Russia: UN resolution on Syria is path to war

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
It appears to me and I could be wrong that the word "compromise" used the Russian Foreign Minister is not even an issue!
There will be or already is civil war in Syria eventually. I really see no compromise that those fighting the Government of Syria could even live with.

It sounds almost as if Russia might come to the aid of the Syrian Government.
By come to the aid - I mean troops and military equipment which the later is already the case!

Scary times in the Middle East!

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-un-resolution-syria-path-war-130605420.html

BEIRUT (AP) — A senior Russian diplomat Tuesday said a draft U.N. resolution demanding Syrian President Bashar Assad step aside is a "path to civil war," as Syrian troops besieged rebellious areas with hours of shelling and machine-gun fire.

The U.N. Security Council was set to meet later Tuesday to discuss the draft, backed by Western and some Arab powers. But Russia would likely veto any strong action against Damascus.

"The Western draft Security Council resolution on Syria does not lead to a search for compromise," Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov wrote Tuesday on Twitter. "Pushing this resolution is a path to civil war."


Russia has been one of Assad's strongest backers as he tries to quell an uprising that began nearly 11 months ago. In October, Moscow vetoed the first Security Council attempt to condemn Syria's crackdown and has shown little sign of budging in its opposition.

Russia fears the new measure could open the door to eventual military intervention, the way an Arab-backed U.N. resolution led to NATO airstrikes in Libya.

Some of the most intense violence Tuesday was in the Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs, a center of opposition to the regime. Local activist Mohammed Saleh said he heard hours of shelling and machine-gun fire, and thick black smoke was rising in the distance.

The smoke was believed to be from a pipeline that was struck, but details were not clear. Activists said regime forces' fire hit the pipeline, but the accounts could not immediately be confirmed.

The U.N. estimates that more than 5,400 people have been killed in the Syrian government crackdown, and the bloodshed spiked Monday as regime forces re-took control of the eastern suburbs of Damascus after rebel soldiers briefly captured them.

The death toll from Monday's offensive was around 100 people, making it one among the bloodiest days since the uprising began in March, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Local Coordination Committees, an opposition group.

Early Tuesday, government forces moved into the two remaining towns still in rebel hands.

"Intense shooting was heard in Zamalka and Arbeen as the tanks advanced," the Observatory said, citing its network of sources on the ground. Regime forces made sweeping arrests in the nearby town of Rankous, activists said.

On a government-sponsored media trip, Syrian journalists heard at least seven explosions Tuesday from the eastern suburb of Rankous. It was not clear what caused the blasts.

The reporters were taken north of Damascus to see the Sednaya Convent, believed to have been build in A.D. 547. The site was damaged by artillery fire Sunday, in an attack the government blamed on "armed terrorists." No casualties were reported.

"Providence has salvaged this holy site," said Sister Verona, the head of the Sednaya Convent.

The bloodshed in Syria has increased in recent days as Western and Arab countries stepped up pressure on Russia over Security Council action.

The draft resolution demands that Assad halt the crackdown and implement an Arab peace plan that calls for him to hand over power to his vice president and allow creation of a unity government to clear the way for elections.

If Assad fails to comply within 15 days, the council would consider "further measures," a reference to a possible move to impose economic or other sanctions.

During a trip to Jordan on Tuesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Assad to stop the killings and he said he hopes Security Council members reach a consensus on Syria.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the British and French foreign ministers were heading to New York to push for backing of the measure.

"The status quo is unsustainable," Clinton said, saying the Assad regime was preventing a peaceful transition and warning that the resulting instability could "spill over throughout the region."

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe described what is happening in Syria as a "scandal."

Assad "has blood on his hands, so it's not possible that he continues to assume responsibilities," he told French radio Europe-1 Tuesday, shortly before flying to New York for the U.N. Security Council meeting.

Juppe ruled out military action, saying "things are very different from what happened in Libya. For example, in Syria you have communities that are divided and any exterior intervention could lead to a civil war."

