No role for Assad in Syria's future - U.S.'s Tillerson

[boomerangutang]

16 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

In free and fair elections covering the entire country, Assad would not win.  Guaranteed.  So yes, let Syrians decide their own fate.  Let them vote. Sadly, won't happen with Assad and Russia still there.

As we know, free and fair elections don't exist in the M.East, except maybe in Israel.  So, if there was a proximity of fair elections in Syria, it's probable Assad would win.  Repercussions for voting 'the wrong way' (against the ruling thugs) is probably a factor there.  It is in Thailand.  A hill tribe g.f. of mine was paid Bt.500 and told who to vote for (a Shinawatre, of course).  She was also told (by the village headwoman), if it was found she didn't vote for whom she was required/paid to vote for, she would be punished.  My g.f. complied.  

 

I expect it's probably worse in Syria.  Like the US, those regions which don't vote for the strong man who gets elected will likely suffer adverse consequences.  Note: despite the recent devastating fires in CA, Trump didn't say peep about them nor voice any offers of Federal assistance - because Californians voted overwhelmingly against Trump. 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by boomerangutang

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

As we know, free and fair elections don't exist in the M.East, except maybe in Israel.  So, if there was a proximity of fair elections in Syria, it's probable Assad would win.  Repercussions for voting 'the wrong way' (against the ruling thugs) is probably a factor there.  It is in Thailand.  A hill tribe g.f. of mine was paid Bt.500 and told who to vote for (a Shinawatre, of course).  She was also told (by the village headwoman), if it was found she didn't vote for whom she was required/paid to vote for, she would be punished.  My g.f. complied.  

 

I expect it's probably worse in Syria.  Like the US, those regions which don't vote for the strong man who gets elected will likely suffer adverse consequences.  Note: despite the recent devastating fires in CA, Trump didn't say peep about them nor voice any offers of Federal assistance - because Californians voted overwhelmingly against Trump. 

 

 

I did a post earlier that said voters were threatened in Syria.  Vote for Assad or else.  Same thing happened to my wife in her village.  Everybody knows who you voted for.  It's no secret.  Sadly.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Assad  is a war criminal, and will have to flee to Russian territory after this war is over.

  I do not think that even Putin can save him from his people when this civil conflict is

completely finished.

Geezer

Because his opponents are winning?

[Morch]

18 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

'No role for Assad in Syria's future'.

How on earth does Washington plan to make this comment come about ?  How is Washington going to create a situation where Assad has no role in Syria's future ?

The civil war in Syria is coming to an end, and Assad is certainly still there. Assad is backed by Russia and Iran/Hezbollah. So, how on earth is Assad going to have no role in Syria's future ?

How about, Washington targets it's support for the rebels, and massively increase this support ? How about look at the support that Obama gave, and now triple the support ? Perhaps this will boost the rebels, and the rebels will start winning the civil war against Assad ?  Surely, Washington is not going to do this ? It isn't, right ?

 

As pointed out on many a topic, and as you're bound to ignore - the current USA administration's ability to formulate or even communicate an coherent policy is seriously hampered by Trump. So labeling the statements made in the OP as representing "Washington" (whatever that stands for in your propaganda posts) is a choice, but not a necessarily correct one.

 

That the USA's does not currently possess the leverage to effect changes as addressed in the OP is  a fact. That does not mean the USA needs to embrace Assad and his rule, though. Nor does it imply anything nonsensical as further comments included in your post.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt is a propaganda machine's wet dream ?
Craigt knows what the reality is, but Craigt still wants to help create a non-accurate picture of what's going on. Yes, Craigt is trying to help the propaganda machine.

 

 

[Morch]

18 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

If I am not mistaken, Assad said he wouldn't quit until he was back in control of all of Syria.  He's far from that goal.  Very far.  How will this all end?  Assad just letting a majority of his country go?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/05/syria-country-divided-150529144229467.html

 

Assad, like other leaders, says a whole lot of things. Unless you had a change of heart, since when do you take his statements at face value?

 

The map above does not convey the dynamics of the situation. If you were to post a series of images showing the territorial gains and losses during the course of the civil war, the direction this is going would be clearer. The areas marked under control of ISIL and rebel forces are already isolated and under attacks. There is no reason to imagine that it will end up in anything but them being defeated.

