Syrian government resigns

Quote:

---

(CNN) -- The Syrian government resigned Tuesday amid an unusual wave of unrest that has roiled the nation, state TV reported.
President Bashar al-Assad accepted the resignations Tuesday, the same day that tens of thousands of Syrians poured onto the streets of Damascus to demonstrate in favor of the government.
A new government should be named within hours, said Reem Haddad, a spokeswoman for the Syrian Information Ministry.
Meanwhile, the president is expected to address the nation in a speech before the People's Assembly at 11 a.m. (5 a.m. ET) Wednesday, state TV said.


The state-run SANA news agency reported the speech would "reassure the Syrian people."
The pro-government rally on Tuesday followed violent clashes between protesters and security forces in the cities of Daraa and Latakia in recent days. At least 37 people have been killed since last week, according to the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.


Syria is the latest in a string of Arabic-speaking nations beset with discontent over economic and human rights issues. Syria's discontent is centered in Daraa, a southern city in the impoverished country's agricultural region, where security forces and anti-government protesters have sporadically clashed for nearly two weeks.
Many demonstrators at the pro-government rally held posters of the president. Others waved Syrian flags, while some painted their faces and chests in national colors.
Crowds filled the square in front of the Central Bank and jammed all roads leading to it, aerial pictures on state TV showed.
There were also pro-government rallies in the cities of Aleppo, Hama and Hasaka, the broadcaster said.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2

another one down; more to come?

Yeah, this is really shaking the Arab world. Maybe this could aid US relations over there. But I doubt it.

My oh-snap-gaiz sense is tingling... Of course it could be these fabulous jeans I'm wearing, but what's happening in the Middle East doesn't sit right; I can feel unrest in mah bones, as well as the bats in my belfry, but I digress~

I personally love it. I think a lot of these old governments have been preventing countries from moving forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GameGeeks

I personally love it. I think a lot of these old governments have been preventing countries from moving forward.

---

Problem is, Sharia law's all the rage for making progress in the Middle East. And if that isn't enough of a threat to a new government, the country's lack of security would only bring chaos to the region. And to control crime, as all new governments do, and because of a lack of funding, laws would be enforced with a closed fist, with the people of these countries under even worse governments than the ones they fought to eliminate.

COUGH


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...0131egypt2.png

Imma play devils advocate here, but


in all honesty, do US relations really matter so long as the country is more stable, less threatening, and treats it's citizens better than it did before?

the world doesn't have to revolve around the US..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ericgamer1

Imma play devils advocate here, but
in all honesty, do US relations really matter so long as the country is more stable, less threatening, and treats it's citizens better than it did before?
the world doesn't have to revolve around the US..

---

I'm one of the bad guys who wants the U.S. to enforce a policy of isolationism on the world, keeping relations with China, Brazil, Japan, England, Germany, and Switzerland.

Sue me.

Quote:

---

in all honesty, do US relations really matter so long as the country is more stable, less threatening, and treats it's citizens better than it did before?

---

Explain how a country that has bad relations with the US, and is now stable with decent public relations, is less threatening.

I think it's for the best, really.

Once people realize that we can't rely on the rest of the world for every other thing, and start panicking when the fountain of oil officially runs dry, maybe the US will pick it's self up by it's own boot-straps and come up with a way to actually be more self-sustaining.

It doesn't really matter in the long run, I mean nations come and go all the time, it's been happening ever since Egypt, one of the world's first empires was conquered. I mean technically isn't Egypt still in existence? I know alot has changed but alot of things are the same, heck even the Syrian government was conquered quite a times over history, but we can't say if U.S. involvement will change anything. I mean who made the U.S. every other nations watcher or something, but that's just the way I see things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeschylus

Explain how a country that has bad relations with the US, and is now stable with decent public relations, is less threatening.

---

Because proper military forces are completely non-threatening in the post-nuclear world. The only real threat to the US (and the west in general) comes from extremists, and they fester in countries with weak governments, poor stability and general squalor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ericgamer1

I think it's for the best, really.

Once people realize that we can't rely on the rest of the world for every other thing, and start panicking when the fountain of oil officially runs dry, maybe the US will pick it's self up by it's own boot-straps and come up with a way to actually be more self-sustaining.

---

I'm also still pointing to Alaska on that map of liquid gold reserves.

It seems as though I have an answer for everything here, don't I? The development of alternatives to oil whilst our drilling for our own oil in America is flawlessly genius. Unfortunately, Americans need to buy from countries hostile to us because we were never nice enough to them in the first place. I should just keep my trap shut on issues like this - my logic fails.