What To Do About Syria

[Stavros]

iraq:

excuse me but it is hard to look beyond killing 1.5 million iraqis and dumping deformation causing and cancer causing materials on the rest and causing them to remain without electricity for over 18 hours a day till now, all under the guise of looking for weapons of mass destruction that are yet to be found!

how does the formation of the so called "councils of awakening" or "sons of iraq" indicate that iraqis were co-operating with the US invading forces? correct me if i am wrong but these councils were not formed of volunteers and were mere mercenaries getting paid 15 million dollars a month as salaries by the US army to fight for them since it is cheaper that way! google the info about their salaries and also check the many reports on how tens and hundreds of them would turn on their own councels when they don't receive their salaries for a month. it is surely not hard to find people like that in a country that was devestated like iraq was! if u want me to identify which iraqis i am talking about and since u mentioned that the councils were mostly sunni, then i will list a few of the resistance groups to show u that they came from all the different religious groups in iraq:

1- the naqishbandia: sufi
2- promise day/hezbolla-iraq: shi'a
3- army of ansar al suna: sunni


can u give me one reason why the iraqis would not want to kill every last american soldier??? has abu-ghraib been a gesture of friendliness from the USA??? for god sakes not even puppies were spared from the brutality of the american invading forces!


afghanistan:

so about afghanistan, u call this week's attack that destroyed 6 fighter jet relatively small, eh??? also, u think that in Afghanistan, the taliban movement doesn't have solid roots and very widespread support??? as for what i think will happen there once the US forces admit their utter defeat there and leave is that the afghan people will continue to curse them till doom's day and that taliban will regain whatever small part of its power that it lost after that many years of battling with the US army and NATO.

syria:

so in syria the military that every male who is not a single son and is above 18 servers in is not indicative of the general direction the syrian people want to go in, but the USA funded/trained/armed militias running around bombing everything from mosques to hospitals and beheading anyone with a haircut they don't like are the true representation of what the syrian people want, right???

i never said the situation in syria was perfect and everybody was living in luxury, we r like any other country and have people who label themselves as opposition, but that doesn't give other parts of society the right to conspire against their country and facilitate its destruction!!! especially when they have no set demands or alternative policy of any kind! have they ever made a single statement about whether they are rebelling for better health or better education or better housing or better jobs or better anything???????????? your claims are completely unfounded about our leadership and are quite silly to be honest, u know exactly who trains and exports death squads, it is the same country that sent them to south america!

israel:

so to u democracy is merely about changing the name of the president every few years? what about the racial discrimination in israel? what about turning al-Aqsa mosque's yards into public parks and gardens?

Your passion has its weaknesses -I was opposed to regime change in Iraq along with many other people here in the UK -the demonstration in London against intervention in 2003 was one of the largest in recent years.

You are the one who refers to 'Iraqis' as if that country was united -surely the point about the National Council for the Awakening of Iraq is that it represented people -mostly Sunni Arabs- who felt threatened by the growth of Shi'a representation, whose sons were being encouraged into insurgent violence that was undermining their own position in the country. Had they been as hostile to the US as you claim, why did they take the money and change their position? It had more to do with the protection of their communities from opportunists inside and outside Iraq, protecting their land, and creating -or trying to create- a more unified Sunni body in view of any elections that were planned. It was the combination of this Council, and the Surge which signficantly reduced the violence in Iraq, which is not to undermine the grim situation which still pertains in that country.
But even the independent Iraq Body Count puts civilian deaths at between 108,824-118,910 which is a markedly different figure from your Million. The link is here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You and everyone else is glad that Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party apparatus has been dismantled in Iraq, anyone with a knowledge of Iraq expected the place to erupt, and yes, the 'liberators' of Iraq behaved disgracefully -Abu Ghraib is one example, the British in Basra another-because like Blair and Bush they did not understand the country they were entering. There have been elections in Iraq, I don't think the electoral roll was accurate, and right now we still don't know what Iraq will look like in five or ten years time, given the difficult situation that exists in the predominantly Kurdish north.

But there is one simple fact about Iraq -it was Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists who failed the people of Iraq. By 1979 Iraq had nationalised its oil industry, at a time when the oil price had quadrupled in the previous six years. Iraq could have used the revenues from oil to develop the best state oil company in the Middle East; it could have used oil revenue to invest in agriculture and industry, to create the conditions for economic prosperity which engage people in business regardless of religious differences. He did none of those things, instead, he used the money to line the pockets of his relatives and friends, to acquire the instruments of death and torture to harass and murder political opponents, above all, he engaged in two wars which he could not win and which bankrupted what should have been one of the richest countries in the world.

I had an interesting talk with an Iraqi exile in the Gulf a few years ago -look around, he said, this is the legacy of Zayed. What is Saddam's legacy for us? Destruction. Sheikh Zayed was no democrat, all the Gulf states are family businesses; Oman is not that different, the oddities of Qaboos being entirely his own -but which of these states has used oil revenue to develop a modern state, and which lies in ruins?

Iraq with its rich heritage of ancient civilisations, ought to have been one of the great tourist destinations in the world, instead tourists go to Dubai. Work that one out!

The situation in Afghanistan that you describe is profoundly more complex; and has more to do with local politics than with the NATO forces. It is a sad fact that the Afghan security forces killing their US and British trainers do not match the slaughter that has been going on in Afghanistan for decades. The Taiban you refer to is no longer a single body, taking directions from Mullah Omar. The group has split with moderate Taliban -so-called- who want to stop fighting and build the country with what they call an 'Islamic Government'; those Taliban who are in effect being led by Pakistan in order to maintain the violence and prevent a 'solution' that does not include Pakistan; and other Taliban fighters who don't want to be told what to do by anyone. The NATO intervention in Afghanistan, like the previous intervention by the USSR aggaravated existing divisions within Afghanistan, and by militarising age-old grievances with more sophisticated weaponry than the average Afghan had possessed before, it is a grim fact that the death toll is so shockingly high.
But so too is the level of corruption in central government -and if you can't see how crucial it is for the average Afghan to have confidence in its government, then you can't see a way out of this situation when the NATO forces leave.

As in Iraq, a thoroughly corrupt government undermines faith in politics, so people take their energies elsewhere, into religion, into anything that will make money -growing poppies, for example- and until they get a government that works for the benefit of the country, the Afghans will decline to be involved in nationwide politics, and do their own thing.

Thus, in Syria, you find the same record, of decades of corruption at the heart of the country; decades of under-achievement in what in 1914 was with Egypt the richest and most developed country in the Middle East. Syrians do talk about their health and education systems, they do talk about jobs -but for decades they have had to talk about it in whispers because of the spies that Hafez al-Asad created, many of them your own neighbours. Syrians do not want to live in a society where you have to pay for a service three times over -once to the service provider, once to the 'official' without whom you cannot get to the provider, and once to the Wastah who can walk into the office of official to grease his palm on your behalf.

Four decades of dictatorship and the country is in ruins. Not much of a record to defend, is it? And for you to suggest it is all the cause of the US is bizarre, as Syria has been a mystery to successive American administrations for all this time, the one country with which it has never had a dialogue.

Again, you need to make a distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. There was a radical change in Israeli politics in the 1970s, the country politically has never been the same as it was when the old Labour Party was in power, but that is the price Israel has paid for the demographic changes that have favoured the nationalist parties in the last four decades. There are elections in Israel, and you can criticise the list system they use which produces coalition governments with tiny parties holding the balance of power; but the elections do take place, politicians do lose power. Israel has a lot of problems, environmental degradation, immigration problems, it is not immune to them, but you need to understand that resentment is a poisonous emotion that does not produce good politics.

Fundamentally, dictatorship is the problem. It can often start out as a military response to political disorder, but then becomes a substitute for democray, because democracy is messy, it doesn't always produce a winner, it involves lots of people all claiming to have the right solution; but dictatorship can only produce order for a short term before it eats into the economy, giving privileges to people who don't deserve them. You can't expect any of the Arab Countries being convulsed by change to change quickly, old habits, old alliances remain important; but change cannot be stopped, and you can either try to stop it, as Bashar al-Asad is doing, or try to influence it for the better.

[yosi]

iraq:

excuse me but it is hard to look beyond killing 1.5 million iraqis and dumping deformation causing and cancer causing materials on the rest


israel:

what about turning al-Aqsa mosque's yards into public parks and gardens?

these are perfect 2 examples of how you were constantly brainwashed with lies, can you prove these with facts?

1.5 million Iraqis killed? how did you get this number?

Al-Aqsa mosque's yards turned into parks and gardens? do you have ny pics to prove it? or is it just a "fact" that you heard?

[hippifried]

what about turning al-Aqsa mosque's yards into public parks and gardens?

What about just bulldozing the Mount & turning it into a parking lot?

If the brats can't play nice, take away the toy.

[Prospero]

There are many entirely spurious videos drifting around on the web alleging all manner of dastardly Israeli plots to turn the al-Aqsa Mosque into this or that and one about "melting" the dome of the rock. All spurious. All bearing no resemblance to the truth.

