Russia and Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16878214

Right so, this has been going on for a while now and while I'm not surprised that Russia is digging in its heels I do have to wonder if there will come a point where they'll stand aside.

I personally don't believe Russia would willingly abandon Assad no matter how many of his own people he kills, but at what point will it become more trouble than its worth to back him?

Aside from a naval base and a market for selling arms, what does Russia really get out of being recalcitrant on this issue? Is it that the Kremlin doesn't want to set a precedent of the international community meddling in the affairs of dictators? Or just the desire to seem assertive and strong?

Yes, the Russians have a point. Russia failed to stop the barbaric attack on Libya, and thus they have decided to grow a spine and stop intervention in Syria.

Syria and Iran are currently the only non-US 'organised' governments in the Middle East. If (or rather when) Syria goes down, I don't doubt Iran will follow.

It is a really weird situation for sure. I think the US-Bahrain relationship might be a good analogy though, only, there is no "Iran" equivalent in the region for Russia...

However, just doing some quick Google and Wiki searches, it looks like the Syrian base (though not large enough to accommodate aircraft carriers) is the only major Russian base in the Mediterranean. Given the closeness to the Caucuses, like Ossetia, the Russians may see it as a strategic location to prevent further NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

As cynical as it sounds, I really don't think Russia is going to have to dig in too hard. The Qatari seem to be the only people really pushing for intervention, even the rest of the GCC and Arab League seem ready to leave Syria to itself (Qatar and Saudi Arabia have had a major rift over this issue, and Iraq will soon replace Qatar as the head of the Arab League, and they, obviously, are not too keen on foreign intervention). The strategic importance of Syria is negligible, especially considering the Iranian influence. The Syrian air-force is really not doing anything, so the guise of a no-fly zone isn't possible here, and ground troops in Syria will spark a proxy battle between the intervention force and Iran, probably as disastrous as what occurred in Iraq, likely drawing Hezbollah and Israel into another conflict. Like I said, I might be cynical here, but Russia's position is almost giving the Americans and NATO cover to say things like "gee, we'd love to help, but those damn Russians...", because we all know NATO is very careful to follow the will of the international community.

Russia and Syria. great nations. Russia is colder than Syria!

I'd advocate the creation of buffer zones within Syria by the Turkish military on the Turkish-Syrian border.

All the bullshit about Syria's sovereignty aside, the situation is very much an issue of national security for Turkey as Syria's handling of the uprising is creating a humanitarian disaster on the border.

If it goes on for much longer and the situation gets worse and (and I think this is inevitable) Syria starts to support the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey to spite Turkey then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Turkey deciding that Assad needs to be toppled. The International Community and plenty of Syrians would probably give them a medal for it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, the Russians have a point. Russia failed to stop the barbaric attack on Libya, and thus they have decided to grow a spine and stop intervention in Syria.

But back to your view...do you really honestly believe that Assad should keep power? And if so, why? Is it because you fear the alternative?

And while I'll admit that NATO way overstepped the bounds of their UN mandate I don't see how you could say they were being "barbaric". Opportunistic and at times careless, yes, but barbaric?

You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist.

Yeah, half Europe is sort of happy that Russia is vetoing any attack, it gives the perfect excuse.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'd advocate the creation of buffer zones within Syria by the Turkish military on the Turkish-Syrian border.

All the bullshit about Syria's sovereignty aside, the situation is very much an issue of national security for Turkey as Syria's handling of the uprising is creating a humanitarian disaster on the border.

If it goes on for much longer and the situation gets worse and (and I think this is inevitable) Syria starts to support the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey to spite Turkey then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Turkey deciding that Assad needs to be toppled. The International Community and plenty of Syrians would probably give them a medal for it.

Well...glossing over your...interesting view on the Libya situation, Russia has already admitted that they wouldn't be able to stop intervention if it happened, just that they won't support a UN sanctioned attack.

But back to your view...do you really honestly believe that Assad should keep power? And if so, why? Is it because you fear the alternative?

And while I'll admit that NATO way overstepped the bounds of their UN mandate I don't see how you could say they were being "barbaric". Opportunistic and at times careless, yes, but barbaric?

You sound like a Qadaffi propagandist.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Incidentally, Gadhafi's daughter is quite the little b*tch...

Well here's the deal.

When NATO starts bombing any country for any reason, everyone immediately turns into an expert on that particular country and/or region - Wikipedia helps this process a lot coupled with BBC and CNN.

So,

Yes, Assad should be kept in power. He has, as much as humanly possible, kept the rabid Mullahs and Ayatollahs away from the government. As strange as this will sound to you and as bizarre as this is going to sound in the face of CNN propaganda pictures, majority of Syrians in fact support al-Assad.
Those who are opposed are (shocker!!) NGO foreign-government funded groups just as it has been the case in Libya.

And yes, I am a Gaddafi supporter too and I think current situation in Libya will demonstrate the most obvious reason why.
As we all know (from history and such), Libya is in fact a lot more tribal region than other Middle Eastern countries- Gaddafi has managed to unite these tribes under one Libya and has governed successfully thus far, providing his people with one of the best living conditions in Africa.
While Gaddafi was in power, health, education and housing were either totally free or subsidised and Shari'a free. Now, under ''new Libya'' what was the first thing rebels declared? Shari'a law. Oil will be sold, no free or subsidised housing or food or school. Furthermore, all the tribes that were once Libyans will now return to being tribes once again as majority of Libyans do not, in fact support the rebels and the country is slowly, but surely going to hell.

Now, why was Gaddafi all of a sudden an enemy after being so good for so long? Well, rich Libyan oil fields (now hear me out) made Libya quite rich (cha-chiiing! Gaddafi, too!), so Gaddafi, underestimating the desperation of the West proposed a gold standard. What is gold standard? Well, they'll no longer trade in US dollars, instead, they'll trade in gold. A gold dinar. (bliiing!)
This way, the oil rich countries (which would be much of the Middle East) and the entire Africa would benefit immensely from trading in gold, and not money. HOLD IT! Who can actually afford this to happen? The answer is - nobody, except, of course the Africans and the Middle Easterners. (possibly the Chinese, because, well, the Chinese are, were and always will be in some ways awesomer than anyone else on the planet. Forever.)

So, was Gaddafi riding a unicorn through a candy field with rainbows shooting out of his ass? The answer is no, he wasn't. But he wasn't a mass murderer as Western propaganda would have us believe. It isn't black and white and as long as people keep viewing it as this it will become pointless.
As for barbaric - yes it was. They bombed civilians and cities. Hilary Clinton then laughed on TV at the atrocious death of Gaddafi (if you ask me, he's still alive, oooh yeah!) which was perpetrated by those who were in fact funded by the West.

In conclusion,

Hang in there al-Assad!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Now, under ''new Libya'' what was the first thing rebels declared? Shari'a law.

That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Well here's the deal.

When NATO starts bombing any country for any reason, everyone immediately turns into an expert on that particular country and/or region - Wikipedia helps this process a lot coupled with BBC and CNN.

So,

Yes, Assad should be kept in power. He has, as much as humanly possible, kept the rabid Mullahs and Ayatollahs away from the government. As strange as this will sound to you and as bizarre as this is going to sound in the face of CNN propaganda pictures, majority of Syrians in fact support al-Assad.
Those who are opposed are (shocker!!) NGO foreign-government funded groups just as it has been the case in Libya.

So, was Gaddafi riding a unicorn through a candy field with rainbows shooting out of his ass? The answer is no, he wasn't. But he wasn't a mass murderer as Western propaganda would have us believe. It isn't black and white and as long as people keep viewing it as this it will become pointless.
As for barbaric - yes it was. They bombed civilians and cities. Hilary Clinton then laughed on TV at the atrocious death of Gaddafi (if you ask me, he's still alive, oooh yeah!) which was perpetrated by those who were in fact funded by the West.

In conclusion,

Hang in there al-Assad!

I think he was crazy.

You know what he also did? He intentionally gimped his military so it couldn't turn on him, even Stalin trusted his own people more than that. It didn't work out that well and only managed to draw out the suffering of the Libyan people.

Do I think that Libya is in a better place than it was with Qadaffi? No actually, I don't.

But do I think it's future is more hopeful? Yes, yes I do.

And please, would you tell me where you get your news from? You seem to disdain anything that's Western as automatically biased and bankrupt.

Is it from China's state run media?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is literally as far from reality as you could possibly have gotten without adding dragons to the story. People who were protesting the Transitional Government demanded that they institute Shari'a law.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/21/189534.html

Did you just google that quickly now? Or did you follow the entire Libyan conflict?

Rebels declared Shari'a will be instituted, transitional government declared so, as in, Mustafa Abdel Jalil himself, all the way back in October last year.
This deceleration has been made after Gaddafi was murdered. Read the entire text you presented to me, not just the first two lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html

Just curious...but why exactly is a brutal secular dictatorship better than a brutal religious dictatorship?

Because that seems to be what your view is on why Assad should stay in power and if so you'd probably have been a supporter of the Shah of Iran as well.

Or do you just like anyone who's Anti-American?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Just curious...but why exactly is a brutal secular dictatorship better than a brutal religious dictatorship?

Because that seems to be what your view is on why Assad should stay in power and if so you'd probably have been a supporter of the Shah of Iran as well.

Or do you just like anyone who's Anti-American?

If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.
However, he was also a leader and did not want ridiculous theocratic rules to be bases for his government.
When he came to power he executed religious extremists in his country and has kept the Islamists pretty repressed. He did not tolerate al-quaida operations in his country.
Maybe that alone saved few Libyan and American/European lives.

Shari'a is the worst form of government where women are treated as well as domestic animals are, where Jews and Christians are subjected to humiliating 4th class citizenship, where other non-Muslims are either killed of forcefully converted and where countries become a breeding ground for terrorists and rabid Muslim leaders.

What exactly has improved in Libya after Gaddafi? It is now tribal, poor, extremely divided and headed by Al-quaida.
Anyone who sees this Libya better than the one under Gaddafi is either new to planet Earth or totally ignorant.

Also, I am not anti American. There are countless American politicians, academics and people in general who are smart, alert and absolutely aware of everything that's going on. Those who are not aware simply aren't because it does not interest them, since they have many problems in their own lives, but they don't come on raido or TV and pretend they know everything.
And I respect this very much.

American government system, however, is corrupted to the core. Rotten.
Yet, ironically, they go around invading and 'fixing' other countries.

USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the American people by rebuilding the country and giving jobs and liberation to the residents there.

Thing's aren't simple nor are they black and white. Simplifying it is just frustrating...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.

American government system, however, is corrupted to the core. Rotten.
Yet, ironically, they go around invading and 'fixing' other countries.

USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the American people by rebuilding the country and giving jobs and liberation to the residents there.

Thing's aren't simple nor are they black and white. Simplifying it is just frustrating...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If theocratic dictatorship is somehow by even a nuance better then 'secular dictatorship', then Iran now is better than Libya under Gaddafi.

Gadafi wasn't secular at all, and neither was Libya. Libya was and is Muslim and Gaddafi was also Muslim and a proud one. You should, know that Muammar Gaddafi was known as the 'Imam of the Muslims'.
However, he was also a leader and did not want ridiculous theocratic rules to be bases for his government.
When he came to power he executed religious extremists in his country and has kept the Islamists pretty repressed. He did not tolerate al-quaida operations in his country.
Maybe that alone saved few Libyan and American/European lives.

Shari'a is the worst form of government where women are treated as well as domestic animals are, where Jews and Christians are subjected to humiliating 4th class citizenship, where other non-Muslims are either killed of forcefully converted and where countries become a breeding ground for terrorists and rabid Muslim leaders.

What exactly has improved in Libya after Gaddafi? It is now tribal, poor, extremely divided and headed by Al-quaida.
Anyone who sees this Libya better than the one under Gaddafi is either new to planet Earth or totally ignorant.

Also, I am not anti American. There are countless American politicians, academics and people in general who are smart, alert and absolutely aware of everything that's going on. Those who are not aware simply aren't because it does not interest them, since they have many problems in their own lives, but they don't come on raido or TV and pretend they know everything.
And I respect this very much.

American government system, however, is corrupted to the core. Rotten.
Yet, ironically, they go around invading and 'fixing' other countries.

USA should invade the USA and win the hearts and minds of the American people by rebuilding the country and giving jobs and liberation to the residents there.

Thing's aren't simple nor are they black and white. Simplifying it is just frustrating...

Very refreshing.

She reminds me of the government from V for Vendetta.

Something for her to finger herself to:
YouTube video
131

Edit: Looks like China and Russia vetoed it again. Not really surprising.

Guess now its either leave it be, go in without UN approval, or wait for Turkey to get fed up. At this point I'm not sure there is a right thing to do. Ambiguous ethics ftw.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I would figure that, as a female, you'd argue more against killing, and brutality, and corruption as a whole, without regard to specifics or preferences. But it's refreshing to hear you effectively support killing and oppression, so long as it maintains order.

Very refreshing.

As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting.

Namely that you're okay with brutal repression so long as the people have running water and electricity and there's no Sharia Law.

"Hang in there Assad!"

Really? Really, really? That sounds so absurd coming out of my mouth when I say it outloud . . . the man is a ruthless and murderous tyrant. What fantasy land do you live in?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As opposed to, as a male, I'd be all for brutality regardless?

Interesting.