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

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did I say that?  I try to post factual information.  Not fake news.  If you see me posting fake news, let me know. 

 

The US isn't perfect.  But in Syria, like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc, Russia is the problem.  In Iraq, the US was the problem.

 

Feel better now? LOL

How do you know what is fake news or not? i.e if it supports your view and is anti Russian it is not fake and if it is critical of the USA and pro Russian it is fake. Would be interested to know how you decipher what is fake or not.

 

I really fail to see what Russia does or does not do in eastern Ukraine has to do with the USA. I presume any position the USA takes is one to protect their own interests in the country, and whatever position Russia takes likewise is to protect their own interests. I fail to see why this makes Russia a problem and the USA not.

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

What you call today ISIS flourished actually in the 1800's in the same region.

 

Try to consider intercession in Islam and you will understand your blooper that Assad has nothing to do with it...

Many here say ISIS was created by the US.  So what you say doesn't synch with them.  Yes, I'm aware of the split of the Ottoman empire after WW1.  It caused a lot of problems.  But in the end, Assad is the leader of Syria.  The buck stops with him.  If Syria is doing well, he gets the praise.  If it's doing poorly, he gets the blame.  Just like in any other country around the world.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

How do you know what is fake news or not? i.e if it supports your view and is anti Russian it is not fake and if it is critical of the USA and pro Russian it is fake. Would be interested to know how you decipher what is fake or not.

 

I really fail to see what Russia does or does not do in eastern Ukraine has to do with the USA. I presume any position the USA takes is one to protect their own interests in the country, and whatever position Russia takes likewise is to protect their own interests. I fail to see why this makes Russia a problem and the USA not.

An easy indicator is if the news came from Russia Today or Sputnik News. LOL.  Even Twitter has banned them from advertising on their site. LOL

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

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

Not your decision. 

 

Can’t you see that?

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

We don't want another power vacuum and most of it is not our business.

Did you not say that most educated people would never support a dictator.. strange that now you do.

 

Though I agree 100% let Assad be there is no other option and a power vacuum is bad, we seen it in Irak and other places. Sometimes you can't replace ppl like Assad as the alternative is worse. 

[LannaGuy]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Did you not say that most educated people would never support a dictator.. strange that now you do.

 

Though I agree 100% let Assad be there is no other option and a power vacuum is bad, we seen it in Irak and other places. Sometimes you can't replace ppl like Assad as the alternative is worse. 

I do not and I don't class Dr Assad as a dictator as he was voted in democratically or didn't you know that?

 

Syrian presidential election, 2014

Nominee	Bashar al-Assad	Hassan al-Nouri
Party	Ba'ath Party	NIACS
Popular vote	10,319,723	500,279
Percentage	88.7%	4.3%

 

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

No it was the US incompetence and lack of planning that let ISIS flourish and if they had kept their nose out of it no ISIS today.

Why are people so quick to blame the US for everything?  Granted, the US interferes in many more places ww than it should.  But not everything is contingent on US actions or non-actions.

 

ISIS would have been created, regardless of US involvement in the Mid.East.  When ISIS is smashed, one, two or three other nefarious groups will spring up in the dunes.  Even so, it doesn't help that the US saturates the M.East with weapons.

 

The US's influence in the M.East is waning.  Trump and Tillerson are making sure of that.  Tillerson can be contradicted in a NY minute, anytime by Trump.  It's already happened.  That's why Tillerson calls Trump a phucking moron.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if China jumps into the fray, feet-first, ....and it would surely be to side with Assad - though under the guise of Rodney King-like blurb; 'why can't we all just get along?'

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I do not and I don't class Dr Assad as a dictator as he was voted in democratically or didn't you know that?

 

Syrian presidential election, 2014

Nominee	Bashar al-Assad	Hassan al-Nouri
Party	Ba'ath Party	NIACS
Popular vote	10,319,723	500,279
Percentage	88.7%	4.3%

 

Free elections ?  if so how come so many against him. I told you before being voted in does not mean everything. This is good proof of my case. 

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Assad and his Russian allies aren't in charge of all the territory of old Syria.  But you are right, the more we allow the absurdity of Assad to continue, the more people will die.  Time to stop the insanity.  Sadly, Russia doesn't seem interested.  Even though it's now come out they were potentially partially responsible for the chemical attack earlier this year.

 

Criminal charges are coming...

Stop with this nonsense, the USA doesn't decide who rules Syria, stay in your own country and stop selling weapons to extremists. 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

If there is a trial, it will be held with the defendant in absentia.

 

Possibly.

