What's new

Americans are risking destroying the whole Earth

Too Baath regimes hated each other.


How the Arab spring which started in Tunisia 2011 related to Iraq 2003? There are thousands miles between two.

Alawi minority cant rule Sunni majority forever. Their fall is only matter of time.
read my post again.... plus Ba'ath of Iraq and Syria only shared a common name... it like you're saying Republican party in country X is the same as Republican party in USA...

lol you think the Arab spring is an actual thing? Arab spring is nothing but a joke, it is plan B for the west to take over and topple governments... they couldn't have an excuse to invade nations after Iraq lies of WMD... Started out with their puppet government as pretext to say it is an Arab Spring... so tell me how did the "Arab Spring" improved the Arab world??

 
.
read my post again.... plus Ba'ath of Iraq and Syria only shared a common name... it like you're saying Republican party in country X is the same as Republican party in USA...

lol you think the Arab spring is an actual thing? Arab spring is nothing but a joke, it is plan B for the west to take over and topple governments... they couldn't have an excuse to invade nations after Iraq lies of WMD... Started out with their puppet government as pretext to say it is an Arab Spring... so tell me how did the "Arab Spring" improved the Arab world??

First victims of the Arab spring were pro western regimes: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain.

And Iran was cheering the Arab spring. Even in Libya Iran supported it.

But once the Arab Spring arrived to Syria, suddenly it became a western ZOG conspiracy. LOL.
 
.
First victims of the Arab spring were pro western regimes: Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain.

And Iran was cheering the Arab spring. Even in Libya Iran supported it.

But once the Arab Spring arrived to Syria, suddenly it became a western ZOG conspiracy. LOL.
did you even read what I said? the "Arab Spring" started with western puppet regimes just to manipulate the world, like how they manipulated you... just go back and read what I wrote... you're making a fool out of yourself...
so now the governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen are anti-west? you're a joke...
reread what I said, they couldn't attack countries anymore because of Iraq WMD lies... thus they made this thing called "Arab Spring" to lie to the world and say it is about democracy look even our puppets are out, and new puppets got in but idiots ignore it...
oh yes Bahrain, good you mentioned it, how come the west never does anything about it?
 
.
Too Baath regimes hated each other.

Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors.

In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be "used routinely"; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails "almost a research center for torture.") Though life in Syria is an iota better, the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet.

The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of 'Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety.

Reference: Daniel Pipes (1991).

Yes Saddam was biggest enemy of Hafez Alasad, relations were improved when Bashar took power... plus if Saddam was not removed this whole mess would not be occurring in the region..


silence is gold my friend... Syria was the only Arab country to vote against Invasion of Iraq both in the UNSC and in the Arab League... you know we have a saying in the Arab world... my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against our enemy... look at your hand, are your fingers all the same??

yes there was problem between the two countries but when it came to Arab dignity and honor, Syria did not hesitate to stand against this humiliation the west and their puppet caused to the Arab world...

your knowledge is very weak... stop watching fox news...


I've read much into the history of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the entire Levant, actually. Perhaps I can learn a thing or two by reading more into different perspective(s). Just i will not tolerate apologetic points from terrorist agitators and supporters. ISIS, ISL, FSA and the like.
 
.
Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors.

In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be "used routinely"; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails "almost a research center for torture.") Though life in Syria is an iota better, the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet.

The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of 'Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety.
Yes CIA jails are heaven... :disagree: and the west's human right record are clean, starting with HHiroshima and NNagasaki Vietnam, Afghanistan Iraq, Libya and Syria and etc... they are peace loving democracy sharing they rain love from the skies, so much love that kids in Iraq are still born deformed... enough with BS, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house
 
.
Both imposed an extreme centralization, to create a stable order where turmoil had previously prevailed. Both are far more interested in building their militaries than their countries. Each of them looked to Moscow for primary support, but on occasion wooed the U.S. government. Both rely extensively on the terrorist instrument. They have claimed to represent the Palestinians and sought to control weak neighbors.

In personality, they share vaulting ambitions, a passion for secrecy, and a Manichean outlook that divides the world into agents and enemies. Both tend toward brinkmanship and a readiness to sacrifice the interests of their countries for personal and ethnic interests. Their political systems rely to a strikingly parallel degree on Ba'ath Party control, the pervasive use of informants, and brutality. (Middle East Watch found torture in Iraq to be "used routinely"; Amnesty International has termed the Syrian jails "almost a research center for torture.") Though life in Syria is an iota better, the two dictatorships in the Fertile Crescent are about as similar as any pair of governments on the planet.

