Skip to comments.French President Says Syria's Assad Has To Go [While Obama Leads From Behind!]
Posted on 06/01/2012 8:41:16 PM PDT by Steelfish
French President Says Syria's Assad Has To Go June 1 2012 SYLVIE CORBET
France's president said Friday that only the departure of Bashar Assad would end the violence in Syria, saying his regime had acted in an "intolerable way."
Francois Hollande, who was elected in May, again advocated for pressure and sanctions to force out the Syrian leader, continuing France's tough line on the country, where an anti-government uprising has raged for more than a year.
"The regime of Bashar Assad has conducted itself in an unacceptable, intolerable way and has committed acts that disqualify it" from power, Hollande said after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Syria's principal backer and protector.
"There is no possible exit from this situation except with the departure of Bashar Assad," he added.
International pressure is mounting on Syria, including condemnation Friday from the United Nation's top human rights body for the massacre last week of more than 100 civilians, apparently at the hands of government troops and pro-regime thugs.
"Sanctions are part of the indispensable and necessary pressure," Hollande added, while recognizing that the country is hurtling toward civil war.
In March, the U.N. put the death toll from the uprising and crackdown at 9,000, but many hundreds more have died since.
Putin ducked a question about sanctions, saying that they were "still not effective."
He also would not be drawn on whether Assad should go, saying only that a negotiated solution that was acceptable to the Syrian people would be acceptable to Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Then let France go to war to remove him, they can also take on Russia who has pledged to defend Syria to boot.
And who or what are they going to replace Assad with?
The first gay president should lead from behind.
This is stacking up to be a banner two years for the Muslim Brotherhood — Egypt, Libya, and now perhaps even Syria? Maybe Bin Laden’s dream of a revived Caliphate wasn’t so far fetched after all. Well, it really was far fetched — until the Caliphate-maker arrived in the White House.
Actually, Islam has to go.
My friends stay away from this.
Leave these people to fight amongst themselves. Why should we intervene? There are no good guys in this conflict. Our military is already stretched to the breaking point with people doing multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan. For what?
Brave Frenchie with a dagger in his teeth.
I saw something earlier in the week, I think from HRC, about arming the resistance in Syria. I thought that was a knee-slapper. We’d be paying to arm the civilian population of another country, while our own leaders are trying to disarm us.
What right or interest does Hollande have to meddle in Syria’s mess ?
Did someone die and make Hollande king of Syria ?
All of these so-called arab springs are obviously part of some scheming by some wealthy and powerful people.
What are Western countries doing getting involved there. Why are they there. What is the truth, not some mumbo-jumbo about gee, assad is a bad guy and the West wants to bring supposed freedom and democracy to those nightmarish countries. The assad dude and his father were running the show there since 1970.
Why now in 2012 is it an emergency ?
Not really asking you for a response, of course, just a rhetorical question...
All the covert military actions over there in that part of the world are costing us American lives but I don’t see that anything is to gain for American security.
If we went over and annihilated the whole place and removed the islam cult from America, I can see how that would make the world much more secure. But playing around and then allowing one crazy or another to stay in power and keep the status quo (of the whole place hating American anyway) means that we’re just wasting our effort, IMHO.
I’m sure France has some ayatollah in exile somewhere just waiting for a chance to be the boss.
Country A working to foment a revolution in country B...
Well, if it’s a righteous revolution, that’s a good thing. Resisting tryanny, overthrowing the tyrant, establishing a government that rules righteously. Sounds good.
But if the revolution is made up of a bunch of thieves, murderers, etc., that’s not a good thing.
Seems like today the American and European general public is being asked - by the news media - to believe that every revolution is a good thing, without regards to the details or the truth, and that every revolution merits outside participation and the cost of our blood and treasure.
The messed up part is if they hadn't let themselves get disarmed in the first place, they'd have already killed the sumbitch.
If that's all they were, I'd be neutral, at worst. But Sunnis really want to kill us to the last man, woman and child. As far as I'm concerned, any enemy of the Sunnis (90% of the Muslim world) is someone we shouldn't fight as long as all he's doing is killing Sunnis and not attacking us. When was the last time you heard of an Alawite (Assad's religion) terrorist killing American civilians out of the blue? Assad's actions in repressing the Sunni uprising doesn't affect American interests except in a positive way, given that a reduction in the Sunni population represents a necessary culling of an ideology that simply will not rest until we are all enslaved or dead.
As in Saddam-era Iraq, semi-automatic weapons are freely available to purchase and own in Syria. The reason few revolt is because the consequence of a failed revolt is a root-and-branch massacre of one's family. This means relatives in all directions - uncles, grandfathers, in-laws and so on. It sounds kind of medieval, but when it comes to sedition, Arabs are a pretty medieval kind of people. Saddam and his children were the targets of several assassination attempts, so they never traveled without heavy security and every interaction for the cameras was heavily scripted in advance. The assassins' families were basically erased from the gene pool.
Only an idiot (Like Barry) would take a French “president” seriously.
“Leave these people to fight amongst themselves. Why should we intervene? There are no good guys in this conflict. Our military is already stretched to the breaking point with people doing multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan. For what?”
John Cleese says it best:
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
need to look at who is making money off Syria.
Let’s see, obammy and putin are on the same page about not doing anything.
How do these two profit?
Getting rid of Assad will not stop the killing in Syria.
It will just exchange the killer for another group of killers and perhaps change the people getting killed.
Thanks Steelfish, related:
Didn’t we just learn in Egypt that the bad guys often masquerade as the good guys? How long will it be before the Christians of *Syria* are warned to either convert to the Religion of Pieces or leave,as the Christians of Egypt recently were?
Hollande is an incompetent, inexperienced Socialist. In office less than a month, he us ready to lead France into war in the Middle East.
Assad is far from ideal, but is preferable on all points to what would replace him- an Islamist regime.
Sarko at the very least was playing chess, while this pauvre con is playing Chinese checkers.
The French won’t go for it anyway; the coffers are empty, and they have almost all become brainwashed euro-pacifists.
* FRENCH POLITICS, CULTURE & FASHION PING LIST *
* FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT TO JOIN *