 

"Underlying goals and justifications for trials in absentia A trial in absentia, derived from the Latin word meaning ‘in absence’, is a trial in the absence of the accused. The underlying rationale for holding a trial in absentia is to ensure that the accused cannot delay the administration of justice by opting to be absent from the court. Historically, trials in absentia were characterised by the complete absence of the accused, without legal representation. As discussed in Section II of this report, international law regarding trials in absentia is now clear that legal representation is required. There are differing criteria as to what constitutes the absence of the accused. Some systems find the accused to be ‘present’ for legal purposes if they made an initial appearance before the court. For example, at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, an accused facing charges of contempt appeared by video link and then subsequently refused to make further appearances or to acknowledge the authority of the court after the first hearing. During the initial appearance the accused heard the charges against him and pled ‘not guilty’.2 The Tribunal found that the subsequent proceedings against him did not constitute a trial in absentia, despite the fact that the accused was not present after the initial appearance. The STL provisions defining trials in absentia are discussed further below. In the absence of the accused at the time of the trial, the punitive aspect of international criminal justice cannot be fulfilled, at least not immediately. Traditionally, a trial in absentia is a step towards accountability but is not an end in itself"

 

Source: https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=27E59106-442D...

 

 

 

 

[mikebike]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Free elections ?  if so how come so many against him. I told you before being voted in does not mean everything. This is good proof of my case. 

Really? Would you care to apply your "logic" to the current situation in the USA?

[LannaGuy]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

Free elections ?  if so how come so many against him. I told you before being voted in does not mean everything. This is good proof of my case. 

Yes FREE and FAIR  (you just believe the US spin and don't delve deep enough):

 

Observers at the presidential elections in Syria are unanimous that the expression of people’s will was valid and the polls passed in a democratic and positive atmosphere.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-election-observers-expression-of-peoples-will-was-valid-and-the-polls-passed-in-a-democratic-and-positive-atmosphere/5385394

 

International, independent observers what more do you want?

 

[Baerboxer]

In response President Assad and his allies said there should be no role in ruling the USA for "Skull & Bones; Masonic secret societies; non Masonic secret societies; reptilians linked to the European ruling reptilians; powerful family political hierarchies who cheat to get their candidates nominated for POTUS elections, media barons and Wall Street Bankers.

 

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Stop with this nonsense, the USA doesn't decide who rules Syria, stay in your own country and stop selling weapons to extremists. 

Where did I say the USA decides who rules Syria?  I never said that. Please quote me properly or don't quote me at all.

 

You are aware of how many countries are selling weapons to Syria, it's allies, the terrorists?  Probably yours as well....and yes, it'd be great if they all stopped.  Not just one.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Yes FREE and FAIR  (you just believe the US spin and don't delve deep enough):

 

Observers at the presidential elections in Syria are unanimous that the expression of people’s will was valid and the polls passed in a democratic and positive atmosphere.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-election-observers-expression-of-peoples-will-was-valid-and-the-polls-passed-in-a-democratic-and-positive-atmosphere/5385394

 

International, independent observers what more do you want?

 

What i read was that the election was boycotted, and people could not vote in large parts of the country.  But any president that uses so much violence on its people is a dictator in my book.

 

But I agree that we should not meddle here because the alternative is worse.

Edited October 27, 2017 by robblok

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

In response President Assad and his allies said there should be no role in ruling the USA for "Skull & Bones; Masonic secret societies; non Masonic secret societies; reptilians linked to the European ruling reptilians; powerful family political hierarchies who cheat to get their candidates nominated for POTUS elections, media barons and Wall Street Bankers.

 

You missed out KKK and AntiFA  oh and those kneeling prima donnas

[craigt3365]

45 minutes ago, robblok said:

Did you not say that most educated people would never support a dictator.. strange that now you do.

 

Though I agree 100% let Assad be there is no other option and a power vacuum is bad, we seen it in Irak and other places. Sometimes you can't replace ppl like Assad as the alternative is worse. 

And sometimes it's better.  Panama is a fantastic country now their corrupt leader is in jail.

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

What i read was that the election was boycotted, and people could not vote in large parts of the country. 

You were wrong the UN had observers including North Americans and, of course, they were sickened by the result and popularity of Dr. Assad but he was the Syrian's choice. One can always find fault that democracy is not perfect I mean look at Trump! 

 

Let Syrians decide their own fate. Bored with USA going on about Russia's influence in their election then MEDDLE everywhere else themselves.

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And sometimes it's better.  Panama is a fantastic country now their corrupt leader is in jail.

Yes but the track record of the USA in the middle east is not exactly good. 

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And sometimes it's better.  Panama is a fantastic country now their corrupt leader is in jail.

You are funny Craig I'll give you that.

 

Panama has a 4m population and 50% are in poverty so don't 'spin' us that it is a 'fantastic country' after US intervention. 

[mikebike]

 

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Where did I say the USA decides who rules Syria?  I never said that. Please quote me properly or don't quote me at all.

Seems reasonable to infer that is what you were implying when you posted:

 

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

...you are right, the more we allow the absurdity of Assad to continue, the more people will die.  Time to stop the insanity.  Sadly, Russia doesn't seem interested.

[Ron19]

An off topic post and another with an inappropriate comment have been removed.

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Putin won't drop him.  Russia has invested too much, and has too many ties with him to drop him.  Problems will ensue.

this opinion seems to have already been underscored by the fact that Russia wants to can the UN JIM body, who condemned Assad for gassing his “electorate” 

[farcanell]

42 minutes ago, mikebike said:

 

Seems reasonable to infer that is what you were implying when you posted:

 

Seems reasonable to infer that by “we”, he meant.. we the people of the free world, or such like

 

perhaps your obsessing over the US a we bit to much 

Edited October 27, 2017 by farcanell

[ilostmypassword]

59 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

You are funny Craig I'll give you that.

 

Panama has a 4m population and 50% are in poverty so don't 'spin' us that it is a 'fantastic country' after US intervention. 

And massive corruption, too.

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-panama-corruption-20150523-story.html

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

You were wrong the UN had observers including North Americans and, of course, they were sickened by the result and popularity of Dr. Assad but he was the Syrian's choice. One can always find fault that democracy is not perfect I mean look at Trump! 

 

Let Syrians decide their own fate. Bored with USA going on about Russia's influence in their election then MEDDLE everywhere else themselves.

Really, the UN had observers including North Americans? You got some citation to prove that? Because according to the what's linked to believe, only a self appointed commission consisting of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Uganda, and Brazil said the elections were fair. Not only not UN appointed, but, as far as my familiarity with geography goes. not actually located in North America. This election took place during a civil war where many parts of the country didn't even vote.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

 

It's not necessary to defend the character and popularity of Assad to condemn US intervention there any more than it was necessary to defend the good name of Saddam Hussein to condemn the US invasion of Iraq.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really, the UN had observers including North Americans? You got some citation to prove that? Because according to the what's linked to believe, only a self appointed commission consisting of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Uganda, and Brazil said the elections were fair. Not only not UN appointed, but, as far as my familiarity with geography goes. not actually located in North America. This election took place during a civil war where many parts of the country didn't even vote.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

 

It's not necessary to defend the character and popularity of Assad to condemn US intervention there any more than it was necessary to defend the good name of Saddam Hussein to condemn the US invasion of Iraq.

Yes really. The wiki article does nothing to clarify. Here is what you were looking for:

 

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/

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really, the UN had observers including North Americans? You got some citation to prove that? Because according to the what's linked to believe, only a self appointed commission consisting of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Uganda, and Brazil said the elections were fair. Not only not UN appointed, but, as far as my familiarity with geography goes. not actually located in North America. This election took place during a civil war where many parts of the country didn't even vote.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

 

It's not necessary to defend the character and popularity of Assad to condemn US intervention there any more than it was necessary to defend the good name of Saddam Hussein to condemn the US invasion of Iraq.

Yes a handful but the main point , as usual, IS that the UN were satisfied it met their criteria. As for voter turnout?

 

Syria : 73.42%

 

USA :  61.40%

 

 

Does that help?  so maybe that some parts didn't vote but 12% more did than in the USA 2016 election. Case CLOSED.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

When this mess is over, Assad will be brought up on a variety of charges.  The French have already started that process.

 

Wouldn't hold my breath. Starting such proceedings is one thing, getting anywhere another, and the process culminating in a trial a rarity. Most such cases take years, and with cooperation being minimal, no reason to imagine this would be any different.

 

The likelihood of Assad ever facing justice (other than by a coup) isn't something worth betting on. If he ever steps down (one way or another), it may involve immunity from prosecution or being granted asylum somewhere (Russia and Iran being obvious options).

[Morch]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Perhaps.  Or Russia will drop him like a hot potato.  Having accomplished what they wanted.

 

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Putin won't drop him.  Russia has invested too much, and has too many ties with him to drop him.  Problems will ensue.

 

Putin will drop him in a blink of an eye - if it served his interests, and if there was a reasonable alternative. Given this, and Assad's dependency on Russia's ongoing support, Assad will keep being on Putin's leash, while doing his best to mow down any cropping alternative "threat" to his rule.

 

And dropping Assad does not imply throwing him to the lions. That wouldn't do both for Russia's image among its client states, or if Assad spills the beans. A comfortable, quiet retirement more like.