 

The situation is more complicated when it comes to the areas controlled by the Kurds. While Assad could, possibly, engage them head on and subjugate them back to how things were before the civil war. But this would require much effort, massive support from Iran and Russia, while empowering Turkey. Not sure Assad and his allies are up for that, at least not at this time. It's a good question whether Assad is open to concessions allowing Syrian Kurds a measure of autonomy. Might be a bullet he'll bite if it would mean Turkish forces leaving and a swift "official" ending of the civil war. Remains to be seen, and is compounded by other factors. Mind that the Kurds' main effort during the civil war wasn't fighting Assad.

 

All things considered, it's pretty much over. Sure, there will be low intensity fighting going on, and Assad's grip on the country may not return to pre-civil war level, but unless something drastic happens, he's not going anywhere.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, for a start, Assad is about to win this civil war. Washington has decided that backing the rebels is only delaying the future, hence, Washington has actually reduced it's support for the rebels. As in, Washington knows, even with support, the rebels are not going to be able to remove Assad. That's because Assad is backed by Russia and Iran.
And you, you are trying to say that there are still lots of rebels, and that this war is far from over.

What else ?  I've been trying to say that the bulk of the fighting from the rebels is actually being done by ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Nusra Front are Al Qaeda's branch in Syria. And you, you've been implying/saying that there's loads of rebels who are not connected to ISIS or the Al-Nusra Front.

You also refuse to accept or say that Washington's plan, from day one, was to 'support whatever rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then, look at the rebels after they've done this, and then bomb any of the rebels who are against America and Europe'.

And now, you're refusing to say "yes, it will be a good idea to continue funding whatever rebels, let's increase the funding, let's have this war continue".  You're refusing to blatantly say this, because you know that anybody saying it sounds absurd.

 

Seems like yet another "objective account" of things, this time extending not only to events in Syria but to past topics as well.

 

What you describe is, perhaps, how things stand now. Initially, though, the opposition was not of an extreme Islamic bent. This came about later on, and gradually, at that. There are various factors which contributed to this shift, and which were reviews on past topics, mostly ignored by yourself in favor of inane, repetitive propaganda rants.

 

There was no such "Washington's plan" as you often claim. That your repeat this nonsense doesn't make it so. Just another bogus talking point. And why would you expect anyone to do anything but "refuse" saying stuff dreamed up by yourself?

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Assad, like other leaders, says a whole lot of things. Unless you had a change of heart, since when do you take his statements at face value?

 

The map above does not convey the dynamics of the situation. If you were to post a series of images showing the territorial gains and losses during the course of the civil war, the direction this is going would be clearer. The areas marked under control of ISIL and rebel forces are already isolated and under attacks. There is no reason to imagine that it will end up in anything but them being defeated.

 

The situation is more complicated when it comes to the areas controlled by the Kurds. While Assad could, possibly, engage them head on and subjugate them back to how things were before the civil war. But this would require much effort, massive support from Iran and Russia, while empowering Turkey. Not sure Assad and his allies are up for that, at least not at this time. It's a good question whether Assad is open to concessions allowing Syrian Kurds a measure of autonomy. Might be a bullet he'll bite if it would mean Turkish forces leaving and a swift "official" ending of the civil war. Remains to be seen, and is compounded by other factors. Mind that the Kurds' main effort during the civil war wasn't fighting Assad.

 

All things considered, it's pretty much over. Sure, there will be low intensity fighting going on, and Assad's grip on the country may not return to pre-civil war level, but unless something drastic happens, he's not going anywhere.

Understood.  Just pointing out that Syria today looks nothing like Syria before the war, in terms of government control.  I don't see the opposition groups giving up their hard earned dirt.  ISIL will eventually be dealt with.  But Assad and his Russian masters will have to be happy with a smaller area to control.

[boomerangutang]

Assad must have male family members.  They may be sitting quietly now (probably heading factions of the gov't armed forces), but if they're over 19 yrs old, there's a better than 50-50 likelihood they're going to want to jump into the fray, whether Assad stays or goes, but particularly if he goes.   

 

Just getting rid of Assad doesn't get rid of the root problem:  his family and sect.  The M.East is a combobulation of antagonistic sects.  Real peace is a hukka dream.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Assad  is a war criminal, and will have to flee to Russian territory after this war is over.

  I do not think that even Putin can save him from his people when this civil conflict is

completely finished.

Geezer

 

Unless you missed it, part of the reason  for the civil war was some of Syria's people not being too sweet on Assad's ways. Well, that effort was hijacked midway and is largely spent by now. Currently, there is not much of an effective opposition which could address Assad's actions or one that's got the inclination to do so.

[boomerangutang]

I recall the video image of Assad (I think it was about 15 months ago) walking slowly into the Syrian Parliament building, and everyone there was giving him a standing ovation which wouldn't quit.  All were smiling.

