heckler73
Well-Known Member
One could apply that same logic to Obama, or practically any president of the USA in the past 50+ years. It's all a matter of perspective.It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.
What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?
Also, are you suggesting the FSA are NOT war criminals themselves? The situation over there seems to be a true "least worst" dilemma.
If some of the appropriated numbers I've seen are correct, the FSA (and their ilk) have killed far more Syrians than Assad's forces.
From my perspective, I don't see a Sunni led gov't being a "prosperous" alternative (especially if it is headed by Morsi).
They're already doing the burka BS in rebel held areas. I actually ran across an interesting quote last night that might be of value.
They call it a revolution, but in fact it has nothing to do with revolutions. A revolution needs thinkers. A revolution is built on thought. Where are their thinkers? A revolution needs leaders. Who is its leader? Revolutions are built on science and thought not on ignorance, on pushing the country ahead not taking it centuries back, on spreading light not cutting power lines. A revolution is usually done by the people not by importing foreigners to rebel against the people. A revolution is in the interest of people not against the interests of people. Is this a revolution? Are those revolutionaries? They are a bunch of criminals.
Since I couldn't find the source of the quote, I'll just leave it as anonymous words for thought.