A French official said the draft U.N. resolution has a "comfortable majority" of support from 10 of the Security Council's 15 members, meaning Russia or China would have to use the veto power to stop it. The official said Russia had agreed to negotiate on the draft.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with department rules.

Also Tuesday, army defectors gained full control of the central town of Rastan after days of intense clashes, according to a town activist who identified himself as Hassan. He refused to give his full name, fearing reprisal.

The town was taken by defectors twice in the past only to be retaken by Syrian troops. Rastan is the hometown of former Defense Minister Mustapha Tlass, who held the post for more than three decades, mostly under Assad's father and predecessor, the late Hafez Assad.

Because of the surge in violence, the Arab League has halted a month-old observer mission, which had already come under heavy criticism for failing to stop the crackdown. The League turned to the U.N. Security Council to throw its weight behind its peace plan, which Damascus has rejected.

___

AP writers Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow and Dale Gavlak in
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Syria has no economic value.
Russia protection of a proxy will prevent the UN from doing anything.
The Arab League has no teeth.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Syria has no economic value.
Russia protection of a proxy will prevent the UN from doing anything.
The Arab League has no teeth.

And the US is totally disinterested in them. The Arab League and the West has a bigger fish to fry (Iran.)
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
A civil war that will be won by the current government via attrition.

Actually and I am going out on a limb -- I wouldn`t be surprised under the right circumstances Russia were to insert troops........after all....
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
Why aren't most of the progressives (and others who pride themselves on being concerned with human rights) here concerned about this very serious human rights issue? People are literally being slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
And the US is totally disinterested in them. The Arab League and the West has a bigger fish to fry (Iran.)
The US can't do much even if it is interested because Russia is backing Syria.

The Arab League & the West couldn't suppress a small back water country such as Afghanistan or Iraq. How the hell the bankrupt West going to take on Iran that is 2X the landmass and 2X the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combine?
 
Last edited:

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Why aren't most of the progressives (and others who pride themselves on being concerned with human rights) here concerned about this very serious human rights issue? People are literally being slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis.

Ok, assume we are some hypothetical superpower that goes to Syria out of pure goodwill to stop violence and depose the dictator. After which, you really think the majority of Syrians is going to support things like complete separation of religion and state, equal rights for minorities instead of degenerating into a democractic fascist state like Egypt now when we leave?

And the end of the day we get ourselves painted as imperialists by Syrians because we meddled with their affairs. So why bother?
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
The US can't do much even if it is interested because Russia is backing Syria.

The Arab League & the West couldn't suppress a small back water country such as Afghanistan or Iraq. How the hell the bankrupt West going to take on Iran that is 2X the landmass and 2X the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combine?

Simple. There will be no Afghanistan/Iraq-style occupation. The concern here is not guerrillas harboring terrorists, but a nuclear program. That presents a solid number of relatively static targets as opposed to a vauge number of hidden mobile ones. There will simply be air strike after air strike until their nuclear program is dead, and everyone in their military who tries to defend it is dead. If they try again after picking up the pieces a few years later, there will be more air strikes (barring regime change). Not that it's the ideal scenario, but it can be done. And will be done if Iran actually tries to close the straight of hormuz.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Simple. There will be no Afghanistan/Iraq-style occupation. The concern here is not guerrillas harboring terrorists, but a nuclear program. That presents a solid number of relatively static targets as opposed to a vauge number of hidden mobile ones. There will simply be air strike after air strike until their nuclear program is dead, and everyone in their military who tries to defend it is dead. If they try again after picking up the pieces a few years later, there will be more air strikes (barring regime change). Not that it's the ideal scenario, but it can be done. And will be done if Iran actually tries to close the straight of hormuz.

