You want the butter and keep its price.
It’s a French saying to show that people want everything without any logic and it applies to what I read in the New York Times’ editorial, “Al Qaeda in Syria” (December 11, 2012):
They have realized that the strongest fighters in Syria are Jihadists from every part of the earth and are helped and financed by the theocracies of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Turkey's Islamic government; they have recognized that the only way to protect Syria and the world from an islamo-fascist state expanding in all the Middle East would be a “negotiated deal to limit the bloodshed”. They know that you cannot negotiate when you start to put conditions, but this is what they do when they say : “but talks… over the week-end show that Moscow is not prepared to abandon Assad. This is an example of what the French would call: “vouloir le beurre et l’argent du beurre”.
Assad has been elected by the Syrians; all news from Syria show that he is supported by more than 50% of the Syrian population and that the main force attacking Syria comes from Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (even prisoners that were promised amnesty and are paid to fight), Qatar, Tunis, Iraq… and the Western leaders, who pretend being democratic, want the departure of an elected President to put at his place a President nominated by them, probably an extremist and Jihadist or a Moslem Brotherhood man like Mosri of Egypt.
Is the West so stupid that it cannot learn from its experiences in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq and even Turkey? If we think they aren’t stupid, then the only reasonable hypothesis to come to mind is that really they are secretly allied to Moslem extremism.
This is also showed by the behavior of the Lebanese allies of the West, the party that is called the “14th of March”. They have been discovered helping the Syrian opposition with arms and finances. They have been responsible of the fights in Tripoli; they are doing all their possible to destabilize the country and they are blocking the works of the parliament until the democratically elected government, still having the majority, resigns to take its place. When asked to join the majority in a dialogue to find a solution, they refuse.
So, what is to be concluded else than the fact that the Western and NATO countries are allied with the theocratic Gulf ones and the Jihadist from all over the Moslem world?
What is to be concluded when we witness the behavior of the so called allies, who took power in Tunisia, Libya and especially Egypt, and who are acting against democracy and human rights?
What could we conclude when we realize that the only conditions put on these governments are to obey Israeli and Western conditions based only on the latters’ supposed interests?
I know that the Western populations wouldn’t care if these actions were really in their interests. But the problems are that they aren’t: Syria is defending itself and the more the fighting lasts, the more it will be dangerous for the Gulf countries: lately a Saudi prince, Talal Ben Abdel Aziz, warned that the Saud are in danger of being overthrown by their own population. Lebanon is also in danger, while the Jordanian king is no better and Turkey risks of being partitioned between Sunni Turks, Alevis and Kurds.
On the contrary if the NATO plans, of transforming the Arab countries in one Moslem Brotherhood entity, could be concluded, their interests will be no better, because a Moslem Brotherhood entity will forget who helped it take the power and will remember that “its benefactors are infidels that need to be conquered for their own sake”. They will use the Jihadist 5th column that the NATO allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar have formed and financed all over the world, especially Europe.
I’ll let you make your own previsions of what will come next.
So, if the Western leaders, including Turkey and Israel, want to have peace they will have to start the dialogue with Syria, Iran, Russia and the rest of the world without preconditions. I am sure that President Obama knows it and these articles in the New York Times and other American newspapers are preparing the way for a 180 degrees change in American policies, especially that the US needs the Middle Eastern oil no more and needs to concentrate on East Asian problems, which means it needs Russian help.