Next month’s Geneva Conference is seen as a “make or break” by some nations for ending the ongoing Syrian Civil War, but there appears to be little momentum going for it, and a lot of indications that the whole thing may never really get off the ground.
The Syrian rebels are a big part of the giant question mark hanging over the event, with the group’s long-split leadership now in complete tatters, and even the one group that had already announced its participation now saying they “haven’t decided,” while reiterating long-standing demands for most of the Syrian government to unconditionally resign before the talks even take place.
That’s obviously a non-starter with the Assad government, bulet even their past indications that they might be willing to negotiate a “post-Assad” scenario are now unclear, with Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem insisting Assad would serve out his present term in office and might even run for another in 2014.
The shift may be a result of the Syrian military’s recent recovery of territory from the rebels, emboldening the government and perhaps convincing them that a victory is possible. Of course, both rebels and government have maintained that victory was not only possible, but virtually assured for their side, and have seen stalemates drag the way on for long after either side assumed it would last.
There is no "shift"…this only exists in your small mind Ditz…
The "SYRIAN PEOPLE" should be able to decide who stays and who goes as president…do you and/or AW.C have an "issue" with this (i.e. the "SYRIAN PEOPLE" deciding) and/or "elections"?
This is what President Al-Assad said just the other week :
Would you be willing to step aside for a definitive solution?
My permanence depends on the Syrian people. It’s not my personal decision whether I stay or go. It’s the people’s. If they want you to stay, you stay, and if not, you leave. Stepping aside depends on the Constitution, on the ballots. In the 2014 elections, Syria will decide. It’s unacceptable that anyone can say that the Syrian president has to step aside because the U.S. wants him to, or because the terrorists have asked him to.
http://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/-quot-th…
Now…doesn't that seem 'reasonable'? What else could be more "fair". If the "Syrian People" want so-called "democracy", they need to learn (as well as many here) what so-called "democracy" actually is… You can't just pick up a weapon and try to impose your will on the entire society because you, or anyone else, don't like the current "Head of State", or whatever, and be rewarded for doing so…
President al-Assad should not, and will not, leave unless the "SYRIAN PEOPLE" decide he should go. The "ballot box" seems like a fair way to decide this 'issue'…not what Obama, or what anyone else, 'thinks'…
Do you have a better idea about what the "SYRIAN PEOPLE" must do Ditz?
No Western government would tolerate this for a moment, still less that of the US.
Foreign powers and paramilitaries sponsored by them demand the resignation of the British government or American president.
You can imagine the response in the US. – Martial Law is proclaimed, FEMA open the internment camps they've got, anyone supporting said foreign governments is arrested under the Homeland Security Act and hauled up before military tribunals, the media go ape covering the president's speeches …….
This would be regarded as treason in both Britain and the US. by anyone supporting it, particularly and organisation sponsored by the foreign governments.
But the "democracy" doesn't mean democracy by the citizens of whatever country choosing – in this case Syria. It means in all these cases – Jugoslavia being the supreme example – highly controlled elections by America and its allies with the population allowed to vote on candidates brought out from the wings by the US., and fortune spent on them in violation of local electoral law etc etc. about which Eastern European Liberals endlessly complain.
In this case it is getting a pro-American government in in Syria.