 

Nearly identical, when Trump gave the 'State of the Union' speech last January.  Every Republican; standing, smiling and clapping non-stop.   What's the difference between those two pictures?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Assad must have male family members.  They may be sitting quietly now (probably heading factions of the gov't armed forces), but if they're over 19 yrs old, there's a better than 50-50 likelihood they're going to want to jump into the fray, whether Assad stays or goes, but particularly if he goes.   

 

Just getting rid of Assad doesn't get rid of the root problem:  his family and sect.  The M.East is a combobulation of antagonistic sects.  Real peace is a hukka dream.

 

All of Assad's relatives and inner circle are accounted for, no big mysteries there. One doesn't remain a dictator by not paying attention to upstarts, and cutting down to size those deemed a threat.

 

If Assad's leaves under terms arranged by Russia, it wouldn't be without a clear heir installed - one which got the stamp of approval from Putin, and thereby access to Russia's ongoing support. If Assad leaves under other circumstances and without an obvious successor, the two likeliest options are a partial return of the civil war (if along different lines) or the Russians stepping in and backing one of the ponies.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I recall the video image of Assad (I think it was about 15 months ago) walking slowly into the Syrian Parliament building, and everyone there was giving him a standing ovation which wouldn't quit.  All were smiling.

 

Nearly identical, when Trump gave the 'State of the Union' speech last January.  Every Republican; standing, smiling and clapping non-stop.   What's the difference between those two pictures?

One hasn't caused 1/2 of his population into refugee camps or are internally displaced.  One, hopefully, will be gone in 3 years with a new election.  One is not a dictator and can do what ever he pleases.  But both will be on the receiving end of criminal charges.  Hopefully soon! LOL

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Understood.  Just pointing out that Syria today looks nothing like Syria before the war, in terms of government control.  I don't see the opposition groups giving up their hard earned dirt.  ISIL will eventually be dealt with.  But Assad and his Russian masters will have to be happy with a smaller area to control.

 

The only part that will remain contested is territory held by the Kurds, and not even all of that (their forces are somewhat stretched beyond traditionally Kurdish populated zones). How this situation will be dealt with remains to be seen, but doubt it would amount to full autonomy or independence, thereby preserving (officially, at least) Syria's territorial integrity.

 

The areas still held by ISIS and others are shrinking, and will eventually be conquered. Just a matter of time before Assad's rule extends, nominally, over most of Syria.

 

Assad may not be happy about it, but Russia? Maybe not so much issues, as long as it gets it's bases, a stake at Syria's natural resources and Assad on a leash. Putin would care about losing Syrian territory if it effected any of the above, but otherwise...doubt he cares one way or the other.

[boomerangutang]

I just heard a special on BBC radio which showcased a woman who was 4 years old in Iraq when Saddam Hussein's thugs took her and her family to prisons.  The reason?  Her dad worked with Kurdish resistance. The girl and all her female family members narrowly escaped being buried alive by Hussein's thugs (they bury them slowly, in order to prolong the suffering).

 

It reminded me of the reasons why I was in favor of Iraq II invasion.  I know it's unpopular now for anyone to admit they were in favor of the invasion (because it was based on the false premise of WMD), but I was behind it for the types of reasons mentioned above.  Saddam and his sons were sadists to the 10th degree.

 

I mention that because there are some similarities to what's going on in Syria now.  Granted, Syria is more complicated (there are a handful of adversaries) and Assad may not be as despicable as Hussein, .....but similarities nevertheless.

[boomerangutang]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

One hasn't caused 1/2 of his population into refugee camps or are internally displaced.  One, hopefully, will be gone in 3 years with a new election.  One is not a dictator and can do what ever he pleases.  But both will be on the receiving end of criminal charges.  Hopefully soon! LOL

I hear you, but I was showcasing the similarities in blind adoration (from their partisan legislators) they both bask in.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by boomerangutang

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The only part that will remain contested is territory held by the Kurds, and not even all of that (their forces are somewhat stretched beyond traditionally Kurdish populated zones). How this situation will be dealt with remains to be seen, but doubt it would amount to full autonomy or independence, thereby preserving (officially, at least) Syria's territorial integrity.

 

The areas still held by ISIS and others are shrinking, and will eventually be conquered. Just a matter of time before Assad's rule extends, nominally, over most of Syria.

 

Assad may not be happy about it, but Russia? Maybe not so much issues, as long as it gets it's bases, a stake at Syria's natural resources and Assad on a leash. Putin would care about losing Syrian territory if it effected any of the above, but otherwise...doubt he cares one way or the other.

