Nearly three years ago, the world watched as the media presented its typical narrative on Syria: the "people", tired of "evil dictatorship", were "rising up" for "freedom and democracy", backed by the greatest bastion of freedom and democracy in the world, the United States of America (*ahem* as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc, but let's forget about those, shall we.....? Too embarrassing for them) What we have seen is the resilience of the Syrian people against foreign agendas and conspiracies similar to the resilience of the Cuban people against the CIA-trained counter-revolutionaries that tried to take down Cuba Libre; what we have seen is a resilience similar to the resilience of the Vietnamese people against US-sponsored imperialism, as the United States intervened on behalf of the landlords and big businesses of the unpopular Diem government. There are two main points that need to be addressed regarding the Syrian situation: a) the uprising is not popular at all, and is losing popularity; and b) the petty, childish appeal-to-emotion that people employ when demonizing Assad is unproductive at best, and deceptive at worst. Day in and day out, from the mainstream Western news media sources, all you hear is how Assad is "murdering his own people", as if Syrian troops roll into a new town and open fire on people for no other reason than because it delights them, because they are apparently inhuman monsters incapable of thought or feeling; as if, in the midst of this great and treacherous war, Assad deploys air strikes and artillery strikes for shits and giggles.........in other words, as if Assad and the entire Syrian Army are nothing more than cartoon characters. Whether or not innocent people have died as a result of the Syrian government, it is childish and silly to pretend like there is anything to be gained by Dr. Assad's government by the indiscriminate killing of random people simply for the sake of killing...I would not even ascribe such silliness to the Syrian "rebels", who have abundant reasons to murder indiscriminately as it is, such as religious extremism. It is, of course, always funny, in a sad sort of way, when the media focuses on the "crimes" of Assad while totally ignoring the crimes of the Saudi regime, backed by the West, as well as the crimes of Obama, Cameron, and his lackies. Why focus on democracy in Syria when there is no democracy in the United States? But I digress: the Syrian uprising is no such thing; it is a poor attempt at violent regime change in the region for the benefit of the Gulf States, and the detriment of Iran. It is business. Principles do not enter into the equation, and that seriously believe that these sorts of things are easily reducible to "good vs evil" are silly and liberal (by liberal, I don't mean "Liberal" as it is used in American theatrics). The narrative has unfolded over the years. What was painted as a "popular uprising" has been exposed as a poorly engineered sham; the majority of Syrians strongly prefer the Assad government, which has implemented changes, by the way, in case you missed it; the new Constitution of Syria was updated years ago, and is available online, The reality is that secular nationalism must triumph over both Islamic extremism, as well as foreign agendas (most notably that of the United States). Obama DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THE OVERTHROW OR RESIGNATION OF A FOREIGN LEADER. Read a history book about modern Syria before you indulge in petty, emotional talk of "freedom and democracy"; the Middle East demands delicate balances of power, which Assad represents; that is, the balance of power between the sects and the various political forces, mainly nationalist and fundamentalist. It is not as simple as "Assad is evil". If you are going to honestly evaluate a world leader, you must examine context, history, and political necessity. As such, I applaud Assad and his government for their heroic resistance to American evil and imperialism. Here is a fantastic analysis of the "revolution" in Syria. I already know somebody will point out that this is from RT and refuse to read it or acknowledge; but then I might question their sources, because I am most certain that CNN, Fox News, and the BBC are hardly better. Can't post links, but it's on rt right now, called "Syria in depth analysis"