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

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

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

I think you can say the track record of Western nations and their escapades in various parts of the world has not exactly been good.  Many of todays problems started a long time ago.

[craigt3365]

3 hours 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. 

Panama is in much better shape than before. No comparison.  Before, it was even hard to visit.  Now, it's really good.  You should visit there someday.

[Morch]

6 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...

 

Whether you like to admit it or not, the civil war is pretty much over. Not fully, not everywhere, and things may go on simmering for a long while. But as long as Russia's and Iran's support continue, Assad's rule will endure - and eventually will overcome areas of resistance. Assad may not regain the same level of grip he had prior to the civil war, but that's not something to write home about.

 

Disregarding the absurdity of assuming "we" (whether this stands for the USA, the West or the World) have a lot of say about Assad remaining in power, what are the current options? How would stability and minimizing civilian suffering be served by plunging the country into yet another instance of the civil war? 

 

Because, again, like it or not - there is no viable alternative at this time. Blame Assad, blame the Russians, blame Iran or the USA. The bottom line remains the same. If removing Assad is a goal, then maybe have a realistic workable solution in mind beforehand.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I think you can say the track record of Western nations and their escapades in various parts of the world has not exactly been good.  Many of todays problems started a long time ago.

True.. but the US is repeating its mistakes time after time in the middle east. I have no problems with the US but their foreign policy in the middle east has been totally wrong. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

 

Panama is nothing like Syria. If someone imagines putting Assad behind bars would sort Syria's troubles he's in for some rude awakening. Didn't work out all that well in the ME.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Morch

[punchjudy]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

it's simplistic thinking like that has caused so many problems with US meddling

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I think you can say the track record of Western nations and their escapades in various parts of the world has not exactly been good.  Many of todays problems started a long time ago.

Yes, very true. There are few “western” nations without fault when you look at history.

 

But specifically relevant to this discussion is post WWII - post colonial reset - history. Only one nation has stood at the apex of shaping western foreign policy for the last 70ish years.

[tonbridgebrit]

'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 ?

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Whether you like to admit it or not, the civil war is pretty much over. Not fully, not everywhere, and things may go on simmering for a long while. But as long as Russia's and Iran's support continue, Assad's rule will endure - and eventually will overcome areas of resistance. Assad may not regain the same level of grip he had prior to the civil war, but that's not something to write home about.

 

Disregarding the absurdity of assuming "we" (whether this stands for the USA, the West or the World) have a lot of say about Assad remaining in power, what are the current options? How would stability and minimizing civilian suffering be served by plunging the country into yet another instance of the civil war? 

 

Because, again, like it or not - there is no viable alternative at this time. Blame Assad, blame the Russians, blame Iran or the USA. The bottom line remains the same. If removing Assad is a goal, then maybe have a realistic workable solution in mind beforehand.

+1
(I am in agreement with Morch, this is amazing, it's staggering).

 

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Wow surprised to see Craig in here with his everything negative about Russia is 100% true and everything negative about the US is 100% rubbish.

 

He really is a propaganda machines wet dream, simply believes everything which is aligned with his view and anything else is false. USA= Great/Russia=Bad

 

Western nations are complicit in getting to the current circumstances in Syria by backing one side in a conflict which is again nothing to do with us. How we can arm and assist one side who also are no angels and then sit their with the nerve to try and advise/dictate on what can or cannot happen in the country going forward. It really is mind blowingly lacking in self awareness.

 

No matter they will move onto the next country soon to screw up. North Korea? Iran? Somalia? Who knows.

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.

[craigt3365]

5 hours 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.

You are wrong.  The last election was a sham.  Most of the population either were not allowed to vote or just couldn't.  Americans sickened by the result?  Hardly.  They knew it was a sham.  Perhaps sickened some actually believe it was a free and fair election. LOL

 

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

Quote

Domestic and foreign-based Syrian opposition groups boycotted the election,^[1][2] and the vote did not take place in large parts of Syria under rebel control.^[3] The areas under Kurdish militia control also did not allow voting due to the refusal of the government to recognize their regional autonomy, though some people still traveled to the government–controlled areas to vote.^[4]

 

Kinda hard to have free and fair elections when the candidates are not allowed to run. LOL

Quote

A total of 24 candidates, including 2 women and a Christian, submitted applications to the Supreme Constitutional Court for the presidency.^[41][42][43] Of these, two candidates other than Assad met all the conditions to run, including the support of 35 members of the parliament.^[44] The two other candidates chosen to run are seen as "mostly symbolic contenders" and "little known figures"^[1]

 

And of course there's this:

Quote

But whilst Gelman's argument provides strong evidence that the published counts were fabricated, he admits that it does not preclude the theory that those numbers could have been generated retrospectively (and unprofessionally) from valid percentages.

