Bashar al-assad should stay in power.

A point of disagreement between me and and my opponent is on Assad's ability in ending those clashes. My position is that the two options, Bashar Al-Assad and the FSA, would still result in armed clashes and civil disorders, but that the latter is better due to specific reasons I will list and explain. Note that my rebuttal of my opponent would be presented in the next round. I apologize if my text is too condescned, but I ended up writing about 36 pages for this round.A- Disadvantages of Bashar Al-Assad continuing his presidency1- Loss of economic and diplomatic ties between Syria and most of the countries in the world. This is namely because of the Syrian regime's human-rights abuses and the boycott of Bashar Al-Assad around the world.2- The continuation of the economic sanctions on Syria on the basis that it is an inhumane dictatorship.3- Millions of Syrians would remain to live as refugees under wretched conditions in Lebanon and other countries, given that they are mostly Sunnah who avoided the genocides in Syria(some of them are even wives and children of FSA members).4- The Syrian government's alliance with Hezbollah and the direct opposition of Israel through the Golan heights, which could lead to a conflict with Syria that could result in further bombings, genocides and civil unrest.5- The conflict between Syria's neighbour Turkey and Bashar Al-Assad, which puts Syria in another peril, given that Turkey supports the FSA and is against Assad's human-rights abuses. This means that if Bashar stayed in power, we might witness a war that would have harsh consequences on Syria.A1- Loss of economic and diplomatic ties between Syria and most of the countries in the world.Because of the inhumane practices of the Syrian government, it has lost many of its diplomatic relations with previous allies such as: Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, United States, Belgium, Spain, and the Gulf States[1]. It even has been excommunicated from the Arab League in 2011 and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in 2012. This, of course, has negative consequences on Syria's economy, because many of those states refuse to engage in any economic relations until Assad is overthrown. That clarified, Syria's economy is in a deplorable state and it needs all the help it can get from the rest of the world, provided that the Iranian support is not enough to keep the economy standing on its two feet. For instance, the Syrian government’s reserves decreased from $18 billion to $2 billion because of the conflict, according to a report released by the Syrian Centre for Policy Research in January 2013. According to that same report, $48 billion is currently required for the reconstruction of Syria with a predicted amount at $60-200 billion if the conflict continued. This all occurred even with a financial support from Iran, which means that Syria needs the support of Eastern and Western states which have boycotted the government because of Assad.[1] http://www.haaretz.com...A2- The continuation of economic sanctions on Syria.As mentioned earlier, the economic sanctions had dreadful consequences on the Syrian Oil Production. For instance, the Syrian regime is unable to find buyers for around 140,000 barrels of crude oil per day, which forces the Syrian state treasury to loose about $5 billion dollars a year[2]. Moreover, the Arab League Economic Committee opposed Bashar Al-Assad by suspending flights from member states to Syria, ending transactions with the Syrian central bank and freezing all Syrian assets in Arab countries[3]. Syria is already in a deplorable state due to the accumulated effects of the civil war, so the removal of Bashar Al-Assad would remove those sanctions and help in ehancing the economic state.[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[3] http://www.aljazeera.com...A3- Millions of Syrian immigrants would remain to live as refugees under wretched conditions.The number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone is approximated to be 1.2 million[4]. This great influx of refugees is namely because of Sunnah escaping violence and oppression from the Alawite minority, and as the Syrian National TV and Pro-Assad media stated, the fact that the FSA members are sending their families to Lebanon to protect them from the Syrian regime[5]. If Assad continued to rule, there is no guarantee that those refugees would be allowed to return to their lands, which are mostly lands that have been destroyed and could be easily conquered by Alawite residents, who are already against the wide expansion of the Sunnah in Syria. Assad, in my opinion, would prefer them not to come back because of their infamous support of the FSA and the fact that they are mostly Sunnah; thus, a source of opposition to his regime. [4] http://www.yalibnan.com...[5] http://english.al-akhbar.com...A4- Potential conflict between Israel and Syria with dire consequences on the latter.The Syrian government used to support Hezbollah on the lebanese front, while maintaining peace with Isreal on the Syrian fronts such as the Golan Heights. The leader of Hezbollah recently declared an opposition of Israel from the Golan heights and with the help of the Syrian Army[6]. This means that Bashar Al-Assad, and in attempt to protect his regime, has given more incentive for an Israeli attack that targets Syria. If Bashar was removed, a new page would be started between Syria and Israel. Note that the Israeli bombings in Syria were praised by some FSA officials[7], which could mean that an alliance between the two is not that far-fetched. There is also an accusation from Bashar Al-Assad himself that Israel is helping the Syrian rebels[8], which could be true after all. [6] http://www.reuters.com...[7] http://www.israelandstuff.com...[8] http://www.timesofisrael.com...A5- The conflict between Syria's neighbour Turkey and Bashar Al-Assad.The Syrian national army is not in a position to fight against a powerful nation like Turkey, and Syria had enough bombings, battles and invasions. Provided that Bashar is despised by Turkey, it is advisable to remove him to restore diplomatic and economic ties between those two countries, at least to ensure that a conflict is not even possible. There many reasons to believe that such a war is possible. For example, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan announced in October 5 2012 "We are not interested in war, but we're not far from it either," after the incident in October 3 when Turkish troops attacked Syria[9]. [9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...B- Advantages of replacing Bashar Al Assad with the FSA1- Return of intellectuals who were shunned by the Syrian government because of certain political opinions, and who would help in building a better Syria.2- Financial support from allies like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other rich nations who supported the Syrian revolution.3- Political life in Syria after centuries of absence.B1- Return of intellectuals who were shunned by the Syrian governmentThere are many thinkers who were shunned from Syria after years of persecution, but I'm going to only mention a few that would return if Assad was overthrown. Syrian lawyer and human rights activist Razan Zaitouneh, who was was awarded the 2012 Ibn Rushd Award for Freedom of Thought, and Syrian author Samar Yazbek who shared a Pen Pinter literary prize with Britain’s Poet Laureate Carol Ann Duffy[10]. [10] http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org...