One major troubel with the Web is it is open to abuse by those of dubious motives who wish to feed prejudice, create anger and hatred. Especially on such contentious issue as Arab-Israeli relations. (But also on other flash point issues. The so called feature film about Mohammed for instance - trickled out onto the Internet with the clear intent of inflaming anger and sparking the very response it achieved.)

[bishr]

these are perfect 2 examples of how you were constantly brainwashed with lies, can you prove these with facts?

1.5 million Iraqis killed? how did you get this number?

Al-Aqsa mosque's yards turned into parks and gardens? do you have ny pics to prove it? or is it just a "fact" that you heard?

iraq:

current:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...48857920080130

al-aqsa:

http://www.imemc.org/article/63985

note:
i am not here trying get sympathy by spreading lies, i am only trying to present the truth, and if i seem angry most of the time, it is because of the difficulty to control rage when dealing with the subject of the ongoing catastrophe, it is like a train wreck taking place over the course of years instead of minutes.

[Prospero]

That link on al-aqsa is a perfect example of the sort of dubious story i was referring to. I don't find it credible.

[bishr]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO120...qsa-mosque.htm

[Prospero]

The last link was a website run by Hamas... hardly aneutral source.

[bishr]

Your passion has its weaknesses -I was opposed to regime change in Iraq along with many other people here in the UK -the demonstration in London against intervention in 2003 was one of the largest in recent years.

You are the one who refers to 'Iraqis' as if that country was united -surely the point about the National Council for the Awakening of Iraq is that it represented people -mostly Sunni Arabs- who felt threatened by the growth of Shi'a representation, whose sons were being encouraged into insurgent violence that was undermining their own position in the country. Had they been as hostile to the US as you claim, why did they take the money and change their position? It had more to do with the protection of their communities from opportunists inside and outside Iraq, protecting their land, and creating -or trying to create- a more unified Sunni body in view of any elections that were planned. It was the combination of this Council, and the Surge which signficantly reduced the violence in Iraq, which is not to undermine the grim situation which still pertains in that country.
But even the independent Iraq Body Count puts civilian deaths at between 108,824-118,910 which is a markedly different figure from your Million. The link is here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You and everyone else is glad that Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party apparatus has been dismantled in Iraq, anyone with a knowledge of Iraq expected the place to erupt, and yes, the 'liberators' of Iraq behaved disgracefully -Abu Ghraib is one example, the British in Basra another-because like Blair and Bush they did not understand the country they were entering. There have been elections in Iraq, I don't think the electoral roll was accurate, and right now we still don't know what Iraq will look like in five or ten years time, given the difficult situation that exists in the predominantly Kurdish north.

But there is one simple fact about Iraq -it was Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists who failed the people of Iraq. By 1979 Iraq had nationalised its oil industry, at a time when the oil price had quadrupled in the previous six years. Iraq could have used the revenues from oil to develop the best state oil company in the Middle East; it could have used oil revenue to invest in agriculture and industry, to create the conditions for economic prosperity which engage people in business regardless of religious differences. He did none of those things, instead, he used the money to line the pockets of his relatives and friends, to acquire the instruments of death and torture to harass and murder political opponents, above all, he engaged in two wars which he could not win and which bankrupted what should have been one of the richest countries in the world.

I had an interesting talk with an Iraqi exile in the Gulf a few years ago -look around, he said, this is the legacy of Zayed. What is Saddam's legacy for us? Destruction. Sheikh Zayed was no democrat, all the Gulf states are family businesses; Oman is not that different, the oddities of Qaboos being entirely his own -but which of these states has used oil revenue to develop a modern state, and which lies in ruins?

Iraq with its rich heritage of ancient civilisations, ought to have been one of the great tourist destinations in the world, instead tourists go to Dubai. Work that one out!

The situation in Afghanistan that you describe is profoundly more complex; and has more to do with local politics than with the NATO forces. It is a sad fact that the Afghan security forces killing their US and British trainers do not match the slaughter that has been going on in Afghanistan for decades. The Taiban you refer to is no longer a single body, taking directions from Mullah Omar. The group has split with moderate Taliban -so-called- who want to stop fighting and build the country with what they call an 'Islamic Government'; those Taliban who are in effect being led by Pakistan in order to maintain the violence and prevent a 'solution' that does not include Pakistan; and other Taliban fighters who don't want to be told what to do by anyone. The NATO intervention in Afghanistan, like the previous intervention by the USSR aggaravated existing divisions within Afghanistan, and by militarising age-old grievances with more sophisticated weaponry than the average Afghan had possessed before, it is a grim fact that the death toll is so shockingly high.
But so too is the level of corruption in central government -and if you can't see how crucial it is for the average Afghan to have confidence in its government, then you can't see a way out of this situation when the NATO forces leave.

