Are we hypocrites or what?
We go around the world accusing countries of not being democratic. Then the Syrian President Assad dies and his son takes the “throne” and we congratulate him? I know we have to do this because of the delicate situation in the Middle East, but face it, we’re like bullies right? We can push around little nations like Peru, but we say nothing otherwise.
And how come President Assad looks white and his son does too? Do they have French blood in them or something?
I don’t think he just “took” the office. He has the support of the military and the rubber-stamp Parliament.
A better question would be “Why were we so friendly to (the late) Assad?”
The man was evil. E-V-I-L.
Saddam with a kind face.
his son was an eye doctor, and originally not the heir, he had an older brother. were congratulating him because he’s a decent human being unlike his father, and supposedly is going to help initiate some sort of democracy in Syria.
it’s just plain political etiquette to be friendly during the passing away of one the leaders. It’s a game. The game of the lords and ladies, and when someone dies, they’ve left the game and all the lords and ladies say things like, oh my, he was good as an opponent and what it will be like now, perhaps his son can be swooned to come to our side, how the game will change now… and all that. It’s petty.
but that’s the way the world works right now.
Madeline Albright is going to the funeral, not President Clinton because the Syrians support terrorism.
Oh, I think we all know the real reason Clinton’s sending Maggie instead of himself. He’s afraid that Air Force One will end up at the bottom of the ocean on the way back from Syria.
I too was taken aback at the statement from Clinton that he “did not always agree with Assad, but always respected him”. I thought that was the type of line to take about domestic political opponents, not vicious international tyrants.
But such is the way the ball bounces for vicious international tyrants. When it’s convenient for other leaders to disagree-with-but-respect you they’ll take that tack, when it’s in their interest to demonize you they’ll turn on you in a heartbeat. So it was for the likes of Ferdinand Marcos, Baby Doc Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and others. One moment a respected (though disagreed with) foreign leader; the next a vicious thug and immediate threat to our national security.
And the process works in reverse too, as it has so well for the likes of Yasser Arafat, and the late King Hussein of Jordan (a man who ordered his forces to massacre 25,000 Palestinians in the 70s).
General rule: don’t take anything any politician says seriously.
It seriously boggled me when all the local (NYC) newspapers subtitled the “Assad Dies” article with “Hopes for Mid-East Peace clouded” or something like that.
I mean, if that guy did anything at all to promote peace with Israel, then he hid it very, very, very well.
And the other side, saying in effect, “Now that this really awfull person is dead, perhaps there is hope for peace with his son.” That kind of comment dooms any new peace effort before it starts.
Well, the father was an evil dictator and the same military is now putting the son in power. If the first thing the son announces is free elections, and releasing of political prisoners, and a free press… then I’ll concede that the kid has got potential.
As for the younger Assad being a “decent human being,” I’m afraid I’ll have to believe that when I see it. I just hope they make the elder Assad’s burial place public, so that I can someday look forward to dancing on his grave.
Here’s a choice statement from Bashar Assad:
“A unilateral withdrawal [from Lebanon --SK] is not a solution, especially since it derives from the first defeat Israel has suffered, since it was established. In 1973, Israel was defeated in the early stages, but American support and the Egyptian decision to stop the advance of its forces following the crossing of the Suez Canal, allowed Israel to concentrate its forces in the northern front and regain the territories it lost [to Syria].”
Um, that ain’t the way I learned it in school.
The big problem with Syria isn’t the president-for-life tradition that they keep, it is the Baath Party. Militant, socialist, anti-Semitic (okay, anti-zionist in their own doublespeak) and nationalistic (where have I seen this combination before?), the Baath Party is written into Syria’s damned Constitution, for crying out loud. Until those bastards can learn a sense of moderation, there will be no real peace in the Middle East.
The Syrian Constitution, is here: http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/sy00000_.html . It gave me pause because it has striking similarities to the Constitution of the United States, and yet Syria espouses virtually every fault a modern nation can have. That’s worth keeping in mind, I think.
I don’t think that will happen; the second thing to be announced would be a third President.
and don’t forget the possibility of a coup(sp?), as in his fathers case. Doesn’t take much in some countries to decide, hey, we donna like this guy, lets gettim!, and place a new puppet at the top.
got a crystal ball soulsling? the CBS international news is reporting that Bashar’s uncle (Hafez’s younger brother), Rifaat Assad is returning from exile to contest Bashar’s claim to the presidency of Syria.
Rifaat was exiled for trying to take over power in 83.
(try, try again is his moto apparently)
I don’t think a civil war in Syria would not be good for the peace process in the Middle east right now.
Well, my point was like there were supposed to be some impropriety with the Peruvian election, Fujimori gets re-elected and we immediately censure him because the elections were not democratic enough.
Yet in Syria, a “President” dies in office, his son takes over as “President” and we congratulate him? How democratic is that? It’s like Bill Clinton dies in office and his wife Hillary takes over. Aren’t we supposed to say “Blah, blah, blah, you need to have democratic elections… blah, blah, blah?”
Or what happens in Austria, where that guy’s party gets elected and everyone immediately censures them, and yet in Fiji where armed “rebels” take over the country because the President is not the right race and we say nothing?
Either we’re for democracy or we are not. Pointing fingers only at guys we can push around makes us look like hypocrites. I think we look stupid, and a bully. We used to be looked up to in the 40s to 70s. Now we’re just a target or a rich and soft country that’s easy to bribe.
I really do feel sorry for this new Assad guy. Look at the odds against him: Besides his father and King Hussein of Jordan, how many recent Mideast leaders have not been assasinated?
Maybe I missed your point, Major, but I’m fairly confident that the US response towards the recent Fiji coup was not dictated by an inability to “push around” that country if the need had arisen.
As for Assad the Dad, he was scum alright. I’m sure the man who invented “Hamas Rules” is burning in Hell as we speak. But the cold reality is that his death does make the Middle East more instable. While Assad hated Israel, he was rational enough to realize Israel wasn’t going to go away. He therefore always tempered his anti-Israeli activities with an awareness that Israel can and would retaliate. The potential now exists for Syria to come under the control of some zealot who will want to strike at Israel (or at other Arab states) without regard for the consequences.
no crystal ball here neighbor. just the facts of how politics in military orientated countries operate. We’ve worked with some SF units in the past (my infantry unit) and learned a lot about how even the US trains it’s enemies to learn how to fight us, as well as each other, and to instigate a war if possible that will keep the balance of power on our side heavier.
Bashar(sp?) Assad has a western education, UK i believe, and whether or not he’s got all his facts straight, he’ll probably be a great deal better at keeping what peace there is now in syria then his brother. From what i understand, they won’t let Rifaat back in though, he’s still exiled, and they even changed the law to allow for Bashars age since he’s younger then what the current law allows for the role of President. imgagine that, 34, still young, and taking on the responsibilities of ruling a country, negotiating for peace, keeping all the rebel factions at bay, the common civilians at bay, the political parties all involved at bay, and still maintain his sanity. can’t be easy, even with the support he’s got.
all of the political “bull” everyone seems to mention about how wrong it is for the U.S. to be behaving with all this is simply part of the whole political game. those are the rules, and it’s difficult to understand unless you are there. The culture of the Mideast is vastly different then it is in the West, and Military custom and “culture” as well is a whole new world. Try to understand, none of this is easy, everyone must tiptoe around things so as not to drop a bomb that may turn into a real bomb.
Little Nemo:
Took him a few wars to learn it first…
Chaim Mattis Keller
Diceman,
Assad was utterly ruthless in the way he crushed opposition in a way that can literally be paralled with the manner that Hitler was with resistance groups.
This might seem strong and innappropriate but this guy had up to 30000 people butchered in the Hamad region for an uprising, their village were wiped off the map.
If anyone has been the prime mover of international terrorism, kidnapping and the war by Hamas this is the man.
Saddam Hussain probably looked at this person and modelled himself on him.
Oh, come on! The only reason Assad is viewed as evil by the minority of Americans who are even minimally literate in these matters is because the US government and media choose to portray him this way.
What do they think about ex-president Rios Mott, Reagan’s right-wing Christian fundamentalist buddy and former President of Guatamala. He massacred about two hundred thousand of the people of that country, with the help of Uncle Sam.
What about General Suharto, recently deposed dictator of Indonesia, who led a coup against Sukarno, an internationally respected non-alligned leader, killing between a half and a million people in the process.
Or ask the survivors of the thousands who died under torture in the late Shah of Iran’s dongeons.
If you want to know who the user-friendly dictators are, simply note how they are characterized by the mainstream press. US government sponsored dictators are “strongmen”.