- 15 Dec 2012 13:31
#14130607
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?
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?
"I am never guided by a possible assessment of my work" - President Vladimir Putin
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi