I honestly can not say I have a deep knowledge of the Syrian civil war except for a few things.

  1. Multiple groups including Isis and the Syrian army are involved, some of which are US backed

  2. Rojava and the Kurds seem genuinely unproblematic and cool, and are currently being attacked by Syria and Turkey, and their support was withdrawn by trump.

  3. The resulting refugee crisis is a big deal, etc etc. I’ve actually been fortunate enough to talk with several refugees as my mother works in local government helping sponsor them, and one family threw a party and invited us. The food was delicious, but I felt like asking a family who had just been reunited with a family member after years about the civil war would not be a good idea. So I can’t say I learned much from the conversations I’ve had.

I see lots of Assad memes. Is it ironic? Is it unironic? Is it a big critical support deal like Kim Jong un? What’s the consensus? Can someone educate me or?

Thanks.

  • EldritchMayo [he/him,comrade/them]
    3·
    4 years ago

    While you can admire NK’s stance against American imperialism and isolationism, I’m always put off by the hereditary autocratic nature of the country. It’s overplayed by the west, sure, but even China isn’t hereditary at the very least. They could loosen up a little in some places

    • emizeko [they/them]
      1·
      4 years ago

      They could loosen up a little in some places

      I get what you're coming from but it helps to remember what the last 70 years have looked like from their perspective (punishing bombing campaign including heavy use of biological and chemical weapons, sanctions, siege warfare) as well as the extent to which Kim has direct power and the extent to which he is more a head of state. it's really hard to evalute information about the DPRK but it's arguable that he's more head of state than head of government. those offices are fused in the USA, unlike most places, which leads to some disconnects in evaluating leaders, but even so the US has elected a father-son (Adamses), a grandather-grandson (Harrisons), and nearly went Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

      • EldritchMayo [he/him,comrade/them]
        2·
        4 years ago

        Oh believe me, I know about NK's history. I made a post about it. I critically support NK, but as I said, one element I do not support is the direct hereditary inheritance. I don't support nepotism in america either, but pointing it out in either country doesn't shape my whole opinion of either country.

        Edit: And that's regardless of how much power he does or doesn't have. The queen of england has no real power but she inherited her position and did 0 work in her life to earn. While I know it isn't a direct comparison, I'm just saying if Un has lots of power that's bad, and if he doesn't its still symbolically kinda dumb, IMO. Mao didn't pass any of his stuff on, I don't see a particular reason to HAVE to pass on anything.

        • emizeko [they/them]
          1·
          4 years ago

          fair enough but China wasn't subjected to those conditions, either

          EDIT: I think "symbolically kinda dumb" is a defensible take from a western perspective but I'm just saying, consider that it might look differently to Koreans after those decades of hot and then cold war experiences and could be a desire for symbolic continuity. for a head of state, obviously, it's less defensible as you add power

          • EldritchMayo [he/him,comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Fair enough. I try to have reasonable takes on regions I know have been devastated by the west. I appreciate that even if we can't see exactly eye to eye we can respect eachother's opinions on this site

    • My_Army [any]
      2·
      3 years ago

      deleted by creator

    • Amorphous [any]
      2·
      4 years ago

      I’m always put off by the hereditary autocratic nature of the country.

      The country doesn't really have such a nature, aside from the inherent flaws in a democratic system. Kim Jong-un is basically the equivalent of a celebrity, so of course he has an advantage in gaining power through democratic processes. But it's not like he's codified as the leader by birth in the constitution or anything, he's just popular. If he stopped being popular, he'd stop being the leader.