how stupid are the world leaders?

[Korriken]

World leaders agree on Syria

first thing?

The first step should be a recommitment to a cease-fire by both sides and implementation of a U.N. and Arab League-backed six-point plan without waiting for the actions of others, Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan said.

*facepalm*

then you see this

The agreement is a last-gasp attempt to end the carnage in Syria and contain a growing crisis that some diplomats warn could potentially engulf the entire region.

could engulf the entire region? Unless by some miracle Assad's minions turn on him like what happened in Libya, this is GOING to engulf the whole region. Assad's minions are not too likely to turn on him. they're neck deep in the same cesspool he is. Some of the lesser soldiers might be defecting, but the officers are more or less screwed if Assad falls and its discovered to have been in the chain of command that green lighted killing civilians.

I'm not sure if these people really ARE delusional, mentally retarded, or simply playing politics and going through the "political motions", but seriously, Assad is NOT going to step down, he knows what's going to happen when he DOES. He's a DEAD MAN. the new government will arrest him and charge him for all the killings, fast track a conviction and death sentence.

He can't flee Syria, the international courts will pounce on him. he can't give up power, he'll be executed. The only way to strip him of power would be either someone in his own circle kills him, or the rebels, with or without the help of the rest of the world manage to get him. The only other alternative is more carnage.

The problem with these "revolutions" (and its only a major problem for authoritarian governments really) is that a successful revolts puts ideas in other peoples' heads. the more revolutions that succeed, the more the people as a whole in other countries will be emboldened to have their own revolution.

For China this could be a very big problem. Their economy relies in workers working in bad conditions for very little money. If the workers decided they had enough of being worked to the bone for almost nothing, and want better wages, China is in serious trouble. Yeah it's slowly getting better in China with the working conditions.. sort of, but it's still a long way away from most of the rest of the developed world.

China doesn't want revolutions to succeed, it's bad for business. for Russia, Assad is an ally and a source of oil. They're also someone to tell weapons too. Russia doesn't want Assad to fall because the new government might not buy arms from them.

as for the rest of the world, I ponder if they're really that out of touch with reality, or if it's just the game they play. "Let's send them a strongly worded letter, that will teach them!" *eyeroll* drop a missile on Assad's palace, that might have a better effect than a piece of paper that Assad would most likely toss in the trash with a hearty laugh at how powerful he imagines himself to be, given he is slaughtering his own people and the world lacks the balls to try and stop him.

[MultiCanimefan]

It's ALWAYS the game of politics and political motions. There isn't a single leader on this planet with any inkling of influence that doesn't know what he/she is doing. It's not so much delusion than it is total faith in the peoples' apathy and HOPING they don't get too out of line, but that's already proven to be false. Killing your own people is PR suicide, but that doesn't matter if you have someone like Russia as an ally. Good business partners will do whatever it takes to cover each others backs; wave a few weapons, cash, and certain perks in front of someone's face and nothing is sacred.

It'd be great if we could just drop a bomb on Assad's palace, then we'd have to deal with Russia, China, and anyone else with a stake in Syria.

Also, can you imagine China in this situation? 900,000,000+ people just setting the entire country ablaze and getting mowed down by government forces.

[Warforger]

At 6/30/12 08:05 PM, Korriken wrote: World leaders agree on Syria

first thing?

The first step should be a recommitment to a cease-fire by both sides and implementation of a U.N. and Arab League-backed six-point plan without waiting for the actions of others, Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan said.

*facepalm*

then you see this

The agreement is a last-gasp attempt to end the carnage in Syria and contain a growing crisis that some diplomats warn could potentially engulf the entire region.

Oh please go on to tell us how much of a genius you are and how stupid these older people with superior alma meters are stupid and how much they don't understand what's going on.

Truth is, it's alot more complicated than how you make it seem. If you outright bring down Al-Asad on your own you pretty much piss of Russia and China, if you do something without the permission of the Arab league they're going to get mad about the West getting up in their business. That's not even the end of it Al-Asad and his father have been the only stable regime Syria has known, any regime before gets torn apart by internal conflicts, thus it might actually get worse if you outright overthrow Al-Asad. This is why they fire artillery on civilians, in fact they've been doing for a long time now it's not really new, it hasn't been since the French did it in the 1920's. That's not even mentioning the West's weak economies not being able to sustain another war.

could engulf the entire region? Unless by some miracle Assad's minions turn on him like what happened in Libya, this is GOING to engulf the whole region. Assad's minions are not too likely to turn on him. they're neck deep in the same cesspool he is. Some of the lesser soldiers might be defecting, but the officers are more or less screwed if Assad falls and its discovered to have been in the chain of command that green lighted killing civilians.

Um Syria has had multiple revolutions in short spans of time, it didn't really effect the rest of the region too much.

I'm not sure if these people really ARE delusional, mentally retarded, or simply playing politics and going through the "political motions", but seriously, Assad is NOT going to step down, he knows what's going to happen when he DOES. He's a DEAD MAN. the new government will arrest him and charge him for all the killings, fast track a conviction and death sentence.

Truth is he'll probably just run away to his supporters and then hid for about 10 years before getting sent to the international courts.

He can't flee Syria, the international courts will pounce on him. he can't give up power, he'll be executed. The only way to strip him of power would be either someone in his own circle kills him, or the rebels, with or without the help of the rest of the world manage to get him. The only other alternative is more carnage.

Um right. we've had leaders long outlive their causes and then get caught later on like say the Bosnian war criminals or the Pol Pot regime. They all didn't stray too far from their home countries.