Yup. The past 60 years have shown us that the best way to handle an enemy is to contain them. Whether it's a big enemy with the USSR or a no-fly zone with a country like Iraq. There is no need to occupy Iran (or Afghanistan) at this point. Bomb their defenses. Take out their infrastructure or industries (if necessary). Impose travel restrictions on their citizens if their leadership decides to retaliate with terrorism as some middle-eastern countries have been known to do. (Libya for example).
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,512
4,607
136
Let Syria have its civil war. We had ours and it sucked too with lots more casualties. The US should stay the hell out of it and let them work out their own problems.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,592
2
81
The US can't do much even if it is interested because Russia is backing Syria.

The Arab League & the West couldn't suppress a small back water country such as Afghanistan or Iraq. How the hell the bankrupt West going to take on Iran that is 2X the landmass and 2X the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combine?

we are/were fighting insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq, if we don't do any nation building bullshit in Iran then it'll be a cake walk...
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Why aren't most of the progressives (and others who pride themselves on being concerned with human rights) here concerned about this very serious human rights issue? People are literally being slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis.

It says right in the article that this is different then Libya because there are very strong sides and any outside intervention could spark a full blown civil war. How about you knuckle draggers actually read for once instead of worrying about what liberals would do.

Obama has had excellent foreign policy btw.

Idiots.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
Simple. There will be no Afghanistan/Iraq-style occupation. The concern here is not guerrillas harboring terrorists, but a nuclear program. That presents a solid number of relatively static targets as opposed to a vauge number of hidden mobile ones. There will simply be air strike after air strike until their nuclear program is dead, and everyone in their military who tries to defend it is dead. If they try again after picking up the pieces a few years later, there will be more air strikes (barring regime change). Not that it's the ideal scenario, but it can be done. And will be done if Iran actually tries to close the straight of hormuz.
Bombing didn't work out in Iraq during the first Bush to the second Bush, as well as Obama years.
 

iGas

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2009
6,240
1
0
we are/were fighting insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq, if we don't do any nation building bullshit in Iran then it'll be a cake walk...
How will the US secure the oil fields if boots are not on the ground/nation building such as the Iraq case or the oil pipeline in Afghanistan case?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
The US can't do much even if it is interested because Russia is backing Syria.

The Arab League & the West couldn't suppress a small back water country such as Afghanistan or Iraq. How the hell the bankrupt West going to take on Iran that is 2X the landmass and 2X the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combine?

Uh, I'd say we suppressed the shit out of Iraq.

We're not bankrupt, we can still keep borrowing to fund our wars. Our credit is still great.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Bombing didn't work out in Iraq during the first Bush to the second Bush, as well as Obama years.

What? Bombing worked fine to destroy Iraq's nuclear program. If we have the same goal in Iran, we can easily achieve it through bombing their nuclear sites.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
How will the US secure the oil fields if boots are not on the ground/nation building such as the Iraq case or the oil pipeline in Afghanistan case?

The purpose of attacking Iran is to destroy their nuclear program and ensure the free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The Arab League would be expected to bite the bullet and police the interior of Iran after their military was wiped out\disbanded.

I think it was clear in Iraq: Investing your blood & treasure in a nation's freedom doesn't guarantee you any reward. The US Government nor any US owned companies secured any oil rights in Iraq.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Bombing didn't work out in Iraq during the first Bush to the second Bush, as well as Obama years.

Must I repeat myself... Bombing with what objective? Hunting terrorists and insurgents != dismantling a developed nuclear program. And what do you mean it "didn't work" in Iraq? It worked just fine. Last I checked air strikes are responsible for a lot of dead terrorists; and bombing is even more effective when many key targets are static, immovable installations like, oh IDK, a nuclear reactor and missile bases?

I also refer you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
How will the US secure the oil fields if boots are not on the ground/nation building such as the Iraq case or the oil pipeline in Afghanistan case?

In this case it is not about oil at all. As Nebor stated -- The purpose of attacking Iran is to destroy their nuclear program and ensure the free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The Arab League would be expected to bite the bullet and police the interior of Iran after their military was wiped out\disbanded.

I think it was clear in Iraq: Investing your blood & treasure in a nation's freedom doesn't guarantee you any reward. The US Government nor any US owned companies secured any oil rights in Iraq.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |