Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 7

On February 05 2012 22:49 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Clearly China and Russia have different approach how to handle these crisis which differs from Western point of view.

On October 11 2011 07:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:

Funny how all the lies you manage to see are on one side...



Because that's what you are, an incompetent propagandist for brutal murderers.

On February 05 2012 22:49 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Clearly China and Russia have different approach how to handle these crisis which differs from Western point of view.

On February 05 2012 23:12 InRaged wrote:

West created this crisis.

Washington post: US secretly backed Syrian opposition (wikileaks)

According to leaked data, Europe turned blind eye on former Muslim Brotherhood members organising there despite them being banned in Syria (just like with Chechen separatists). US channeled money to opposition groups and their media outlets.
And there was also weapon smuggling from Turkey.

On February 05 2012 21:52 HellRoxYa wrote:
I think that it's hilarious that Russia and China still veto even when the Arab League wants to act.

On February 05 2012 22:54 Asshat wrote:


Actually their approach is exactly the same as the Westerners'. They act according to their own interests. You support/ignore oppressive dictatorships that stand by you (optional: make a few empty public statements about how "violence against civilians is bad" and "democracy is good" in order to dupe public opinion), and attempt to bring down those who don't and replace them with puppets.

On February 06 2012 00:44 3Form wrote:


I think that it's hilarious that USA always veto, even when the Arab League wants to act (in Palestine).

Which country has vetoed more resolutions than any other? The West, US in particular, is getting a taste of its own medicine. Needless to say, I'm sure our dear leaders will find another way.

On February 05 2012 22:25 Pika Chu wrote:


Really? Who's the arab league to be a decisive factor? Russia's foreign minister has made it all very transparent, everyone knew their position way before the voting took place. They do not agree to certain ambiguous paragraphs which leave door open to abuses - such as happened in Libya's case where instead of no fly zone, NATO bombed the crap out of them.

Beside, Russia made its own draft which was pointed towards both groups the country's security forces and the opponents to cease fire and sit down for negotiations unlike the actual draft which only points to the authorities for cease of fire.

On November 29 2011 22:11 Pika Chu wrote:
It's quite complex, it's more than a coincidence for sure (they could have opted for another plan for the warships).

They want their fleet there. They want Assad out. They got their interests flucked inLibya, they're not going to do the same mistakes again. If there's pie, they want some.

Russia's geopolitics has always been different from others. They are always more calculated and more cautious (they're never going to openly support something). It's a double edged sword. They have a military naval base in Syria, they want that base to stay there, if assad gets kicked by western supported revolts then it's likely they'll lose another strategic point.

Anyhow, this game in middle east is getting dangerous.

On February 06 2012 02:19 hypercube wrote:


What Russia (and to some extent China) should be asking themselves is why can't they keep their influence when a country becomes democratic. Obviously trying to get rid of Assad is a ploy to bring Syria under US influence, but why would that happen?

Russia lost the Warsaw Pact countries without a fight. They lost Yugoslavia piece by piece. Including Serbia, which had strong cultural ties with Russia and terrible relations to the west. They are even losing the Ukraine which had little historic animosity towards them and a large Russian population.

Maybe it's just the reality that the US and its core allies represent a larger population and vastly more economic power. Or it could be that despite US policy being unpopular the ideal of democracy still gives them a competitive edge over their autocratic rivals. Or possibly the US (and in Europe the EU) is seen as a more benign overlord than either Russia or China.

Either way Russia will continue to lose ground unless they find a way to address these issues. I suspect the US will find a way to intervene despite the veto. Either directly or via their Arab allies. If Russia threatens war they'll back down but use it to destabilize Russian alliances elsewhere. Russia can't go back to a world where all of its partners are dictatorships. They no longer have the ideological backing of communism. Their sphere of influence is tiny compared to Soviet times. And they are more eoconomically dependant on the rest of the world than they were 25 years ago.

On February 06 2012 02:19 hypercube wrote:


What Russia (and to some extent China) should be asking themselves is why can't they keep their influence when a country becomes democratic. Obviously trying to get rid of Assad is a ploy to bring Syria under US influence, but why would that happen?

Russia lost the Warsaw Pact countries without a fight. They lost Yugoslavia piece by piece. Including Serbia, which had strong cultural ties with Russia and terrible relations to the west. They are even losing the Ukraine which had little historic animosity towards them and a large Russian population.

Maybe it's just the reality that the US and its core allies represent a larger population and vastly more economic power. Or it could be that despite US policy being unpopular the ideal of democracy still gives them a competitive edge over their autocratic rivals. Or possibly the US (and in Europe the EU) is seen as a more benign overlord than either Russia or China.