For China this could be a very big problem. Their economy relies in workers working in bad conditions for very little money. If the workers decided they had enough of being worked to the bone for almost nothing, and want better wages, China is in serious trouble. Yeah it's slowly getting better in China with the working conditions.. sort of, but it's still a long way away from most of the rest of the developed world.

Yah no. This was a threat say 1989-1991 with say Tianen Square, yet the Communists are still in power. Truth is, is that not enough Chinese citizens are unhappy with their government, many feel comfortable as they join the rising Middle Class. Basically Chinese economic prosperity is so great that an actual revolution is pretty unlikely at this point since other than political rights there's not much to complain about (the USSR didn't go down because of political rights it went down due to a stagnant economy).

China doesn't want revolutions to succeed, it's bad for business. for Russia, Assad is an ally and a source of oil. They're also someone to tell weapons too. Russia doesn't want Assad to fall because the new government might not buy arms from them.

No it's because Russia made a commitment with Al-Asad and it wants to keep it as to keep up a good track record with its allies. Oil? Oh please the USSR was the biggest producer of oil in history, Russia has oil rigs the size of cities, they're not worried about oil. Weapons? Why wouldn't the new government want to buy weapons from the Russians?

as for the rest of the world, I ponder if they're really that out of touch with reality, or if it's just the game they play. "Let's send them a strongly worded letter, that will teach them!" *eyeroll* drop a missile on Assad's palace, that might have a better effect than a piece of paper that Assad would most likely toss in the trash with a hearty laugh at how powerful he imagines himself to be, given he is slaughtering his own people and the world lacks the balls to try and stop him.

More like they lack the economic and popular power to do so. Al-Asad and his father had been doing this crap for a long time now, this is only new because it's actually being reported.

[Dimitrilium]

If Russia lose Syria as an ally; they lose access to meditarean sea. And Russia power in the region is weakened.

It's a world wide chess game and Syria is a very good piece for Russia. Pushing Assad down by sending military or weapons will damage relations with Russia. But let it fall by itself and Russia can't blame anyone. Syria could stay Russia ally after Assad fall, or choose new ally like western power. And Russia don't want to take the risk.

World leaders speak about what they should to make it look like they do something, but truth is, they don't want to change the situation. As it is, Assad will eventually fall, and they won't have to get their hands dirty.

[Iron-Hampster]

all of the world powers have something to lose from Arab Spring, not just Russia and China. Also note the Taliban presence in the rebelion? wow, had we never gotten involved, Osama Bin Laden would have been fighting Sadam Hussein, and would have never committed 9/11. The best part? we would have GOOD relations with the resulting new governments, as opposed to scary Muslim Brotherhood.

[digiman2024]

At 7/1/12 03:06 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

:wow, had we never gotten involved, Osama Bin Laden would have been fighting Sadam Hussein, and would have never committed 9/11. The best part? we would have GOOD relations with the resulting new governments, as opposed to scary Muslim Brotherhood.

please prove that statement. because you seem to forget that in 1980's what turned out to be the taliban sure as hell didnt mind us helping out in afganistan, and in the early 90's we went after suddam because he invaded kawait. which is why obl started thinking of the U.S. as the enemy. the middle east as a whole has always been shitty dictatorship after shitty dictatorship and we most likely stay that way for as long as they (the people) keep allowing these dictators com to power.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 7/2/12 04:46 AM, digiman2024 wrote:
please prove that statement. because you seem to forget that in 1980's what turned out to be the taliban sure as hell didnt mind us helping out in afganistan, and in the early 90's we went after suddam because he invaded kawait. which is why obl started thinking of the U.S. as the enemy. the middle east as a whole has always been shitty dictatorship after shitty dictatorship and we most likely stay that way for as long as they (the people) keep allowing these dictators com to power.

its just a fact that Saddam was trying to kick the Taliban out of his country before we invaded. The Taliban weren't mad about us fighting Iran, they were mad about the collateral damage. And who they get as their leaders is not our responsibility to choose, it's theirs.

[Warforger]

At 7/2/12 03:19 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: its just a fact that Saddam was trying to kick the Taliban out of his country before we invaded. The Taliban weren't mad about us fighting Iran, they were mad about the collateral damage. And who they get as their leaders is not our responsibility to choose, it's theirs.

What are you talking about? The Taliban are a group in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have nothing to do with Arabs. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq and Afghanistan and Saddam didn't do much for them and would've probably opposed them seeing as he was a secular nationalist whereas Al-Qaeda is a theological pan-Islamist movement. As for the US or Iraq fighting Iran, what? I think they were more mad about the collateral damage the Soviet war brought upon them.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 7/2/12 07:13 PM, Warforger wrote:
What are you talking about? The Taliban are a group in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have nothing to do with Arabs. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq and Afghanistan and Saddam didn't do much for them and would've probably opposed them seeing as he was a secular nationalist whereas Al-Qaeda is a theological pan-Islamist movement. As for the US or Iraq fighting Iran, what? I think they were more mad about the collateral damage the Soviet war brought upon them.

i'm not getting into this, these arguments go in circles I know. All I will do is reiderate the facts on the first post:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=144386
Taliban in Syria, fighting WITH the rebels. So we can say that Russia, China, AND USA have something to lose from Syria.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 6/30/12 08:05 PM, Korriken wrote: World leaders agree on Syria

There will always be war. Syria just happens to be a tasty country to exploit by the World leaders.

[EisUndStahl]

Stupid is as stupid does.