 

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.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Whether you like to admit it or not, the civil war is pretty much over. Not fully, not everywhere, and things may go on simmering for a long while. But as long as Russia's and Iran's support continue, Assad's rule will endure - and eventually will overcome areas of resistance. Assad may not regain the same level of grip he had prior to the civil war, but that's not something to write home about.

 

Disregarding the absurdity of assuming "we" (whether this stands for the USA, the West or the World) have a lot of say about Assad remaining in power, what are the current options? How would stability and minimizing civilian suffering be served by plunging the country into yet another instance of the civil war? 

 

Because, again, like it or not - there is no viable alternative at this time. Blame Assad, blame the Russians, blame Iran or the USA. The bottom line remains the same. If removing Assad is a goal, then maybe have a realistic workable solution in mind beforehand.

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

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And massive corruption, too.

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

Almost all of Latin America and south America have massive corruption.  What's your point?  It's a vastly different country now.  I spent quite a bit of time sussing things out not long ago.  It was very high up on my list of places to retire.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Yes, very true. There are few “western” nations without fault when you look at history.

 

But specifically relevant to this discussion is post WWII - post colonial reset - history. Only one nation has stood at the apex of shaping western foreign policy for the last 70ish years.

As was pointed out earlier by another member, the genesis for today's problems started pre WWII.  So extremely relevant to this discussion.

[LannaGuy]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You are wrong.  The last election was a sham.  Most of the population either were not allowed to vote or just couldn't.  Americans sickened by the result?  Hardly.  They knew it was a sham.  Perhaps sickened some actually believe it was a free and fair election. LOL

 

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

 

Kinda hard to have free and fair elections when the candidates are not allowed to run. LOL

 

And of course there's this:

 

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.

73% turnout USA 61% and monitored by international observers

 

Remove Assad equates to CHAOS he's no angel but we are better off with Dr Assad than without and can't you leave aside your Anti-Russian bile even for one day?

[craigt3365]

39 minutes 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.

Coming from China's #1 supporter, and one with a strong anti-US bias.  Talk about propaganda.  Let's go back and analyze your posts.  LOL

 

Please show me where I'm creating a non-accurate picture.  I try to backup all my posts with links to articles.  Credible ones.

 

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Almost all of Latin America and south America have massive corruption.  What's your point?  It's a vastly different country now.  I spent quite a bit of time sussing things out not long ago.  It was very high up on my list of places to retire.

Go there and perhaps we'll hear less of your daily rants.

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Panama is in much better shape than before. No comparison.  Before, it was even hard to visit.  Now, it's really good.  You should visit there someday.

It's a very small 4m pop country you made a comparison with USA 'input' and  I respectfully suggest, that even for you, that was a tad misplaced 

[LomSak27]

If Putin wants Assad thats it. Tillerson, the US and Trump have nothing to say in this. Impotent little geek might as well go home now and stop making a fool of  himself.

 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

73% turnout USA 61% and monitored by international observers

 

Remove Assad equates to CHAOS he's no angel but we are better off with Dr Assad than without and can't you leave aside your Anti-Russian bile even for one day?

Please show a credible like that verifies 73% of the Syrian population voted.  Verified.  Too funny.

 

73% is impossible.  Sad you can't see that.

 

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

Quote

In 2016, from an estimated pre-war population of 22 million,^[31] the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria.

 

Not my words.  Just backing up what I said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else

 

Quote

 

The choice in Syria's election: vote for Assad or else …

Diana Darke

To vote for anything other than Assad is to sign your own death warrant, and not to vote forfeits your chance of any real future

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/bashar-al-assad-winds-reelection-in-landslide-victory

 

Quote

 

Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on

Assad captures another seven-year term after winning almost 90% of the vote, with polling only held in government-held areas

 

The European Union joined the US in condemning the election, saying in a statement that "it cannot be considered as a genuinely democratic vote."

 

 

Seems the EU is in agreement.  Only a few like you are not.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Go there and perhaps we'll hear less of your daily rants.

Come on.  You'd miss me setting all your "facts" straight! LOL

[LannaGuy]

35 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Please show a credible like that verifies 73% of the Syrian population voted.  Verified.  Too funny.

 

73% is impossible.  Sad you can't see that.

