Since Kerry demands Assad must go, we don't support any dictators as bad or worse do we?

[yurbud]

Obviously in our history we have our Pinochet, Papa & Baby Doc, Suharto, Marcos, Rios Montt, the Shah, China during Tiananmen Square...

But we don't support any dictators who oppress their own people and actively prevent democracy anymore, do we?

It's not like we support Saudi, a theocracy that makes Iran look like Sweden, or the guy in Uzbekistan who boils political opponents ALIVE, right?

We haven't recently backed any military coups against democratically elected governments like the one against Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, have we? Or the multiple coup attempts against Hugo Chavez during the Bush years?

Because if any of that was true, people might suspect that all the tears about Syria's human rights abuses and dictatorship, even if true, are the excuse not the reason for trying to remove Assad.

Why is our government trying so hard to get rid of Assad?

0 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	He has done very bad things. Worse than all our dictators.
	0 (0%)
	Syria is somehow an obstacle to our government's geopolitical strategery that is too complicated or boring for our little brains to comprehend
	0 (0%)
	Syria is an obstacle to Israel's geopolitical strategery
	0 (0%)
	Syria isn't obeying banks, Wall St, oil companies, and the like to their satisfaction
	0 (0%)
	We need SOMETHING to keep our spies & diplomats busy (it would have kept military busy too if the pesky public hadn't objected).
	0 (0%)
	Some combination of strategery & business interests
	0 (0%)
	OTHER (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[LuvNewcastle]

1. If Assad is removed, who will take his place?

Considering who the people are who are fighting him, it will probably be some Al Qaeda-backed radical. How is that any better than Assad? When I see these people living in neighborhoods that are being shot up by Assad's forces, I think to myself, "why don't those people just surrender to Assad's forces?" Let him take their territory.

All that needs to happen is for that war to end. Assisting the rebels is only dragging the war out further and causing more death and suffering. Remember, the rebels are fighting for Al Qaeda, the people who are supposedly our biggest enemies in the world! If pressure can be put on Assad to agree not to take revenge on the people who surrender to him, I think that would be a satisfactory ending to the conflict. A government would already be in place to organize the clean-up and re-building efforts.

Unless all the talk about Al Qaeda was just bullshit to get Americans stirred up, why would we want Assad removed? If our government decides to assist the rebels in removing Assad, I'm calling bullshit on the entire Al Qaeda narrative that's been used to encourage our efforts in the Middle East since 9/11.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. You can't expect the Saudis to actually do their own work, can you?

Silly talk.

[Xyzse]

3. They are not.

Had there been no social media, they would have probably supported Assad.
The advent of social media in that area opened up the atrocities that happen.

Thing is, I tend to think that the USA has been shamed in to acting, more than anything else.

Assad was considered to be a secular and western friendly leader in that area. His regime has also protected the religious minorities of the region.

[yurbud]

6. we ousted the Secular Saddam and Khadaffi.

[solarhydrocan]

18. Don't forget

Mohammed Mossadeq

“Few, if any, operations are as explosive as this.” CIA discussing the 1953 coup in Iran

http://www.hulu.com/watch/400495

AMERICAN COUP tells the story of the 1953 coup carried out by the CIA to topple the popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry to protect Iran’s chief asset.

[yurbud]

19. secular, elected, religious, dictator...all that matters is when oil companies, banks, or

United Fruit says jump, the native chief says, "How high?"

[yurbud]

8. Syria has been on our shit list for some time, including the Bush list of countries to invade or

cause regime change by covert means.


http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

[Xyzse]

13. I guess.

I apologize for not replying till now. I left before your posts.

The only reason I said what I mentioned is that during the Arab Spring, with all that was happening, I felt that we were over-stretched. That there was a huge hesitancy in going in to another conflict.

Where, after Egypt went, and then our little help in Sudan which was at a bare minimum, they had to choose, and Syria just happened after.

I may be wrong, but the way I saw it, was that we were pressured to say and engage more than we wanted to publicly rather than covertly.

[pampango]

4. I say Kerry should state that all dictators should go. They all stay in power thanks to the army and

secret police. Assad has been brutal but not a whole lot worse than all dictators. They survive out of fear from the governed, not out of love.

[yurbud]

9. if they wanted to get rid of dictators, they'd start with the ones on our payroll...

overthrowing them would simply be a matter of cutting off their military and intelligence aid and leaving them to their own people.

And if we admitted we had previously supported the dictator because certain business interests demanded it, the new governments might choose to have positive relations with us.

[pampango]

11. I think it is safe to say that our dictator payroll has been cut substantially in the last

30-40 years. Some of them were cut for us - South Vietnam, Iran, many countries in Central and South America got rid of American-supported dictators on their own. Others were cut loose - Marcos (Philippines), Park (South Korea), Mubarak (Egypt).

I get your point. The dictators that we still have on our payroll - in Kazakstan and a few other places should be cast off no matter what benefit we think we are getting for the "order" that the dictator provides. I don't really have an up-to-date list of our dictators. I am sure there are more than just Kazakstan.

Still I don't want Kerry to stop bad-mouthing dictators in general.

[yurbud]

16. the point is he aint doing it out of a concern for humanity

[NuclearDem]

5. Syria is an Iranian and Russian ally, and an enemy of Israel.

That's really about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Moralizing puffery just to look good for the cameras.

We say he isn't legit but neither are any of the factions that would replace him.

[Savannahmann]

10. I voted strategery

Russia has one foreign port for their navy. That one is in Syria, which gives their ships in the Mediterranean Sea places to refuel and take on supplies. This allows the Russians to have a much larger presence in the Med than they would otherwise have. Turkey restricts the numbers of Russian warships that can go through the Bosporus straight. That means Russian ships have to sail all the way around Europe to get to the Med.

The Syrian port was a threat to the regional power enjoyed by the American Navy, which is why Russia deployed so many ships to defend Syria. Imagine if one of our allies where we have a naval base was threatened with attack seeking regime change. Take any one you want, Japan, Italy, or Spain. We would have to respond, we could not allow our prestige to be lessened in the area, and we could not allow our ally to fall.

That is why I was astonished when the Syria intervention was being discussed, it would not be us bombing a few Syrian targets, the Russians would have to respond, because as outraged we would be if one of our bases was threatened, imagine how we would be if our one base was threatened. It would be a very simple thing, fight, or surrender, and surrender is nearly as unthinkable as fighting is. Surrender means giving up your growing influence in the region, which is very bad for national prestige and international trade. Surrender means acknowledging that your opponent is essentially omnipotent, which the Russians are not willing to do. Not when their nation is so large.

[yurbud]

14. wow, that is no small thing. That would make an attack on Syria as dangerous as one on Iran.

in either case, it's not the retaliation from our direct target we would have to worry about, but who else was drawn into the conflict.

[reddread]

12. saudi arabia

fortunately moral authority is not a necessity.
so they killed a few thousand Americans on 9-11-01, SO WHAT?

[yurbud]

17. that little fact is left unsaid so often

[Adrahil]

15. Like most things in life,it's rarely as simple as you would have it be. NT