Either way Russia will continue to lose ground unless they find a way to address these issues. I suspect the US will find a way to intervene despite the veto. Either directly or via their Arab allies. If Russia threatens war they'll back down but use it to destabilize Russian alliances elsewhere. Russia can't go back to a world where all of its partners are dictatorships. They no longer have the ideological backing of communism. Their sphere of influence is tiny compared to Soviet times. And they are more eoconomically dependant on the rest of the world than they were 25 years ago.

On February 06 2012 01:28 zalz wrote:


It called for Assad to step down and give control to his deputy.


This kind of shows the major problem with politics. So few people really engage in actual politics.

People are praising China and Russia for what they are doing in Syria. In the next topic they will scream that the USA is the worst country in the world because it overthrew the democracy in Iran and back dictators.


People don't ascribe to any reasonable political belief anymore. It's just people yelling how bad the USA is and how, if you think about it, really everything is their fault. If Russia or China does the identical thing, they fall to their knee in praise.

Syria is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. It's people are oppressed to a disgusting degree. I will rejoice in the murder of every dictator and the destruction of any totalitarian regime.

They use swastika's as their logo. Those are the people you are dealing with.


Russia doesn't just veto an intervention, it is supplying the government with ammunition to carry on their agression.

I hope the people of Syria can shake these parasites from their back and get a real democracy going. I like to think the power of the people is stronger then the dictatorships in Russia and China.

On February 06 2012 09:02 Aurocaido wrote:


Well I think the people living in the thriving 'democracies' of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya might disagree with the load of shit you just posted. Russia and China saw how the resolution against Libya was used as a pretext for full scale military intervention against a sovereign state and are not prepared to stand down a second time.

Syria the most brutal dictatorship in the world? Get over yourself and stop spreading deliberate propoganda. The crown for most dictitorial regime is contested between Saudia Arabia and Qatar, two arab states pushing very hard for 'democratic' transition in Syria and are devout US and western allies. Ironic, no?

This whole thing is about regime change and nothing more. If the Syrian government was pro American such as Yemen, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar this resolution is not even brought before the Security Council. Syria is a sovereign nation and its internal matters are its own.

On February 06 2012 02:19 hypercube wrote:


What Russia (and to some extent China) should be asking themselves is why can't they keep their influence when a country becomes democratic. Obviously trying to get rid of Assad is a ploy to bring Syria under US influence, but why would that happen?

Russia lost the Warsaw Pact countries without a fight. They lost Yugoslavia piece by piece. Including Serbia, which had strong cultural ties with Russia and terrible relations to the west. They are even losing the Ukraine which had little historic animosity towards them and a large Russian population.

Maybe it's just the reality that the US and its core allies represent a larger population and vastly more economic power. Or it could be that despite US policy being unpopular the ideal of democracy still gives them a competitive edge over their autocratic rivals. Or possibly the US (and in Europe the EU) is seen as a more benign overlord than either Russia or China.

Either way Russia will continue to lose ground unless they find a way to address these issues. I suspect the US will find a way to intervene despite the veto. Either directly or via their Arab allies. If Russia threatens war they'll back down but use it to destabilize Russian alliances elsewhere. Russia can't go back to a world where all of its partners are dictatorships. They no longer have the ideological backing of communism. Their sphere of influence is tiny compared to Soviet times. And they are more eoconomically dependant on the rest of the world than they were 25 years ago.

The United States has vowed to block funding and arms supplies to Syria after Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution condemning the government's crackdown on dissent.

"We will work to seek regional and national sanctions against Syria and strengthen the ones we have. They will be implemented to the fullest to dry up the sources of funding and the arms shipments that are keeping the regime's war machine going", US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists in Sofia on Sunday.

On February 06 2012 09:19 Elroi wrote:

You do have a point but you forget the other side of the argument. According to UN resolutions the syrian gouvernment should lose its soverignity because of its crimes against humanity. (This should be the case for Bahrain etc too, but, as you said, they are US allies, so the a military intervention is not an alternative. Another big difference is that Bahrain and Qatar are very, very small nations. And Saudi Arabia doesn't have a big resistance mouvement, like the other countries.) It is still silly to think that Russia and China are protecting these murderers out of some kind of twisted altruism: it is just that they would face internal problems if people in areas that are occupied by them would see the success of the Syrians and claim their liberty too (ie Tibet, Taiwan, Chechnya etc).

This whole thing is about regime change and nothing more. If the Syrian government was pro American such as Yemen, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, and Qatar this resolution is not even brought before the Security Council. Syria is a sovereign nation and its internal matters are its own.