Assad's supporters abroad vote in Syrian election

Oh, yeah, this is fair. Yup.. Noooo question. 100% transparent and right as rain.

YARZE, Lebanon (AP) — Tens of thousands of supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad voted Wednesday at embassies abroad, clogging entrances to the Lebanese capital for hours and clashing with soldiers overwhelmed by their sheer numbers a week before national elections widely expected to give him a third seven-year term.

But reflecting the schism within Syrian society, many of the estimated 2.5 million refugees scattered across neighboring countries were either excluded or abstained from the balloting, which they deem a mockery because it is being held in the middle of a civil war.

Hey, that's really neat. So.....Everyone who votes from abroad is likely pro Assad and given the fact there is a dangerous civil war afoot, the most controlled and accessible places to vote very like are in Government zones of control. Uh-Huh.. I can see lines of pilgrims crossing the battle lines to vote. (sigh) Why did he bother??

Nevertheless, Assad has insisted on holding elections amid the carnage, running against two little-known candidates seen as symbolic contenders. He has maintained significant support among large sections of the population, particularly among Christians, Alawites and other religious minorities. That support has been reinforced as Islamic militants gained more strength among the rebels fighting to topple him.

Source

Two little known candidates... I can imagine... I generally lean toward hoping Assad comes out on top here too. Not that I like him in the least, but the alternative in this case? Really IS worse. Still, we ought to lean from a distance....like from across an ocean, and not directly in the middle of this one.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

The Syria conflict is far from over Wrabbit!

The people spoke up and the Administration backed down, but they sure as hell have not given up yet!

Follow the flow of money to the Defense Contractors!

One BIG reason we need to outlaw lobbyists of ALL COLORS!!!!

As far as I am concerned, why should "Tax Payers" pay for taking care of our wounded veterans when it's the politicians lining their pocket and the defense contractors raking in the BIG MONEY?

How about making the Corporations making the CASH be responsible for PAYING THE MEDICAL BENEFITS of wounded VETS?

a reply to: seeker1963

You are a popular and long term member, so I'm almost embarrassed to say this. What are you talking about?

If we got rid of lobbyists and stopped treating wounded veterans, how would that affect Syrian elections?

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: seeker1963

You are a popular and long term member, so I'm almost embarrassed to say this. What are you talking about?

If we got rid of lobbyists and stopped treating wounded veterans, how would that affect Syrian elections?

I guess in a round about way Charles I am saying as a lot of people already have is this, "We do not have any reason to be involved in taking out Assad!"!

Now let me clarify that, because you are right in your assumption to call me out!

I heard Obama bring up Syria again!!!!

Then Wrabbit brought up this................

I am just putting 2 and 2 together and believe me "Common Core" has nothing to do with how I do my math!

EDIT:

As we noted yesterday, President Obama is saying he is contemplating arming and training Syrian rebels (just the 'moderates' which will be identified by their smiles). However, as the following PBS Frontline documentary exposes, the Syrian rebels themselves say they are already armed and trained by US in the use of sophisticated weapons and fighting techniques, including, one rebel said, "how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush." The interviews are the latest evidence that after more than three years of warfare, the United States has stepped up the provision of lethal aid to the rebels, as PBS notes "it appears the Obama administration is allowing select groups of rebels to receive US-made anti-tank missiles."

Source

So as you can see Charles, all I am doing, "considering" the shape of the countries we have so called "liberated" like Libya for instance, is that this post by Wrabbit about elections in Syria, is most likely nothing more than propaganda to further the war machine in making more cash at the expense of innocent lives.................

Sorry my friend, but I am tired of people dyeing for what corrupt politicians tell US it is for our safety.......

And well everyone knows about the Gov. Order too leave.,,


"Three Saiqa special forces members and a student are missing in Benghazi
after three kidnappings on May 23.
The severed head of a student who had challenged the Islamic Army in Derna
was found in a mosque.

A kidnapped Libyan diplomat was released in Derna after a ransom was paid.

The GNC asked caretaker Prime Minister al Thinni to remain in office, after the Justice Ministry said the election of Prime Minister Maetig was invalid.

Assailants fired grenades at Maetig's home last night. A group called Ajnad al-Khilafah claimed a May 25 car bombing outside the Tobruk military base and warned of further attacks against supporters of Hafter's campaign, saying "the fields of jihad experienced us in the East and the West."

Read more: www.longwarjournal.org...##ixzz334bkhyaL

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

a reply to: seeker1963

Dear seeker1963,

I didn't catch it the first time. I knew it couldn't have been your fault, so thanks for setting me straight.

You're right on the financial side of it, but I think there are more reasons to stay away. As the OP mentioned, dump Assad and get Who? Al-qaeda?

I believe that the US has the capability to turn the outcome of Syria any way they choose. My big fear is that we don't have the diplomatic smarts to make the play. How could we possibly keep other countries out of it? Do we know how Russia and Iran will react? I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think that the US has the geo-political smarts to make the right call, and if the right call involves the military, we don't have the will to use them.

If we go in, we lose.

Again, thanks for explaining things to me.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I was still rather vague with my explanation to you Charles, so I added on to what I already wrote.

I have always respected you for how you reply to other members and I am actually humbled that you made me explain myself further..........

Thank you!

Anyone watch frontline last night? The second half of that was truly revealing.

I'm not sure it matters who's president there either. One fighter in here says the impression he gets from his trainers in Qatar is that they don't want either side to win. Just keep on fighting.

This is a must see…

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well if an terrorist Syrian opposition were to run i am sure they would be very reliable.

a reply to: seeker1963

I guess in a round about way Charles I am saying as a lot of people already have is this, "We do not have any reason to be involved in taking out Assad!"!

Now let me clarify that, because you are right in your assumption to call me out!

I heard Obama bring up Syria again!!!!

Then Wrabbit brought up this................

I am just putting 2 and 2 together and believe me "Common Core" has nothing to do with how I do my math!

Well, after two and a half years of war, oil exploration in Syria is at a standstill since international oil companies once operating there have abandoned their operations as the violence escalates and sanctions target Syria’s energy sector

And Russia seems to be the chief backer of the Assad regime and is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year

So we have our gov. helping select rebel groups
Then there is Russia helping Assad

And let's throw in there for schlitz & giggles the fact that Biden's son got a Ukrainian Oil Company Gig ---he's on the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest oil company to be specific [how convenient]


Is this actually a battle over resources?? Indirectly a battle of US vs. Russia over Syria?
Which most wars are usually over land and/or resources

The public never knows the ultimate agenda where wars are concerned

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Stop! Stop right there. If you were to type all night you would never be able to top that. For sheer hilarity, and whimsicality, you have reached the very heights. A brilliant comment. Leave it stand, unvarnished and unedited. Let it pass down through the generations as an example to future young writers to attempt to emulate.

Well if an terrorist Syrian opposition were to run i am sure they would be very reliable.

I may even have it printed out and framed.

I know all great writers are asked this, but I can't help myself. "Where do you get your ideas?" What a novel concept you've discovered here. I wish I had your imagination. I shall follow your career as a writer with great attention.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Hey, that's really neat. So.....Everyone who votes from abroad is likely pro Assad and given the fact there is a dangerous civil war afoot, the most controlled and accessible places to vote very like are in Government zones of control. Uh-Huh.. I can see lines of pilgrims crossing the battle lines to vote. (sigh) Why did he bother??

Somebody is teaching someone else a lesson about the nature of untimely conflict. I'm quite certain you are correct to cast aspersions on the veracity of their election process. But, in this case, it'll probably lead to a truer outcome than when Kerry ran against Bush (which I believe was rigged).

a reply to: Snarl

Dear Snarl,

A great pleasure to see you again. I don't know if I'm understanding things correctly, but it seems we have two issues going on here.

One is Wrabbit2000's belief that we can have whatever opinions we want (he's slightly pro-Assad), but it's best we stay out of it. I think that's a position that most people agree with, but if I'm wrong, let me know.

The second issue is whether the elections will be fair. Here, I confess myself totally fogged. When could completely fair elections occur? After one side has won a decisive victory? I wonder how long that might take? I also suspect that, whenever the elections are held, there will be violent demonstrations, charges of voter intimidation, and various organizations saying it wasn't fair. I'm a complete amateur in these things, but I would guess that a fair election (at least by Middle east standards) is five years down the road.

I don't understand why they're having elections. The rest of the world will interpret the results however they want to, and an election with bullets zinging around is unlikely to reflect the will of the people. In short, I'm not too interested in the outcome of the election.

But, I'm a novice at this kind of analysis, and I'm probably missing something.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: intrptr
One fighter in here says the impression he gets from his trainers in Qatar is that they don't want either side to win. Just keep on fighting.

Thanks for sharing the video.

IMO the US and other Western nations look at Syria today predominantly as a way of twisting Iran's arm. My somewhat cynical view of the prospect of airstrikes was that the whole question was intended to force some kind of deal with the Iranians, which duly came after the US backed off. Support for rebel militias exists as a lever that can be raised or lowered as punishment/reward based on how the Iranians behave in negotiations.

One can note how Assad has made significant progress particularly since Cold War lite ramped up in recent weeks and months. One of the ways in which Russia can act as a spoiler in US/Iranian relations is by attempting to reduce the gravity of America's 'Syria card' in negotiations with the Iranians. In order to maintain it the US must increase support for rebel groups, thereby pissing off the Iranians, but they can't avoid doing this. This is what has spurred this most recent push to support rebel groups, in my opinion.

The reason I say this now is because I believe the impression that this rebel commander gets isn't entirely groundless. Any truly balance-tipping support, such as anti-air weaponry and accompanying training, must hang in the air as a coercive measure directed at the Iranians. Unfortunate for anyone who happens to be on the ground, but that's politics I suppose. Just my two pence; weak relation to the OP but I thought that it was interesting enough to be worth posting.

a reply to: charles1952

It truly is difficult to 'have' an opinion. I'm not sure how feeble my attempt will be to explain what I know and what I think about the area strategically. Mr. Spad, COL Curious, and Wrabbit are all better writers and thinkers than myself, but I have spent quite a bit of time over there (and more than just trigger time).

There's a geographic factor, a natural resource factor, and a (an ideology) people factor. The ME is a gateway to Africa. So, in that regard, the US interest is one of denial. Oil is readily accessible. We both want it for ourselves ... and to deny it to others. Everything else is obvious after the first few layers of disinformation/excuses. At best, the policies of the US are tolerated in the region. That tolerance is generated for various reasons, but friendship and mutual trust are not among them. Our best notable relationships exist between the Israelis and the Saudis. Radical variation has been introduced during, (at least) the last 30 years and it has eroded any hope of predictability. Where there's no predictability the probability of military force projection increases.

I was going to turn this into a dissertation ... but this is a discussion board. Hopefully there'll be some 'talkers' willing to share their deeper opinions.

a reply to: Snarl

Dear Snarl,

Please forgive the familiarity, but I must scold you on your self-evaluation. First, some of the best writers in the world have turned their talents to evil and destruction. Just because their writing tool is sharp, there is no guarantee that they will not use it to stab others. Need I say that the same is true of "Great Thinkers?" Unless they love reason and truth, their ability is worthless at best.

If I thought you brought little to the table, I would either criticize or ignore you. As you should know well by now, that thought has never crossed my mind.

But, now to your kind response, with which I find myself agreeing. I think you have a valuable insight which most of ATS has missed. For some reason, many posters believe the primary purpose is to obtain oil for the US, or to have the US control the region. Those people fit into the assumption that the US is a world-wide imperialist force. I won't argue that here, other than to say I don't agree.

Although I agree with your assessment of what our interests are, I think I'll stick with my belief that the current US administration is ill-equipped to achieve those goals. I know of very few analysts who believe we are advancing anywhere with sure-footed global moves. Many more fell we are blundering from disaster to disaster internationally.

I believe, with you, that the countries in the Mid-East have decided they can't rely on the US for any consistent position. They feel as though they have been left to their own devices. You're also right that in a case like that countries start increasing their armaments because they expect they'll have to go it on their own. A very bad situation.

Thanks for your post.

With respect,
Charles1952

Syria has always been an important land and the cause of many conflicts between the east and the west throughout the history...It is geopolitically located in a very strategic point of the med sea and it is traditionally been a border line between the eastern and the western empires (Persian/ Greek/Roman/Ottoman/Russian/British and now the Americans!)...This is all about setting foot in a place that eventually enables the occupier to have total control over eastern sections of the med sea and that has been a very important goal of many ex empires at all times...It is obvious that the Americans,Saudis are confronting Russians, Iranians in an ancient proxy arena to balance the power in the ME...Of course there is always resources that attracts the majority but there are some who really do believe in the historic importance of the area....But now Assad is about to win the presidential term and that means a victory for Syria and the Eastern powers.But I am sure this never ending story will unfortunately go on for much further for as long as there are people like Obama who support the more "moderate" "smiling!" terrorism in the country and the poor people of Syria will have to pay the severe consequences again and again and again.

a reply to: charles1952

One is Wrabbit2000's belief that we can have whatever opinions we want (he's slightly pro-Assad), but it's best we stay out of it. I think that's a position that most people agree with, but if I'm wrong, let me know.

lol... Now now.. You didn't think I'd miss that did ya?

I'm definitely not pro-Assad. It's the damndest thing on that but if you'd asked me the week before I saw the first 'peaceful protests' starting in Homs at the same time stuff was going out across the net about 'coming to Syria to spread the Arab Spring to Damascus', I'd have said Assad was among those I wouldn't mind seeing his own people remove.

His people tho.. Syrians.. Which this hasn't been from even those earliest days. Some were, most definitely disaffected Syrian Military and that still does form a distinct and powerful segment of what used to be collectively called the FSA. I'm not sure quite how to term the factions fighting in a common direction at this stage.

I just think whatever Assad has been, what would replace him in openly flying the Black Flag of an Al Qaeda affiliate is worse. Worse for the region and worse for the average people living in Syria.

When this is all settled and it's not AQ / Al Nusra Commanders beating down the door? I'd still like to see the people of Syria find a better man than Assad..but not imposed this way. Ugh... Syria won't know peace for generations if they fall to the extremists. Ask Libya about frying pans into fires.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Bashar and Hafiz Assad have ruled over Syria for almost half of century,,they knew all the mumbo jumbo about governing a country like Syria and they have been relitively doing so in moderation for decades....Sure no government is a saint but would a rational person rather have Syria in the Hands of a bunch of international terrorists or a semi democratically elected president who had fought against the terrorists?