 

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

 

Not my words.  Just backing up what I said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/bashar-al-assad-winds-reelection-in-landslide-victory

 

 

Seems the EU is in agreement.  Only a few like you are not.

Sure happy to always help with your education Craig  and I know you LOVE Supreme Courts right?

 

Results

The Supreme Constitutional Court announced on Wednesday 4 June that turnout for the election was 73.42%, with 11,634,412 of the 15,845,575 Syrians eligible to take part voting. The number for Syrians eligible to vote is based on the government’s data of all Syrians living in Syria and abroad over the age of 18; this includes all Syrians in government-held territory, rebels-held territory, refugees, newly naturalized Kurds, and declared Syrian expatriates.

The number of invalid papers was 442,108, or 3.8%. Majed Khadra, the Spokesperson of the Supreme Constitutional Court, also announced that the losing candidates and individuals with complaints about the electoral process had 3 days to submit their appeals. 

 

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

 

 

[craigt3365]

28 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Sure happy to always help with your education Craig  and I know you LOVE Supreme Courts right?

 

Results

The Supreme Constitutional Court announced on Wednesday 4 June that turnout for the election was 73.42%, with 11,634,412 of the 15,845,575 Syrians eligible to take part voting. The number for Syrians eligible to vote is based on the government’s data of all Syrians living in Syria and abroad over the age of 18; this includes all Syrians in government-held territory, rebels-held territory, refugees, newly naturalized Kurds, and declared Syrian expatriates.

The number of invalid papers was 442,108, or 3.8%. Majed Khadra, the Spokesperson of the Supreme Constitutional Court, also announced that the losing candidates and individuals with complaints about the electoral process had 3 days to submit their appeals. 

 

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

 

 

And you actually believe a court in Syria under conditions like this.  Sorry, but stunning.

 

I've got some great land for sale in Florida.  Seriously. LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Coming from China's #1 supporter, and one with a strong anti-US bias.  Talk about propaganda.  Let's go back and analyze your posts.  LOL

 

Please show me where I'm creating a non-accurate picture.  I try to backup all my posts with links to articles.  Credible ones.

 

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.

Edited October 27, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, mikebike said:

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/

Whatever an official United Nations Press Conference might be, it has nothing to do with whether or not there were official UN observers of the Syrian elections in 2014.  And if there were, for which I can find absolutely no evidence, it's extremely dubious that Jos losbaker of the Anti-war Committe et alii, were numbered among them.

And by the way given that "Five minutes into Ambassador Jaafari’s opening remarks, the live feed of the press conference was interrupted and taken off the U.N. website, which broadcasts U.N. events to viewers all over the world." there is definitely room for doubt that the press conference was, in fact "an official United Nations Press Conference."

Edited October 27, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

As was pointed out earlier by another member, the genesis for today's problems started pre WWII.  So extremely relevant to this discussion.

Only relevant to the extent that nothing was learned from that past, mistakes were repeated, and the situation exacerbated.

[mikebike]

 

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Whatever an official United Nations Press Conference might be, it has nothing to do with whether or not there were official UN observers of the Syrian elections in 2014.

There may be ambiguity regarding whether or not the observers were UN sanctioned or sanctioned by another body, the fact remains that there were NA observers - 32 countries in fact, not the 5 you claimed.

10 hours 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.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, mikebike said:

 

There may be ambiguity regarding whether or not the observers were UN sanctioned or sanctioned by another body, the fact remains that there were NA observers - 32 countries in fact, not the 5 you claimed.

No, there is no ambiguity about whether or not these people were deputized by the UN. They were not. Absolutely and unequivocally not. And it looks like that so called official un press conference was nothing of the sort, if, in fact, there is such a thing as an official un press conference. And these observers may have come from 32 countries but as far as I can tell, only 5 countries claimed that the Syrian elections were free and fair. Who care that these observers presumably came from 27 other countries as well?  Did their countries support their claims? Who deputized these observers? What are their qualifications? Do they have forensic training? They all do seem to share a similar political perspective which is perhaps, not entirely a coincidence.

And the sad thing is, there's no need to whitewash the Syrian regime in order to oppose the US supported intervention in Syria any more than it was necessary to whitewash Saddam Hussein to oppose the US invasion of Iraq.

[Stargeezr]

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

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, mikebike said:

 

There may be ambiguity regarding whether or not the observers were UN sanctioned or sanctioned by another body, the fact remains that there were NA observers - 32 countries in fact, not the 5 you claimed.

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