What do you think will eventually happen to Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad?
 

What do you think will eventually happen to Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad?

He'll probably go the same way as both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, it seems that these dictators that play God never seem to learn that they are not immortal and die just like anybody else. I always had the impression that Bashar Al-Assad was extremely educated and intelligent, but now I realize that he is just educated and not particuarly intelligent. He's crossed the line at slaughtering his own people, a line that should never be crossed.

Most probably will die one way or the other soon (I cannot foresee even Iran, despite its surreptitious support, taking the risk of granting him asylum), but not before the causalities of the conflict breaches the 100,000 mark. I am that grim about it. Russia time and again gives nonsensical arguments whilst being caught providing arms and support on numerous occasions. I just don't see why, even if the opposition groups might have some shady elements (who knows what would end up in the aftermath), just as a matter of principal, governments around the globe are unwilling to pick a side and and stick to it in getting rid of this lunatic. In fact, whilst non-intervention and anti-war must always be the first choice, in a strange way, if the intelligence of the recent development regarding arms movement is correct, then I applaud Israel for having the courage to intervene, albeit it may (or may-not) be simply an isolated event (I'm talking about the recent airstrikes).

Did anyone see the Daily Mail article which claimed that Washington planned to launch a chemical attack on Syria and blame the Assad regime? The article had screenshots of emails from a Britam Defence guy to the Britam founder, saying that the idea was approved by Washington.

If it's true it's a war crime.

I just searched again for it and it's been removed from the website. Odd.

He should get a job on a sitcom.
He could call himself Bashar Al-Brent and it could be filmed in a documentary style about his hapless attempts at running a dictatorship with hilarious consequences.

I think it's all so horrific. Over 40,000 civilians are dead. Why is no one doing anything about it? Or are they and I'm not realising this?

The west tends to let these dictators hang themselves, whilst shouting threats from the sidelines.

When all is done and dusted, they then proceed to make a mess of things as they try to install some kind of democracy in the country. Which is useless, as most of these countries have no real concept of democracy.

I see. All I know is this has been going on for over a year and something has to change. Do the rebels have what it takes to get the president killed?

Might as well introduce his dad as a fictional director. Like father, like son. And while we are at it, Saddam Hussein as a possible antagonist ("I told you so" message). That would make for an interesting trio, of "Unity, Liberty, Socialism" as was originally proclaimed by the Ba'athist movement.

The sad truth is that Bashar Al-Assad will most likely hold onto power, he has too many strong geo political allies, both Russia, China & Iran are backing the regime, which is why you haven't seen any NATO intervention like you did in Lybia.

The first thing the Russians did when the crisis unfolded was send battle cruisers into Syrian waters to send a strong message to the west. China & Russia have also been vetoing UN Security Council Resolutions that would allow for any punative action against Syria. Finally Iran has been supplying the Syrian government with aid & arms, and strategic military advise.

The west is indebted & broke, and there is no will amongst the American people to endure another Iraq. Bashar Al-Assad will win the day.

If they had what it takes to kill him, dont you think they would already do so long ago?

Well who is going to jump in? And for what reason should they?

You and I both know anyone on the political left will scream bloody murder about "warmongering" if one civilian is killed. You know thats going to happen. I can't mention Obama on this site without some self-righteous jackass screaming about drone strikes.

This coupled with the US's militaristic overreach and no one in the region asking for our help, we're not going in. So who's military is going to do the job?

France and Britain jumped on the Mali situation and people started murmurs of being dragged into another long-war. Furthermore, I'm not up on the specific policies of Hollande, but as a Socialist I assume he's anti-war, pro world-worker.

Russia has too many business deals with Iran, and China has a non-interventionist policy. So you're not getting any help.

Dancing with the Stars.

Do you wanna get shot for Syria? I feel bad for their situation, but I'm certainly not willing to get myself killed over some civil war that's none of my business to be getting involved in in the first place. And if I'm not willing to die for that then it would be selfish for me to expect others to do so in my place.

I think you need to vote for the "I dont care what will happen to him" option. Fits you perfectly.

They do imo, its just a case of how the army will continue to support the Assad regime. There was a similiar situation with Ceausescu in Romania in the late 1980s and much more recently with Gaddafi, the two things they have in common here is that both dictatorships gradually lost the support of large segments of their armed forces. For this reason alone, I would've thought that Assad would have learnt that political concessions are the best way to ensure his survival.

I agree with a lot of your points, but I think his hold on power is far less secure than you believe, as I said above, it depends on which way the army swings. They either remain loyal to the regime or go with the calling of the people, the romance of the second option is a strong magnet.

Not really, these things don't happen overnight. Just think of it as having intercourse.......the climax could come at any time or it might never come!

