Posted on 03/22/2017 4:33:44 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
Anything is up for discussion, including a new constitution for Syria, President Bashar al-Assad said in an interview with Russian journalists on Monday.
“We are ready to discuss anything including the constitution, but we need to see who’s going to be in Geneva, are they going to discuss the same paper or not?” the president said. “But for us, as a government, our position is very clear: that we are ready to discuss it in details, but we support the headline, of course.”
Both Syria and the opposition groups had previously rejected a Russian proposal for a new constitution which would have changed the Syrian Arab Republic into a Syrian Democratic Republic removing emphasis on a particular ethnicity and in which autonomy would be granted for the Kurds in the north.
“Yesterday, I think, our representative in the United Nations, Mr. Jaafari, announced that we support the Russian initiatives – different initiatives, not only this one – as headlines, and now we are discussing with the Russians the details”, he said.
The Syrian President expressed a desire to know who will attend not only Geneva but also the Astana talks in order to reach concrete achievements.
“The problem is that we went to Astana recently, as you know, the other delegation, the delegation of the militants, didn’t join that meeting, they didn’t go to Astana, and we all believe that this is the negative influence of the Turks. So, how can we start something concrete if you don’t have a partner?”
Why should people outside force things on citizens?
Oh, yes I know this is the Middle East. BUT does it have to be that way?
I guess I'm dreaming, but I sure pray that a good outcome comes from all this pain. (some of which Hillary & Obama bear a lot of blame) I did not say that the US bore that blame.
Syria Ping
Constitution
I do definitely believe that secular dictators are a huge step up from ISIS controlling a country.
But this dope doesn’t learn. He still sends weapons to Lebanon and will fund terrorism again. WHY I DONT KNOW.
And he could have the American Constitution. He’s not gonna pay any mind to it.
Like a liberal :)
I had some hope for him for a while changing his ways, but it died when Israel had to keep bombing the convoys to Lebanon.
I only wish we could get the stink off the U. S. for the policies Obama pushed with the help of Clinton, McCain, Graham, and Rubio.
They acted on behalf of our government, and we’re more or less stuck with it.
Down the road others will talk of what the U. S. did, and they’ll be right.
Our actions in the Middle-East over the last 8 years literally sucked.
That’s my one big sticking point with him too.
Arming Hezbollah has been a terrible thing and he and his family have done it for decades.
Totally agree.
And you named the culprits who enabled them.
(I could add a few)
That definitely concerns me but my first concern is always America and he still funds international terrorism.
Yes, I remember Lebanon and what Assad’s father did.
Is Assad any better? probably not.
Pop was REALLY brutal, no?
I think Assad is “less brutal” :)
seems like Christians were ok under him at least.
They’d still be alive at the very least.
Both are Arab, both Ba’ath Party.
Thanks
Over the last five years, we have given funds to the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda (the good), and I believe to ISIS as well (intended or not).
I know that in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, Syria was a pretty bad player. I don’t know that it has been as bad in recent years.
It may have been, and I’m not trying to be argumentative. Can you provide some information that talks of Assad Jr. funding terrorists?
While under the last Constitution Syria was an “Arab Republic” it was NOT an “Islamic Republic” and Islam was not a “state religion either”. In fact the president was not required to be a Muslim. The features constantly irritated the Saudis and other Islamists. What they, and the Muslim Brotherhood wanted WAS an “Islamic Republic”. It was no wonder they supported regime change against Assad, who as an Alawite Muslim was to many Sunnis an apostate.
Saudi’s were motivated by oil and land and subjects.
They have a lot of money. They don’t have a lot of productive land. Syria has that. (along with a lot of desert too.)
And don’t discount the pipeline project either.
Erdogan’s plan was to subject the EU by invasion and by oil delivered to the EU.
Poison pill.
Bro, even if I did, I would still prefer him over ISIS or the “moderates” believe me.
And it’s not like terrorism funders have bank statements :)
I could be wrong. Happens a lot :)
I could have sworn funders was a word :)
Hussein used to shoot his mouth off about funding terrorists, so I wasn’t sure if you’d seen something long those lines or not.
At any rate, I appreciate the response.
I don’t think Assad was one of the world’s top 25 problems to be honest.
To me it was pointless to go all out after him, especially after I heard that he gave Christians a lot of latitude in Syria. I hadn’t known that before last year.
We try to think of the Middle-East in Western terms, and it fails us at times.
Strong men in that region are in power and remain in power for a reason. It isn’t easy running those nations with all the hot heads around. I think you know what I mean.
Take care.
Agreed. Hussein, assad and mhommar were a lot better for us than this mess.
Hussein was the the one U saw as a real problem.
The other two weren’t IMO. I agree with you there.
It is still a Republic in name only. In reality it looks more like a hereditary monarchy.
Correction:
Hussein was the the one “I” saw as a real problem.
The other two weren’t IMO. I agree with you there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.