The two men also differ profoundly. Where Saddam revels in brutality for its own sake, Assad resorts to it as an instrument of power. The one kills with his own hands, the other keeps his distance from such unpleasantries. Saddam's ambitions know no limit: he seeks to become both the greatest leader in Iraqi history and a giant on the world stage; his dreams of glory distort practical decisionmaking. In contrast, Assad knows his limitations and acts within their parameters: the conquest of Lebanon and the perpetuation of 'Alawi rule are quite enough for him for now, thank you. Saddam's overt aggression makes him enemies everywhere; Assad's is cloaked in an ambiguity which allows hostile states the luxury of ignoring his trespasses. Both leaders follow policies which the outside world often finds difficult to understand, but while Saddam confuses observers through stupidity, Assad does so through subtlety.

Provide source where you copy-pasted that or I will report your post for copyright issues....
 
.
did you even read what I said? the "Arab Spring" started with western puppet regimes just to manipulate the world, like how they manipulated you... just go back and read what I wrote... you're making a fool out of yourself...
Thats what I say, first Arab Sping was good, when it came to Syria it became a conspiracy.

oh yes Bahrain, good you mentioned it, how come the west never does anything about it?
West does not do anything about Syria either. Only when Assad gassed 1000+ people in one day west showed some attention. But when Assad barrel bombs dozens no one even cares.

Total casualties in Bahrain in past 3 years are lower than daily casualties in Syria.
 
.
Yes CIA jails are heaven... :disagree: and the west's human right record are clean, starting with HHiroshima and NNagasaki Vietnam, Afghanistan Iraq, Libya and Syria and etc... they are peace loving democracy sharing they rain love from the skies, so much love that kids in Iraq are still born deformed... enough with BS, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house

Definitely, the United States is not free of mistakes and arguably deplorable policies and actions. However, the discussion was on the dichotomy between Iraq and Syria.
 
.
Thats what I say, first Arab Sping was good, when it came to Syria it became a conspiracy.


West does not do anything about Syria either. Only when Assad gassed 1000+ people in one day west showed some attention. But when Assad barrel bombs dozens no one even cares.

Total casualties in Bahrain in past 3 years are lower than daily casualties in Syria.
did you even read what I said, GO BACK AND READ AGAIN, I HAVE TOLD YOU TO GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID LIKE 3 TIMES ALREADY... do you have reading problem? comprehension problem?

oh Syria is on the news 24/7, and on the UNSC resolution are all about Syria, non about Bahrain...

plus most of the world know that it was the terrorists that gassed and killed Syrians... even MIT and other western scholars... no enough with your BS...
 
. .
Definitely, the United States is not free of mistakes and arguably deplorable policies and actions. However, the discussion was on the dichotomy between Iraq and Syria.
oh okay, so only Syria and Iraq have torture and etc... good to know.. torture is not a new thing... every country in this world practice it... so better not talk about torture and human rights crap in Arab world, start with the west...
 
.
did you even read what I said, GO BACK AND READ AGAIN, I HAVE TOLD YOU TO GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID LIKE 3 TIMES ALREADY... do you have reading problem? comprehension problem?

oh Syria is on the news 24/7, and on the UNSC resolution are all about Syria, non about Bahrain...

plus most of the world know that it was the terrorists that gassed and killed Syrians... even MIT and other western scholars... no enough with your BS...

We have to deal with millions of people like him all day everyday ....
 
.
oh okay, so only Syria and Iraq have torture and etc... good to know.. torture is not a new thing... every country in this world practice it... so better not talk about torture and human rights crap in Arab world, start with the west...

The analysis was on the personalities of Assad and Saddam; the vagarities between them , despite ideological and political similarities. I think that Assad was definitely more subtle than Saddam, who was more prone to engage in external operations , ergo: Iran, Kuwait. Assad, to me, was more focused on internal locus of control.
 
.
@Syrian Lion

ROFLMAO....

After I threatened to report him he included his source....:

'Daniel Pipes'.... :D
:partay:

man... I'm done with this :disagree:, another polish zionist crap...

The analysis was on the personalities of Assad and Saddam; the vagarities between them , despite ideological and political similarities. I think that Assad was definitely more subtle than Saddam, who was more prone to engage in external operations , ergo: Iran, Kuwait. Assad, to me, was more focused on internal locus of control.
okay, I told you there Hafez and Saddam were enemies... however that thing changed and Syria was against the invasion of Iraq...
 
.
okay, I told you there Hafez and Saddam were enemies... however that thing changed and Syria was against the invasion of Iraq...

I actually am sympathetic to the case of Iraq, and I've made it known in prior posts in 2014. To me, Saddam was a necessity in holding together the various ethnicities, religious groups (Sunni, Shia, Coptics, Catholics, Yizidi, Jews et al). He was a hard-liner, and no one can deny that he was brutal against rebels (and i am in on way excusing his excessive brutality towards the kurds), but i admire his policy of national solidarity. In order to maintain unity in a multiethnic, multicultural nation such as Iraq--- there has to be a strong central figure. Albeit, it would have been better had he been more ethical in policy.

Had Iraq not invaded Kuwait, everything could have been prevented. Sad to see the situation of Iraq nowadays. Again, its only through hindsight can we make such a introspective analysis.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom