[Far-Right Sage]

It truly doesn't matter whether one views Bashar al-Assad as a selfless hero of his people or a man motivated by personal interests. Either way, nothing good could out of him standing down for either himself or the nation of Syria.

From a nationalist's point of view, what man worth his salt who carries the banner of a nationalist ideology (as Ba'athism indisputably is) could stand down and surrender himself, surrender Damascus, and surrender Syria in full knowledge that this means the neutralization/compromising/outside direction of Syrian foreign policy in the future (particularly with respect to Iran, Iraq, and Russia), U.S. drones hovering above and raiding the nation's airspace with absolute impunity as they now are in Libya (along with Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.), the installation of a central bank in Damascus that will be directly "advised" by the International Monetary Fund, etc.?

As for himself as a person and political personality, NATO can trot out whatever meaningless words and promises it can vocalize, but after the precedents set by Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Qaddafi, no one above a grammar school reading level would be fooled by this. Surrender in this case either means a brutal death or confinement in a European cell until death. In many ways, it is a positive that the nature of their intentions are well known. This prevents any yellow feelings from coming to the surface on the part of the heroic forces in Syria or others making some form of principled stand against the globalist tide. There truly cannot be any negotiation.

Those who belief this is a fight for democracy when the Syrian "rebels" are fighting within Al-Nusra (a direct Al-Qaeda affiliate) and taking money and arms from the CIA, MI6, and the Saudi regime can believe what they will. It is not. It is a fight to install liberalism in Syria, which in effect means the indefinite revocation of its sovereignty and independence as a state actor. If you support this, feel free to be open and up front about it, but denying it is anything more than a neocolonialist adventure is dishonest and everyone making such an argument should either crack the history books or feel deeply ashamed for allowing themselves to believe what they want to believe about the Syrian "rebels".

How can anyone rational believe that Francois Hollande, Barack Obama, the House of Saud, David Cameron, and Al-Qaeda have Syria's best interests at heart? Why would someone attempting to make this ridiculous argument not stop to pause for a moment and consider that those resisting the aggression of the aforementioned parties are actually on the side of civilization and sovereignty here?

[Rich]

How can anyone rational believe that Francois Hollande, Barack Obama, the House of Saud, David Cameron, and Al-Qaeda have Syria's best interests at heart?

Well one could just as well ask did anyone rational believe that Louis XVI, William V and Alfonso XII had the United States of America's at best interests at heart? But on the whole Americans don't seem to have regretted accepting their support.

I'm not arguing that we should cheer on the rebels, just that civil wars nearly always involve out side support. The Shia of Iraq would have been insane not to recognise their own Iraqi Sunni Arab population as a far greater enemy than the United States. Assad has no chance unless the Israelis are willing to work vigorously, albeit behind the scenes to ensure his survival.

[Far-Right Sage]

No, it is an entirely different manner when a rebellion is crafted out of thin air, a tiny minority of opposition turned large by the massive swelling of the ranks with foreign Islamists from Jordan to Chechnya. This is quite a different matter indeed. Of course rival European dynasties which sought to supplant British power and authority in the New World and undermine her in the old world didn't have American interests at heart, but in stark contrast to the Syrian situation, it was in the interests of those powers such as France, Spain, and the Netherlands to see an independent United States, effectively separating a continent drowned in agricultural abundance from the British Empire. It is in the interests of Paris, London, Washington, Riyadh, and Doha to revoke Syria's sovereignty for an indeterminate amount of time. That much is as clear as crystal.

Yet the same twenty something supposed leftists who condemn the coup against Mossadegh, the introduction of the Contras and mining of Nicaraguan waters, the funding of the Mujahideen against the Khalq, etc. will consistently attempt to see this as if it's not an extension of a hegemonic policy to undermine the sovereignty of fragile states through controlled chaos. Condoleezza Rice said as much.

[pikachu]

Quartet Meeting Tackles Syria Crisis in Beirut



At the invitation of Iran's Ambassador to Lebanon Ghazanfar Roknabadi, envoys of Russia, China and Syria met at Iran's embassy in Beirut Friday to discuss the latest developments in Syria.

The four ambassadors underlined that armed conflicts in Syria – supported by a number of alien countries against Syria - have had no results except destruction and massacres, thus they should be stopped immediately.

The diplomats stressed that armed terrorist groups have failed to achieve their goals in the past two years.

They praised the Syrian army, government and nation for resisting against terrorist acts of armed groups which are mainly supported from abroad.

The ambassadors had consensus on the need of a political solution as the sole option to settle the Syrian crisis.

They focused as well on the need to stop financial support and arming opposition groups, in order to put an end to the bloodshed and massacres, along with beginning talks, following a process of holding free and healthy parliamentary elections.

The four ambassadors expressed hope that all international and regional actors in this scene face wisely with political issues and help stop conspiracies and bloodshed.

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=77186&frid=23&seccatid=14&cid=23&fromval=1

I think it's reasonable to presume that ambassadors cannot make such statements without the approval of their respective governments.

BTW a funny statement came out of Vita Churkin, Russia's UN envoy, following Susan Rice's decision.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you about a development
here in the United States today. I’m sure you’re aware that the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, whom you know and whom you
have worked with, has now withdrawn her name from consideration to be the
U.S. secretary of state.

Do you have a reaction to that?

VITALY CHURKIN: Not really. It’s Ambassador Rice’s decision.

The only thing I can say is that, if it means that Ambassador Rice is going
to spend four more years in the United Nations, I will have to ask for
double pay.

[youtube]DwIBF9U0cUg[/youtube]