When anybody jumps in, it's normally for economic reasons under the guise of saving human lives or securing the stability of the zone to prevent the unrest spreading further. The problem that we have here is threefold. Firstly, the European powers won't go into somewhere like Syria without US leadership, it's too big a deal. Secondly, Syria comes under Russia's zone of influence, so the best we're going to get are the UN. Thirdly, the 'Arab Spring' has really run its course and is possibly now in its later stages, so there's no real hope of preventing regional unrest, the river has already broken its banks.

Isreal would love to, but I think Turkey would be the military power most capable of achieving its goal, but this would prove to be a calamity as far as the region goes, as Turkey is pretty much hated by most of its neighbours. For these reasons Syria's problem will need to be sorted out internally, which means more massacres and eventually a bloody end for Assad!

France are there under the request of the Mali government and Britain in some kind of pro-European brotherly love are there now to support them. This is strange considering the anti-EU stance in the British papers at the moment, but I guess it's also a subtle message to Argentina over the Falklands rift, that Britain will defend territories a long way from home and not shirk from obligations.

Sure he's anti-war but I guess he believes some eggs need to be broken to achieve a better world.

Do you think someone should go in, Unknown? Also, by "sorted out internally" I assume you mean the rebels will have to kill Assad, right?

Well if they have the appropriate weapons/rockets to kill him, and they know where he is(which is in the presidential palace if Im not mistaken), wouldnt they do so long ago? Or at least, attempt to do so long ago?

Im not psychic but I think it's pretty obvious that all the protesters in Syria have in mind right now is to either kill him or oust him(Bashar Al-Assad).

I think the only people that should go in are the UN who in theory are the only acceptable solution but after the old Yugoslavia debacle amongst others public opinion here at least, largely sees them as a waste of time, so in practice I don't know how good they would do. As I'm generally anti-war, it pains me to say that the only other option would be to include the predicatable international force, but any force I feel would need to be made up of other Arab states and have approval from Russia. Which I don't see happening, so I think Syria will need to deal with this internally.

But it's not always as simple as this, there has probably been quite a few attempts on his life already that we just don't know about. As I said on an earlier post, when these dictators are killed by the mob, its normally after large sections of the army have gone over to the rebels rather than a perfectly executed asssassination attempt. So no it doesn't surprise me at all that he's not dead.

If the rebels after all the known assassination attempts havent managed to kill him yet, its probably more because of the tight security surrounding him or his presidential palace, which leads to the fact that they probably dont have what it takes to kill him yet. Thats why it requires a bodyguard's desire to kill him for an assassination to succeed.

Three questions:

1. Why such faith in the UN?

2. Why do you want such a diverse international force?

3. Thoughts on how Libya was handled?

I'm just trying to understand where your borders are for combat. I'd ask when you think force is necessary but I assume thats a longer conversation.

Shot dead in the head, or maybe they'll hang him instead.

He's not getting out alive.

The point is I don't have much faith in the UN at all, but who else other than a US or European led force could do it? If of course international intervention is the key to stop the slaughter there, which I think it is.

It's either this, as I can't see just one country taking on the burden alone (unless it was for their own agenda)

It was squeezed from the outside, whilst the Libyans ousted the regime from within. It was actually handled as well as could be expected.

So what are your suggestions concerning the Syrian conflict?

and, i read that russia and china were sending troops. but again, that is what i read on the internet, so, i will take that with a grain of salt. whatever happens in syria is going to happen, whether or not it favors the revisionist zionists in the neighboring promised land. is a secular jew not an oxymoron? and, who promised it to them. the lord. lord balfour. and, as the lord lives, he will not be enquired of us. and, does anyone really believe that the will of the american people carries any weight around here? they actually believe that they are going to have their guns taken away, so, they can't use them to overthrow the government:bringit:

bring what? a little bomb filled with some sort of permanent sedative, silent but deadly farting gas is a guess. but, if zion is eden, then that is in indiana. who knew that the mid-east was in the midwest:pssst:

it could be that america and israel were set up as straw dogs. the far right appears to have made a shift to the left according to unreliable sources. but, the term is now 'neoliberalism', and, it contains the word liberal, so, there must be something to it. and, that motto, 'IN GOD WE TRUST', is in caps on the back of every 'federal reserve note' they print for us to trust.

they insinuate that the jews are to blame for everything, and, if anyone does they are anti-semitic, and, it's all just horesh*t, or maybe whoresh*t.

