Click to expand...

Read what you actually quoted. I said, you can have no sense of legitimacy of elections in a country torn apart as Syria is presently.
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the bloody civil war they have been fighting against him would suggest that they don't him. Least of all the Kurds.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well like i was just saying to sawdust if anything our involvement in the region is more characterized the imposition and support of dictatorships against democracy rather then visa versa (and we are seeing the fruits of this policy in Iran*). And the UK (alongside France and the US) has been at the forefront of this for its own economic and percived geostrategic interests. On the contrary what you are arguing is an extention of the old colonialist argument that brown people cannot be trusted to vote and that we need to keep them inline.


*Not that Iran is, for the most part, Arab, just a pertinient example.
Click to expand...

Wtf. I believe that what I'm arguing is that Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to the very radical elements of the Islamic State that have blossomed in the power vacuums created by their removal. Nothing more.
 
Medusa said:
a very clear question to (particularly )right wingers who hate islamists but keep ignoring the US government's great role in allowing isis to gain power in Syria
Click to expand...

I am a right winger that 100% agrees with your statement. Assad hates terrorists as much as I do. We should be giving him weapons to kill ISIS and Al Qaeda! Not allowing Obama to arm Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels.
 
Montecresto said:
Read what you actually quoted. I said, you can have no sense of legitimacy of elections in a country torn apart as Syria is presently.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I said what I said genius. Syria is torn apart, yet 88.7% of the votes went to Assad. Quite a contradiction there. But hell no it cannot be that the elections were rigged by the brutal dictator with the 14 year old mustache.

And that's not even the good part:

Syria calls in North Korea to monitor its presidential election
 
Montecresto said:
Wtf. I believe that what I'm arguing is that Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi nor Assad gave any quarters to the very radical elements of the Islamic State that have blossomed in the power vacuums created by their removal. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Exactly right. This is why the U.S. government wants to get rid of them. Terrorists are the U.S. Defense contractor's best friend and a stable government that makes slow in-roads to improving the society is not what neocons want.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well like i was just saying to sawdust if anything our involvement in the region is more characterized the imposition and support of dictatorships against democracy rather then visa versa (and we are seeing the fruits of this policy in Iran*). And the UK (alongside France and the US) has been at the forefront of this for its own economic and percived geostrategic interests. On the contrary what you are arguing is an extention of the old colonialist argument that brown people cannot be trusted to vote and that we need to keep them inline.


*Not that Iran is, for the most part, Arab, just a pertinient example.
Click to expand...

Iran is a good example of how our foreign policy fails in nation building. The Shaw was an American puppet. I believe that he was installed by Eisenhower, although I may be wrong about that. He remained in power until the Carter administration. To stay in power we paid the Mullahs annually so they would not oppose him. Carter opposed this and believed that the Mullahs were men of faith who would lead the country in a Godly manner if they took power so he ended payments to them. The Shaw was a moderate Persian, allowing women to dress as they wished an d become as educated as they wanted. The Mullahs took him out and installed strict Muslim rule removing a ruler who was very friendly to the west.

We are much better off letting the people decide their own destinies.
 
reinoe said:
I think the N.Koreans would be less biased than our own government watchers.
Click to expand...

And I believe you have the right to say stupid things.
 
Montecresto said:
Settle yourself. It was a NATO report that found 70% of Syrians in support of president Assad.
Click to expand...

But that's normal - 100% of the Iraqi people were in support of Saddam when he was around........ if they were not they'd end up dying in the most horrible ways.
 
Ockham said:
But that's normal - 100% of the Iraqi people were in support of Saddam when he was around........ if they were not they'd end up dying in the most horrible ways.
Click to expand...

Actually, life was far more secure for Iraqi civilians while he was in power than it has been in any time sense his removal. None of the middle eastern governments are ideal, but the alternative brought about by their removals is less ideal yet.
 
Montecresto said:
Actually, life was far more secure for Iraqi civilians while he was in power than it has been in any time sense his removal. None of the middle eastern governments are ideal, but the alternative brought about by their removals is less ideal yet.
Click to expand...

Whether or not life was or was not secure is irrelevant to my point.
 
Montecresto said:
Settle yourself. It was a NATO report that found 70% of Syrians in support of president Assad.
Click to expand...

Two years out of date and misleading...

From June of 2013

For two years, the events in Syria have been portrayed by the Atlanticist and GCC press as a peaceful revolution cruelly suppressed by a tyrant. The Syrian and anti-imperialist press, on the contrary, brands them as a foreign attack, armed and funded to the tune of billions of dollars.
NATO reveals 70% of Syrians support Bashar al-Assad
Click to expand...

It is a report about the effectiveness of Assad's propaganda campaign, not a vote of popularity, pointing out that through this propaganda Assad is tightening his hold.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Two years out of date and misleading...

From June of 2013



It is a report about the effectiveness of Assad's propaganda campaign, not a vote of popularity, pointing out that through this propaganda Assad is tightening his hold.
Click to expand...

I see. You suppose Syrians prefer an Islamic State rule. Perhaps so.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Two years out of date and misleading...

From June of 2013



It is a report about the effectiveness of Assad's propaganda campaign, not a vote of popularity, pointing out that through this propaganda Assad is tightening his hold.
Click to expand...

One can always trust Montecresto to twist anything in favor of the Axis of Evil.
 
Apocalypse said:
One can always trust Montecresto to twist anything in favor of the Axis of Evil.
Click to expand...

The axis of evil??? You think NATO was doing some twisting in their report?
 
Montecresto said:
But not to mine, see?
Click to expand...

I don't see how your point is valid -- my point trumps your point as any poll made by NATO of people under threat of violence if they do not answer a certain way undermines any 70% number you've provided, as was the oppression under Saddam when 100% of Iraqi's favored his rule. Therefore, your point is invalid. See?
 
Ockham said:
I don't see how your point is valid -- my point trumps your point as any poll made by NATO of people under threat of violence if they do not answer a certain way undermines any 70% number you've provided, as was the oppression under Saddam when 100% of Iraqi's favored his rule. Therefore, your point is invalid. See?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. You're pretending that life for Iraqi and Syrian civilians has improved with US and other interference. But they don't think so, and they'd gladly have the stability of then over the insecurity of now. And from the comfort of your home, you presume to know what's better for them. No surprise though, it's this type of thinking that supports policies that have a stated purpose as opposed to a genuine one.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I don't. You're pretending that life for Iraqi and Syrian civilians has improved with US and other interference.
Click to expand...
I've actually said nothing about Iraqi or Syrian civilian improvements - so you're incorrect and using a strawman as clearly my point is very specific. Oppressed people will not tell the truth especially when that oppression is life threatening. Do you have a NATO poll that address oppression and the % of people who will knowingly forfeit their lives for such a poll? I'm thinking not....
 
sawdust said:
Iran is a good example of how our foreign policy fails in nation building. The Shaw was an American puppet. I believe that he was installed by Eisenhower, although I may be wrong about that. He remained in power until the Carter administration. To stay in power we paid the Mullahs annually so they would not oppose him. Carter opposed this and believed that the Mullahs were men of faith who would lead the country in a Godly manner if they took power so he ended payments to them. The Shaw was a moderate Persian, allowing women to dress as they wished an d become as educated as they wanted. The Mullahs took him out and installed strict Muslim rule removing a ruler who was very friendly to the west.

We are much better off letting the people decide their own destinies.
Click to expand...

Iran was a secular democracy untill 1954 when we overthrew it, had we not installed the shah Islamists would never have come to power, they never enjoyed majority support under Mossadegh and the fact that they still have the rig elections would suggest that they still don´t to this day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom