Stop the Rebeles, Stop Siryan Government, Make Elections. Give voice to the Syrian People.

voyger2
reply to post by theMediator

 

I don't really understand you Sir...

If you give elections to people, you really give them choices... If you a have an alternative way to organize one Society (where (almost) everyone only cares about them selves) I invite you to share it.

For the rest of your post, I only have to say, I'm against war and the OP is all about stoping it.

About the sarcasm... keep it.

oh. And by the way. For you is better to bomb them. right!?

edit on 18-9-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

it didn't work in Egypt...free elections got a candidate who as soon as he was freely elected, turned into an islamic dictator....in Syria, it's all about which anti-democracy Islamic government will win. asking for help from people you hate and condemn will get you nothing.

reply to post by voyger2


Syria represents a conflict that has been raging in the ME for a millennia.
Where there is the capacity and desire for change on only needs to look at Africa

reply to post by jimmyx


At this time, the World is in a mess! And nobody is trying hard to make it change.

If the local's don't have the power/voice to decide there fate, we should help them. After that is none of our business.
Right now US or Russia are helping with arms ... We are feeding bottomless well

shapur
reply to post by MrSpad

 

If Iran and Hezbollah really got involved in the conflict and wanted to take care of the "rebels" then believe me there would have been nothing left of those animal savages and their entire supporters, and then some...Not to mention Russia's role in that case....We definitely don't want another WW,but it looks like some still do.

Iran and Hezbollah are involved and its no secret that they have been whats been keeping Assads head above water. He only has the support of a small group of Syrians.

There are currently all kinds of problems with Syria's elections and new constitution.

There were Parliamentary elections held in March 2012, but the problem remains where Assad's Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party holds 168 seats and only the remaining 34 seats are held by others.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the new constitution...

During the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, a new constitution was put to a referendum. Amongst other changes, it abolished the old article 8 which entrenched the power of the Ba'ath party. The new article 8 reads: "The political system is based on the principle of political pluralism, and rule is only obtained and exercised democratically through voting."; in a new article 88, it introduced presidential elections and limited the term of office for the president to seven years with a maximum of one re-election.

en.wikipedia.org...

However, the Foreign Minister of Syria has already said that Assad may run again for President. Assad has already been President since 2000, (technically allowing him 2 terms already) but since the new constitution was just put into place last year, it looks like a second term is defined from the time the constitution was written.

As of this year, it looks like Syria has split in two.

In 2013, Syria is divided between two governments, both of which make contested claims to be the only democratic government of Syria. A bitter civil war between the two has raged through 2012 and 2013 following a period of unarmed demonstrations and unrest in 2011, which was part of the international wave of protest known as the Arab Spring.

The Baathist government, headed by Bashar Assad, son of previous leader Hafez Assad, is based in Damascus, the traditional capital. The Free Syrian government is conducting its first regional elections in early March 2013 for Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and main commercial hub. Due to fighting, the elections are being held by 200+ representatives in Ghazi, Turkey.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't see this resolving itself anytime soon. For now, neither government accepts the other. It will get interesting come May 2014.

MrSpad is right. There are only approximately 3,600 elite Alawites who are propping Assad up right now to keep him from being toppled. From what I understand, the fortunes of these 3,600 are directly tied to Assad's Presidency and they can't afford to let him or his military fall without losing everything themselves.

reply to post by MrSpad


The Kurds seem to be the forefront "beneficiaries" of all this mess, they were the region's underdog not long ago, they now control territory and rich resources if they get much more "power" and fully organize Turkey will get some blow-back for the support its giving to the "rebels".

reply to post by MrSpad

You mean most Syrians are all for the barbarian rebels to take over their integrity and independence and make them another puppet ruled divided states of terrorism influenced by outside governments?!....
Who in their right minds want something like that to happen to their countries?

We are getting somewhere...

We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates. As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.”

Iranian President Hassan Rowhani. dix it.

rt.com...

Jamil had told the British daily that if the armed opposition in Syria accepts the ceasefire, it would have to be monitored “under international observation.” He added that such supervision could be provided by UN peacekeepers, assuming they came from friendly or neutral countries.

Jamil said that outside powers must stop trying to influence the outcome of events in Syria. He added that the Syrian government would be pushing to “end external intervention, a ceasefire and the launching of a peaceful political process in a way that the Syrian people can enjoy self-determination without outside intervention and in a democratic way.”

Jamil is the leader of the secular People’s Will Party and co-chair of the Popular Front for Change and Liberation.

rt.com...

reply to post by voyger2

Stop the Rebeles, Stop Siryan Government, Make Elections. Give voice to the Syrian People.

Sounds really good on paper but in reality, to make it happen would entail another Iraq War and we all know how that worked out.

The United Nations is a toothless lion so long as we have the five Security Council members, (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom & United States) having individual veto powers. So long as any one of these nations has the ability to unilaterally prevent the U.N. from taking action, the whole process is a waste of time.

IMO, the way to fix this would be for the U.N. to adopt a new guideline for exercising veto powers by requiring that a majority of the five permanent Security Council members would be needed in order to enact a veto of any U.N. action. In other words, "No more unilateral vetoes."

Flatfish
reply to post by
Sounds really good on paper but in reality, to make it happen would entail another Iraq War and we all know how that worked out.

In response to that I will quote, what has been said here already: [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread971363/pg1#pid16957145]this post
- how many are we (UN Forces or Nato) in the World. Don't we have the capability to stop it? Is that so complicated?

and here:
- This issue has ever been debated on UN? There's no one that can stop the will of other nations, if they are really united for freeing and giving voice to the people.

Why keep w/ BS of terrorist's, of fake or opressive regimes, if we the UN have time and the means to stop it!

We shouldn't be always on the if if if... We should act, and accordingly w/ freedom of speech for every nation! If they can't speak for them selves We should help them getting there voice back!

Flatfish
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread971363/pg1#pid16956893]post by
"No more unilateral vetoes."

TOTALLY AGREE!