Why not side with President Assad and end the Syria war?

[rogets]

We are already carrying out airstrikes so surely it would make sense to direct the strikes in the most effective way and I'm sure the Syrian Army know where the best places are.

 

We carry out the air strikes as we are doing now, President Assad uses his ground troops to defeat the rebels, Assad takes control of Syria and the war is over.

 

 

To me the difference between the moderate rebels (who the west seem to back) and ISIS is that ISIS will cut your head off with a knife but the rebels will execute you in a more humane way, bullet in the back of the head.

 

So we need to back President Assad, help him win the war and take back his country. With a strong leader in charge Syria can return to the type of country it was back in 2010.

 

Why aren't we backing Assad?

[ECCOnoob]

 

Why aren't we backing Assad?

 

Cast your mind back longer than the past 5 years and take at look at his history on war crimes, torture of European Citizens and humanity.

 

Its not as simple as "backing Assad"

[natjack]

Leaving aside ECCOnoob's point, could it be that our Western lot, whom we seem to bend over backwards to please, are mostly Sunnis, he's a Shia, and our lot don't like them. So Assad has to go, to suit them, no matter how the Syrian people suffer and no matter how many are killed and displaced?

 

Just saying ... it's one explanation

[medusa]

That's using the old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' logics, but that's WAAAAY too simplistic when it comes to the situation in Syria (and most of the Middle East, to be honest).

 

We're already morally deeply questionable for allying ourselves to the Saudi Arabian regime and selling them weapons, with which to threaten the ethnic groups, Shia Muslims and half of their own law abiding citizens (women).

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Cast your mind back longer than the past 5 years and take at look at his history on war crimes, torture of European Citizens and humanity.

 

Its not as simple as "backing Assad"

There is at law no such thing as a 'war crime'. An action is either a criminal offence or it's not.

[geared]

Just siding with Assad won't bring a quick end to the war there, it would make very little difference really.

 

We're not on 'his side' but we're not actively fighting against him either, if anything attacking IS is helping him.

[Phanerothyme]

Like Saddam Hussein before him, Assad is probably the best chance of stability there is. Or he was, but his relevance is slowly slipping away. And when it has gone, there won't be a legitimate, recognised government of the Republic of Syria any more.

 

And everyone else living there will want to, quite understandably, get the hell out.

[taxman]

Assad has always been a friend of the West, educated, English speaking, nominally secular and a bulwark against the crazy stone age nut jobs in the region. Unfortunately he took the promise of support too far and when he cracked down on genuine people wanting to have a Democratic voice he expected his Western Allies to support him...but this was during the so called "Arab Spring" when Western Governments were falling over themselves to support pro democracy movements and rebels, even if some of their motives were questionable.

 

As seen in Libya, Iraq and Egypt it's alright to want to rid a country of an evil leader, but if you leave a vacuum into which even crazier people can gain power then you've just replaced a friendly monster with an unfriendly one.

[Guest sibon]

Like Saddam Hussein before him, Assad is probably the best chance of stability there is. Or he was, but his relevance is slowly slipping away. And when it has gone, there won't be a legitimate, recognised government of the Republic of Syria any more.

 

.

 

Ditto, Gadaffi.

 

Backing despots has always been a dodgy business.

[melthebell]

because we backed the rebels to oust him during the arab spring and cant be seen to backtrack and now support him