What about the rebel held areas.  These aren't ISIS.  Right?  How's Assad going to regain control of them.  Hated for him now is much worse than it was before the war.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What about the rebel held areas.  These aren't ISIS.  Right?  How's Assad going to regain control of them.  Hated for him now is much worse than it was before the war.

 

Not sure what them being ISIS or not got to do with it. It's not that other rebel outfits are always popular with locals or that they do not subscribe to extreme Islamic views. There's a bunch of them, and it's a mess trying to follow who sides with whom on which given week, further complicated by splitting factions and changing monikers. There is no strong unifying element of an effective overall leadership.

 

There are two simultaneous process: Assad being able to focus more efforts taking these areas after ISIS's defeat and the ongoing friction, splintering and lack of support weakening those outfits still opposing him.

 

He'll regain control by fear and force. The hate will be there, but would it translate into another civil war? Doubtful in the near future. Do these negative feelings imply support for an alternative? There is no clear alternative at the moment, and it's not like the various rebel factions been angels. 

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not sure what them being ISIS or not got to do with it. It's not that other rebel outfits are always popular with locals or that they do not subscribe to extreme Islamic views. There's a bunch of them, and it's a mess trying to follow who sides with whom on which given week, further complicated by splitting factions and changing monikers. There is no strong unifying element of an effective overall leadership.

 

There are two simultaneous process: Assad being able to focus more efforts taking these areas after ISIS's defeat and the ongoing friction, splintering and lack of support weakening those outfits still opposing him.

 

He'll regain control by fear and force. The hate will be there, but would it translate into another civil war? Doubtful in the near future. Do these negative feelings imply support for an alternative? There is no clear alternative at the moment, and it's not like the various rebel factions been angels. 

The non IS rebels aren't going to just give up.  Some here are saying the civil war is almost over.  If Assad is happy with what he's got now, then they are right.  If he decides to go after the kurds and other rebels, including Turkey, forget it.  As that Al Jazeera article states, the war is far from over.

 

Take a look at all the groups involved.  This mess is far from over.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

[Morch]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

The non IS rebels aren't going to just give up.  Some here are saying the civil war is almost over.  If Assad is happy with what he's got now, then they are right.  If he decides to go after the kurds and other rebels, including Turkey, forget it.  As that Al Jazeera article states, the war is far from over.

 

Take a look at all the groups involved.  This mess is far from over.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

If they won't surrender, then given time, they'll be crushed. That various rebel factions control certain areas does not imply all enjoy unconditional local support or even represent local interests. Regardless, being divided, under-equipped and lacking significant international support, it's just a matter of time. If Assad's forces could contain them (with Iranian and Russian support) while engaging ISIS, then the pressure will be intensified now that ISIS is not much of a threat anymore.

 

When I say that the civil war is pretty much over, I mean that it will take some extra time to play out - but it's pretty clear where it's heading, at least on some issues. Estimates may vary, but I don't think it would be as long as asserted previously.

 

I don't think Assad is unaware of the balance of power, both within Syria and with regard to other regional forces. So doesn't seem that probable he'll mount an all out offensive against the Kurds.

 

With regard to areas currently held by forces other than the Kurds, the writing is on the wall. Resolving the Kurdish issues will require more diplomacy, and may ultimately come down to what Putin sees as Russia's best interests. Assad being in no position to deny Putin's wishes, he may be forced to accept a less then ideal (from his pov) solution.

 

[Machiavelli]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You questioned free and fair elections.  I replied that Russia meddled in the elections.  Which is true.  I never said they voted for Trump because the Russians convinced them.  You said that.  But it's a distinct possibility their ads and hacks had an influence on the outcome.  No denying that.

Its astounding. To believe that ads less than $100 000 could make a difference in an election where both parties spent at least a billion a piece. Setting aside the innuendo and gossip about a non story hack I hate to break it to you but if Americans could be influenced by Russian ads worth $100 000 to chose a president,  they are simpletons and deserve to be hacked. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Machiavelli

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

 

[craigt3365]

14 hours ago, Machiavelli said:

Its astounding. To believe that ads less than $100 000 could make a difference in an election where both parties spent at least a billion a piece. Setting aside the innuendo and gossip about a non story hack I hate to break it to you but if Americans could be influenced by Russian ads worth $100 000 to chose a president,  they are simpletons and deserve to be hacked. 

Who said their only activity was spending 100k.  It wasn't.  You should do some research on this. 

