Well, we called on Assad to reform, but Assad thought that too much reform too quickly would open the door to the jihadis (who showed up anyway).
“Why do you feel this way? Aren’t there armed groups and an opposition that are not extremists and represent other Syrians and their legitimate interests, too?” Al-Monitor asked.
"No, not anymore," he said. "You see, at the beginning, some welcomed the protests because they felt it might get the government to fix the problems, you know, like the corruption and other important issues and reforms, like an alarm bell to wake them up. But we soon saw this is not what it was about. They just wanted to take power at any cost; they will destroy Syria to do that. They soon showed their true faces, the religious extremism they were hiding. Anyone who took up arms against the state is wrong.”
US foreign policy was, and remains, wrong on Syria. There's no doubt about it. Assad should have reformed more and done so early, before the "Arab Spring" hit him. He didn't, but that's not cause for aiding those who seek to overthrow him via violence. The non-jihadi forces in Syria that seek Assad's violent ouster are no match for the IS types, who will continue to exist in large numbers for the near future (years) no matter how much they are driven underground by the Iraq military and others who stand against them with Assad.
Barack Obama and John McCain are both wrong, though McCain is much, much more so.
Vladimir Putin was, and remains, right (given the context of violent war).
As I wrote before, the US and Russia are natural allies in the global fight against the Islamic jihad.
We want peace, and it's not too late; but so long as people turn to violence, including in retribution and revenge, it makes no sense for the US to be going at Russia over Crimea, which is Russian every bit as much as California is part of the US. Remember the Mexican-American War? It took land from Mexico, including California. Well, the Russian Empire took Crimea with arguably more right than the US took lands that were part of the Mexican/Spanish Empires. The Russians beat the Ottoman Empire for it.
Regardless, the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to return to Russia proper. They've done that. They were literally given away to Ukraine (which was at the time a part of the USSR: The Russian Empire) in 1956 by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. They had been an autonomous part of Ukraine since 1991.
It was they're choice to make, not Barack Obama's, not NATO's, not the EU's, not the UN's, and not Kiev's (especially after the unconstitutional and violent coup there orchestrated by neocons and neolibs: unscrupulous, greedy interventionists).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)