Semitic
noun
1. a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, hebrew, and Phoenician.

so, anyone know why the word hebrew is not capitalized? the same reason i don't capitalize letters. and, certainly do not dislike persons of the religious persuasion who do not desire to own the entire planet. the ones i've known are hard working, very respectable, and try their best to practice an impossible religion, based on a story that is among those being used to suppress, oppress, depress, and all for the utter insatiable appetite for wealth and control by a few or few zillion who replicate, and reproduce the same old story.

produce but do not possess. and, if you do not wrangle, you will not be blamed.

the evidence suggests that there is a grand pyramid scheme. network marketing at its finest.

it's complicated, and, if he is guilty of crimes against humanity he will join a looooong list. Netanyahu is in the process of forming a new government in israel. we will simply have to wait and watch. and, don't believe everything you read or view. this included.:)

Guys what do you think about if one of Assad's bodyguard would shoot him in the head? Can something make that happen at all?

Consider it done.

This thread has been, so far, a laugh riot.

Here are some things I find particularly hilarious, in ascending order:

3. Obliviousness to the differences in Syrian society; e.g., pretending there are no major differences between Alawites, Christians, & Sunni. Seems like some lazybones should look at the demographic compostion of the government and army.

2. The notion that this is was some sort of spontaneous, internal uprising. The reality is this is part of a global conflict, played out by animated regional actors (primarily Iran & Saudi Arabia and their associated proxies) at the discretion of their associated global hegemonys.

1. That violence delegitimizes a Government and/or that Democracy is somehow more legitimate than other forms of Governance.

For once I agree with you on something. From what I hear after Gaddafi was toppled, Mali mercenaries working for him took Libyan weapons and went back to Mali and helped to rejuvenate the rebellion against the government, and we see how that's turning out. So I think that we should respect the law of unintended consequences and quit engaging in short sighted altruism.

Batlord, not only did the mercenaries returning from Libya destablize an area larger than Texas, but they actually changed the nature of the rebellion itself. Here's a link to a good article on the subject.

It's not only that. The UN can't do anything without Russia agreeing, and they're still hands in pockets mumbling "Ahh, he not such a bad guy, y'know? We had Stalin! Now THERE was a dictator!" and of course at the same time smuggling arms to his forces. So the UN does nothing cos they can't. And then there's the Arab League. Can't piss them off either. Basically it's really a case of "**** it if you want to kill yourselves do, see if we care" which is terrible but what pisses me off are these news stories about the refugees. I have sympathy for them, but why show these things if there's nothing they can/will do about the situation? It's like "look how bad it is, but we can't make it any better".

US needs to strongarm Russia and get them to play ball. This has gone on too long, too many people have died and too many other people --- people ostensibly in power --- are just standing on the sidelines, wringing their hands and saying "we can't do anything cos the Russkies have the ball and won't let anyone play." Grow a set, UN, FFS!

Well, I think most are not "pretending" that this isn't part of a larger war within Islam. Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of the opposition groups. Simply put, do you as a matter of principal, want the Assad regime gotten rid of or not. Let alone all the politics, let alone whether the opposition might have equally crazy elements. Because if not, say what you might about violence, but human beings dead in the 100,000s? And this in 2013 after having been through so many genocides? That is a tragedy.

You've completely got the wrong end of the stick here, as the above actually supports the long term weakness of the Assad regime rather than support it. Your above post actually supports the fact, that the army are more likely to turn against the Assad regime than support it, given the fact that the Alawites only really command the leadership, but it's the Sunnis that make up the majority of the army. Assad of course is an Alawite and most of those forces that have defected are Sunnis and will gradually defect even more.

You've completely got this wrong, there was nothing spontaneous about the Syrian uprising at all and nobody to my knowledge on here has said it was spontaneous either. The uprisng was just part of the "Arab Spring" which had already swept most of the Arab world and Syria was just another country to fall victim to these planned protests, so it was acyuallt very organized.

First part of point one is just you trying to be controversial yet again and we all know that you believe in the survival of the fittest lark. Second point I've actually addressed and is actually the only good point you've raised here. It basically raises the question on how suitable democracy is for non-European or non-North American cultures etc. I actually stated in an earlier post, that I personally feel that the democratic process is not always suitable for a lot of nations around the world, but it's also not to be shunned either.

Which is why I'm kind of resigned to the fact the the Syrians will have to sort their problems out internally.

You're going to have to expand upon this, because you're implying all sorts of things in here.

Man, its because theres no fair universal suffrage in those nations, they dont count the votes of civilians as they should and so they let another fake president rule the nation for another 20+ years. Just like Ahmadinejad, he was elected for a second term by faking the votes. If they'd want to become democratic they'd first need to stop doing that.

Here:
74% are Sunni
11% are Alawites
and about 6% Christian

Now could you please provide those figure for the army & gov't.

:-/

Ya got me, I can't find exact percentage amounts for the demographic breakdown in the government.

I think it's fair to assume that the Alawites dominate the government there.