As in Iraq, a thoroughly corrupt government undermines faith in politics, so people take their energies elsewhere, into religion, into anything that will make money -growing poppies, for example- and until they get a government that works for the benefit of the country, the Afghans will decline to be involved in nationwide politics, and do their own thing.

Thus, in Syria, you find the same record, of decades of corruption at the heart of the country; decades of under-achievement in what in 1914 was with Egypt the richest and most developed country in the Middle East. Syrians do talk about their health and education systems, they do talk about jobs -but for decades they have had to talk about it in whispers because of the spies that Hafez al-Asad created, many of them your own neighbours. Syrians do not want to live in a society where you have to pay for a service three times over -once to the service provider, once to the 'official' without whom you cannot get to the provider, and once to the Wastah who can walk into the office of official to grease his palm on your behalf.

Four decades of dictatorship and the country is in ruins. Not much of a record to defend, is it? And for you to suggest it is all the cause of the US is bizarre, as Syria has been a mystery to successive American administrations for all this time, the one country with which it has never had a dialogue.

Again, you need to make a distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. There was a radical change in Israeli politics in the 1970s, the country politically has never been the same as it was when the old Labour Party was in power, but that is the price Israel has paid for the demographic changes that have favoured the nationalist parties in the last four decades. There are elections in Israel, and you can criticise the list system they use which produces coalition governments with tiny parties holding the balance of power; but the elections do take place, politicians do lose power. Israel has a lot of problems, environmental degradation, immigration problems, it is not immune to them, but you need to understand that resentment is a poisonous emotion that does not produce good politics.

Fundamentally, dictatorship is the problem. It can often start out as a military response to political disorder, but then becomes a substitute for democray, because democracy is messy, it doesn't always produce a winner, it involves lots of people all claiming to have the right solution; but dictatorship can only produce order for a short term before it eats into the economy, giving privileges to people who don't deserve them. You can't expect any of the Arab Countries being convulsed by change to change quickly, old habits, old alliances remain important; but change cannot be stopped, and you can either try to stop it, as Bashar al-Asad is doing, or try to influence it for the better.

you insist on twisting all the facts! i really don't know what to say!

how does the fact that the "sons of iraq" were fighting an enemy that came with the USA invasion of their country make that invasion or the resulting situation today a good thing??? were these suicide bombers detonating bombs in marketplaces every few days back when president saddam was in power? why wouldn't they want to take money to fight the extremists? it is not like the have any sympathy for them.

ah poor blair and bush, they didn't understand the country they were entering, they thought it was a country were committing atrocities is highly appreciated, they were entering a country to find and disable the weapons of mass destruction that has not and will not ever be found!!!

also, the division of iraq into regions isn't the direct result of constitution Paul Bremer's imposed!!! no, it is in the best interest of iraq to be divided according to religion and ethnicity!

also, all arab countries should become whores to the west and reap the rewards of being a tourism destination! the never ending sanctions imposed on iraq had nothing to do with it not being a tourism destination at all!

current:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...48857920080130

how did u figure that the syria was in ruins for four decades??? this is the kind of statements that are not backed by facts! had this not been a porn forum, i would have surely asked one of my american friends who live here to describe syria from their own perspective! u couldn't be more wrong.

yes we do have administrative corruption, but that is neither a cover for starting a revolution nor can it in any way be remedied by one especially when the so called revolutionists don't have a reform program of any sort! since president bashar al assad took over, corruption has been reduced a lot as well as the ability of people in important public positions to abuse their authority. corruption is a global problem, it is not in any way unique to syria.

i thank president hafez al assad from the bottom for making syria a country where everyone knew their limits and where robbery or homicide was virtually unheard of.

syria is an important element in the so-called resistance axis and no thanks we don't want a dialog with the murderers trying to complete their task of enslaving the entire planet. they can have all the dialog they want with traitorous governments of the gulf region, they can have a dialog about how to run over multiple protestors instead of one at a time with SUVs.

president bashar al assad is leading the change not fighting it, we have a new constitution, new media law, new election law, new law for political parties, members of the opposition in key offices in the government (the opposition that doesn't think NATO intervention is something to aspire to), lifting of the emergency martial law, and many many other reforms.

the only influencing for the better regarding the armed gangs is to have the brave forces of the legendary syrian arab army deal with them.

[bishr]

The last link was a website run by Hamas... hardly aneutral source.

hhhhhhh give me your phone number and i will get netanyahu to call u and tell u it is real.

google it in hebrew or in arabic if u can, it has been on news channels for days now.

http://www.assafir.com/Windows/Print...pe=menu&ref=lm

or better u can do like Morpheus in the matrix says:

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.