[mikebike]

On 10/28/2017 at 8:14 AM, craigt3365 said:

Research is a good thing.  The elections were a sham.  Plain and simple.  Amazing some bash the US, but praise Syria for corrupt free and fair elections.  Unreal.

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/assad-rules-out-syrian-elections-with-foreign-observers/2932940.html

Assad: No Syrian Elections With Foreign Observers

It sure is!! We were talking about the 2014 election and you bring an quote from 2015 - indicating Assad was unhappy with the monitoring... 2014 election WAS monitored by a large group of international observers.

Edited October 29, 2017 by mikebike

[ilostmypassword]

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

One hasn't caused 1/2 of his population into refugee camps or are internally displaced.  One, hopefully, will be gone in 3 years with a new election.  One is not a dictator and can do what ever he pleases.  But both will be on the receiving end of criminal charges.  Hopefully soon! LOL

Would half the Syrian population be in refugee camps if various Arab nations and Turkey hadn't supported Al-Nusra and similar groups?

[craigt3365]

32 minutes ago, mikebike said:

It sure is!! We were talking about the 2014 election and you bring an quote from 2015 - indicating Assad was unhappy with the monitoring... 2014 election WAS monitored by a large group of international observers.

Please post a link showing a large group of international observers where there.  Credible links only.  Here's what I found.  Too funny.

 

http://time.com/2821649/syria-election-will-boost-assad/

Quote

Election observers from North Korea and Zimbabwe monitored the fairness of the voting.

 

NK and Zimbabwe.  Good gosh.  I love this part:

Quote

All told, Syria’s presidential election on June 3 was a flawlessly stage-managed affair designed to not only grant President Bashar Assad a third, seven-year term, but to do so with a resounding mandate.

Again, a sham.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Would half the Syrian population be in refugee camps if various Arab nations and Turkey hadn't supported Al-Nusra and similar groups?

Would half the Syrian population be in refugee camps if Assad hadn't done a murderous and brutal crackdown on innocent protesters?

 

Please the blame properly.  That was the spark.  And you know it.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Would half the Syrian population be in refugee camps if Assad hadn't done a murderous and brutal crackdown on innocent protesters?

 

Please the blame properly.  That was the spark.  And you know it.

Sure, it was the start of it, but it would have ended long ago with a lot less death and displacement if various Arab states and Turkey hadn't decided to support Sunni fundamentalists.

[Naam]

Quote

No role for Assad in Syria's future - U.S.'s Tillerson

Assad junior survived the Texan village idiot, Barack Hussein Obama and will survive both bigmouths Trump and Tillerson... unless a deal can be made with Vladimir the Great.

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Please post a link showing a large group of international observers where there.  Credible links only.  Here's what I found.  Too funny.

 

http://time.com/2821649/syria-election-will-boost-assad/

 

NK and Zimbabwe.  Good gosh.  I love this part:

Again, a sham.

 

On 10/27/2017 at 1:20 PM, mikebike said:

An official United Nations press conference featuring five U.S. observers of the June 3 Syrian presidential elections was held on June 18. The briefing, held at the U.N. headquarters here, featured Joe Iosbaker of the Anti-war Committee — Chicago; Paul Larudee of the Syria Solidarity Movement; blogger Jane Stillwater; Judy Bello, founder of the Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars; and Scott Williams of Fight Imperialism, Stand Together and the International Action Center. These activists joined a distinguished group of observers from 32 countries who visited polling places across Syria.

 

Source: https://www.workers.org/2014/06/24/syria-election-observers-un-elections-big-defeat-u-s/

OR

 

On June 1, I met with a delegation of North Americans going to observe the Syrian elections on June 3. I hope to be in Damascus shortly, if possible to likewise observe Syria’s historic election. Below is a list of the delegates.

Joseph Iosbaker, 55

Judith Bello, 63

Elias Hazineh, 62

Scott Williams, 25

Dr. Paul Larudee, 68

 

Other North American delegates include:

 

-Tony Seed, Canadian

-Jim W. Dean, American

-Jane Stillwater, American

 

International delegates include:

 

-Roohulla Rezvi

-Feroze Mithiborwala

-Jatinbabu Desai

-Dilip Kumar

-Anahita Shireen Mukherji

-Mansor bin Puteh

-Muhammad Abbas Komeili

-Safdar Abbas

-Nasir Shirazi

-Khurram Nawaz Khan

-Salim Ghafouri

-Declan Hayes

 

https://orientalreview.org/2014/06/03/international-observers-endorse-syrian-elections/

 

Just because the MSM was following a particular narrative, as is there won't, does not mean observers were not there.

Edited October 29, 2017 by mikebike