Mike_L wrote:It likely does represent the will of the Syrian people. In the 2014 Syrian presidential election, Assad was returned to power with nearly 89% of the vote.
The validity of the results has, of course, been questioned. But it's not improbable that a majority would support Assad, despite the fact that he's a brute. He was likely supported because a majority perceive him to be a lesser evil. As bad as Assad is, the people of Syria prefer not to see the country go the way of Iraq and Libya... those other countries which the US has bombed into conditions of halcyon democratic heaven.

It is as valid as Trump's election.

Sendraks wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Well, in what way is Russia unprincipled? And for what reason/s?

You're unaware of their corrupt political regime that has led to Putin being in power for so long?

Yep almost as corrupt as the American regime.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Well, in what way is Russia unprincipled? And for what reason/s?

You're unaware of their corrupt political regime that has led to Putin being in power for so long?

Yep almost as corrupt as the American regime.

How are you quantifying that?

How does one quantify the corruption of a regime? What yardstick is one using? Are we looking at the foreign policy directions of respective governments? Over what time frame? With regard to foreign power intervention in Syria, how does one compare the actions of the aggressors (Washington and its allies) with those of the defenders (Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon)?
Should we take into account the historical track record, as Scot does (rightly, IMO) in his post #169

Mike_L wrote:How does one quantify the corruption of a regime? What yardstick is one using? Are we looking at the foreign policy directions of respective governments? Over what time frame? With regard to foreign power intervention in Syria, how does one compare the actions of the aggressors (Washington and its allies) with those of the defenders (Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon)?

Precisely. You can't quantify it. Saying one regime is more corrupt than the other is simply petty whataboutism, where people are choosing whichever regime as corrupt which suits their bias.

Mike_L wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:It comes down to a legitimacy question I think. Does what Bashar Assad does represent the will of the people or just the will of an unelected mobster clique? If the latter does he have the right to invite the Russians to come and help them crush the people who wanted different leadership?

It likely does represent the will of the Syrian people. In the 2014 Syrian presidential election, Assad was returned to power with nearly 89% of the vote.

Oh come on, you know those elections are bullshit. They were not democratic at all. And if Assad was confident of his support, the elections would be open to all candidates.

But it's not improbable that a majority would support Assad, despite the fact that he's a brute. He was likely supported because a majority perceive him to be a lesser evil. As bad as Assad is, the people of Syria prefer not to see the country go the way of Iraq and Libya... those other countries which the US has bombed into conditions of halcyon democratic heaven.

I don't believe that. There are more Syrian deaths and refugees than there were in Iraq or Libya, and less buildings left standing after Assad's bombing.

Mike_L wrote:
Well, in what way is Russia unprincipled? And for what reason/s?

Well its own war crimes like indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas (and yeah the US might be guilty of that too) and the obstruction of efforts to make the Syrian leadership accountable for their war crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/

X

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:It comes down to a legitimacy question I think. Does what Bashar Assad does represent the will of the people or just the will of an unelected mobster clique? If the latter does he have the right to invite the Russians to come and help them crush the people who wanted different leadership?

It likely does represent the will of the Syrian people. In the 2014 Syrian presidential election, Assad was returned to power with nearly 89% of the vote.

Oh come on, you know those elections are bullshit. They were not democratic at all. And if Assad was confident of his support, the elections would be open to all candidates.

It was a multi-candidate election, with candidate eligibility determined by the constitution.

But it's not improbable that a majority would support Assad, despite the fact that he's a brute. He was likely supported because a majority perceive him to be a lesser evil. As bad as Assad is, the people of Syria prefer not to see the country go the way of Iraq and Libya... those other countries which the US has bombed into conditions of halcyon democratic heaven.

I don't believe that. There are more Syrian deaths and refugees than there were in Iraq or Libya, and less buildings left standing after Assad's bombing.

And whose fault is that?
Russia attempted a negotiated end to the war as far back as 2012. The deal would've included Assad stepping down.
It was scuppered by the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... because she was foolishly confident that the US-backed 'rebels' would overthrow Assad in the same fashion that Gaddafi had been overthrown in Libya the year before. The Syrian war was perpetuated because sanguinary Hillary wanted to do an encore of this.
Which side is more principled? The one that attempted to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Or the one that continues to fuel it to this day?

Mike_L wrote:
Well, in what way is Russia unprincipled? And for what reason/s?

Well its own war crimes like indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas (and yeah the US might be guilty of that too) and the obstruction of efforts to make the Syrian leadership accountable for their war crimes.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/

Why should only one side be held accountable for war crimes?

Mike_L wrote:
And whose fault is that?
Russia attempted a negotiated end to the war as far back as 2012. The deal would've included Assad stepping down.
It was scuppered by the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... because she was foolishly confident that the US-backed 'rebels' would overthrow Assad in the same fashion that Gaddafi had been overthrown in Libya the year before. The Syrian war was perpetuated because sanguinary Hillary wanted to do an encore of this.

You're pinning an awful lot on an attempt to negotiate Assad's ... retirement ... by Russia that a) didn't happen, b) had absolutely no guarantee of success. And Russia offering a negotiated settlement ... means what? That they wanted a negotiated settlement? Or that they wanted to appear to offer it, and then get into protracted arguments, and Assad would carry on, etc. Who knows. Assad isn't the leader of a historic Baathist party that runs Syria, not any more, he's the head of a dictatorship which still uses the name of the party. He would have said thanks, but no thanks. I imagine.

I wouldn't assume that because Russia offered to try, means it would have worked, or even been intended to.

Mike_L wrote:Which side is more principled? The one that attempted to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Or the one that continues to fuel it to this day?

Not sure about the former. The latter applies to both of your sides in this argument.

Sendraks wrote:

Mike_L wrote:How does one quantify the corruption of a regime? What yardstick is one using? Are we looking at the foreign policy directions of respective governments? Over what time frame? With regard to foreign power intervention in Syria, how does one compare the actions of the aggressors (Washington and its allies) with those of the defenders (Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon)?

Precisely. You can't quantify it. Saying one regime is more corrupt than the other is simply petty whataboutism, where people are choosing whichever regime as corrupt which suits their bias.

Simple petty whataboutism? Did you read amercica's track record at removing democratic governments. Russia does not even approach it.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Oh come on, you know those elections are bullshit. They were not democratic at all. And if Assad was confident of his support, the elections would be open to all candidates.

Do you consider the American elections democratic?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Simple petty whataboutism?

Yup

Scot Dutchy wrote:Did you read amercica's track record at removing democratic governments. Russia does not even approach it.

Different American Governments = different regime.
As opposed to the single corrupt regime of Putin's Russia which has been in effect for the last 18 years.

ronmcd wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
And whose fault is that?
Russia attempted a negotiated end to the war as far back as 2012. The deal would've included Assad stepping down.
It was scuppered by the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... because she was foolishly confident that the US-backed 'rebels' would overthrow Assad in the same fashion that Gaddafi had been overthrown in Libya the year before. The Syrian war was perpetuated because sanguinary Hillary wanted to do an encore of this.

You're pinning an awful lot on an attempt to negotiate Assad's ... retirement ... by Russia that a) didn't happen, b) had absolutely no guarantee of success. And Russia offering a negotiated settlement ... means what? That they wanted a negotiated settlement? Or that they wanted to appear to offer it, and then get into protracted arguments, and Assad would carry on, etc. Who knows. Assad isn't the leader of a historic Baathist party that runs Syria, not any more, he's the head of a dictatorship which still uses the name of the party. He would have said thanks, but no thanks. I imagine.

I wouldn't assume that because Russia offered to try, means it would have worked, or even been intended to.

No, we can't know for certain how it would've turned out. What we do know is that it was never given a chance.
(This Huffington Post article gives the details).

Mike_L wrote:Which side is more principled? The one that attempted to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Or the one that continues to fuel it to this day?

Not sure about the former. The latter applies to both of your sides in this argument.

Well, sure. But then what choice does Assad have? Having seen what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi, he knows the fate of Washington's targets of regime change. And beyond interest in his own hide, he knows what those countries look like after the "humanitarian" interventions are all done.
And what about now? General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command, admits that Assad and Russia have basically won the war...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/13/syrian-regime-has-won-civil-war-centcom-commander-says.html

Furthermore, the defeat of ISIS in Syria (Washington's pretext for occupying Syrian land in defiance of international law) is now practically complete. And yet the US maintains its occupation and is reportedly even considering the establishment of new US military bases in the country...
https://www.rt.com/news/423127-new-us-bases-syria/

Just another of America's "forever wars". A war of choice on the other side of the world (America is not threatened by Syria) and screw the people who happen to live there...

12 Reasons America Doesn’t Win Its Wars

Too many parties now benefit from perpetual warmaking for the U.S. to ever conclude its military conflicts.

By JON BASIL UTLEY

America doesn’t “win” its wars, because winning a war is secondary to other goals in our war making. Winning or losing has little immediate consequence for the United States, because the wars we start, Wars of Choice, are not of vital national interest; losing doesn’t mean getting invaded or our cities being destroyed. The following are some of the interests Washington has in not winning, reasons for our unending wars.
...

Full essay at:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/12-reasons-america-doesnt-win-its-wars/

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Simple petty whataboutism?

Yup

Scot Dutchy wrote:Did you read amercica's track record at removing democratic governments. Russia does not even approach it.

Different American Governments = different regime.
As opposed to the single corrupt regime of Putin's Russia which has been in effect for the last 18 years.

A simple back of the hand wave: "Of no importance". Nice. Only 18 years. America's first action was 1846 and has been going ever since.
Russia has never done the damage America has done to the world. No where near it. A country that has never had a democratic government. Whose election and government systems are a farce.

Mike_L wrote:
It was a multi-candidate election, with candidate eligibility determined by the constitution.

Yeah sure...

And whose fault is that?
Russia attempted a negotiated end to the war as far back as 2012. The deal would've included Assad stepping down.
It was scuppered by the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... because she was foolishly confident that the US-backed 'rebels' would overthrow Assad in the same fashion that Gaddafi had been overthrown in Libya the year before. The Syrian war was perpetuated because sanguinary Hillary wanted to do an encore of this.
Which side is more principled? The one that attempted to end the war with a negotiated settlement. Or the one that continues to fuel it to this day?

Well the issue is not which side is "more principled". It is wether Russia is principled, and again America not being principled doesn't make Russia principled.

But on that peace offer, if there is any truth to that, I agree the West made a major mistake there.

Why should only one side be held accountable for war crimes?

Nobody is saying only side should be held accountable, everybody should be held accountable. But again you're claiming Russia is principled. How do Russia's war crimes agree with their principles?

Scot Dutchy wrote:A simple back of the hand wave: "Of no importance".

Where? You're quoting me as saying something I haven't said in the text that you've quoted. Does that not seem, utterly fucking idiotic to you?

Scot Dutchy wrote: Nice. Only 18 years. America's first action was 1846 and has been going ever since.

Ah, you've not grasped that America hasn't been a single regime since 1846. That penny hasn't dropped yet I see.
Name an American regime that has run for 18 years. Go on.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Russia has never done the damage America has done to the world. No where near it. A country that has never had a democratic government. Whose election and government systems are a farce.

Yes, yes, so you assert. Scot thinks Murica done bad things. Yes, yes, we all know you have a major hard-on for dissing America. Go you.

America is a continuous regime. Far from democratic and imposing its will on all and sundry.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
Why should only one side be held accountable for war crimes?

Nobody is saying only side should be held accountable, everybody should be held accountable.

Pie in the sky! Bush, Cheney, Blair et al have not been held accountable for their war crimes against Iraq. Hillary, Cameron, Sarkozy et al have not been held accountable for their war crimes against Libya. And it's precisely because "the West" keeps getting away with it that they keep throwing "crappy little countries" against the wall.

But again you're claiming Russia is principled. How do Russia's war crimes agree with their principles?

The principle of intervening to save an ally. The principle of opposing a rampant warmonger.

Mike_L wrote:
No, we can't know for certain how it would've turned out. What we do know is that it was never given a chance.
(This Huffington Post article gives the details).

The article certainly gives one man's opinion on the events. He might be right, he might be wrong.

ronmcd wrote:

Mike_L wrote:
No, we can't know for certain how it would've turned out. What we do know is that it was never given a chance.
(This Huffington Post article gives the details).

The article certainly gives one man's opinion on the events. He might be right, he might be wrong.

Yes, no way of knowing how it would've or could've worked out. If the chance was small, Hillary made sure to reduce it to nil.