Russia warns against unilateral intervention in Syria

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see no reason for the US to intervene at all in this situation. We are not the world police, and arbitrarily deciding bombing the shit out of innocent people isn't a red line but using chemical weapons is a red line strikes me as dumb.
 
Who knows where they would end up so it represents a threat for everyone in the end.


several different groups are fighting against Assad right now, Al-Qaeda is confirmed to be one of them... pretty sure if they win that shit will end up in the hands of radical groups around the middle east
 
If he gets desperate enough he will use them. If he thinks that he will be deposed than he has nothing to lose.

As some crazy final "fuck you" when the door of his doombunker is about to be blown in (and he still has control of the weapons) then maybe. Any time before then and he knows it's suicide.
 
CHEEZMO™;41267750 said:
As some crazy final "fuck you" when the door of his doombunker is about to be blown in (and he still has control of the weapons) then maybe. Any time before then and he knows it's suicide.

The fact that this could happen leaves me worried.
 
The fact that this could happen leaves me worried.

The parentheses were important. If it got to a point where Assad's Syria consists of a few hundred square feet then it's highly unlikely that his chemical weapons stockpile is under his control, especially as they're one of the parts of this conflict that the outside world is most concerned about.

I'm confident they would be secured, somehow. Either directly by foreign forces or via the FSA.
 
The fact that this could happen leaves me worried.

again you should be worried about what would happen to those weapons if the radical groups in Syria overthrows Assad
and if his overthrow is near the use of chemical weapons would guarantee no safe asylum for him and his family... it is more likely that he would flee into Iran for protection



Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta publicly acknowledged the question as far back as May. “We do have intelligence that indicates there is an Al Qaeda presence in Syria, but frankly we don’t have very good intelligence as to just what exactly their activities are,” he said, adding, “They are a concern, and frankly, we need to continue to do everything we can to try to determine what kind of influence they are trying to exert.”


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/concerns-about-al-qaeda-in-syria-underscore-questions-about-rebels/
 
if the u.s. wants to help the situation it should be trying to pressure both sides into peaceful negotiations, instead they're arming one group of murderers to fight another - escalating the violence.

call it a conspiracy theory, but it seems like the united states is actually trying to up the carnage so they can blame it on the regime and get even more involved.
 
Chemical weapons 'excuse for US to intervene in Syria'
Chinese state media have accused US President Barack Obama of planning to use Syria's chemical weapons as an excuse for intervening militarily.

The state news agency, Xinhua, was responding to a warning from Mr Obama that Syria would be crossing a "red line" if it tried to use such weapons.

"Once again, Western powers are digging deep for excuses to intervene militarily," it said.

China and Russia have blocked attempts to impose UN sanctions on Syria.

Xinhua's commentary is not an official statement but it reflects fears among China's communist leaders that the West wants regime change in Syria under the guise of humanitarian action, the BBC's Damian Grammaticas reports from Beijing.

In Syria on Wednesday, government military operations intensified in the capital, Damascus, and in the second city, Aleppo, activists said.

Opposition activists say more than 20,000 people - mostly civilians - have died since the uprising against Bashar al-Assad began last year.

'Foreign crusades'
Earlier this week, President Obama said any use of chemical weapons by Syria would change his thinking on intervention in the crisis.

"There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons," he said.

In its commentary, Xinhua criticised the remarks as "dangerously irresponsible" and said they would aggravate the conflict, reducing the chances of a political settlement.

It argued that "foreign crusades" by Western nations would simply lead to more violence and hatred in Syria, pointing to the examples of other interventions in Somalia, Iraq and Libya.

China insists a ceasefire and UN-led mediation remain the best ways to end Syria's woes.

Russia believes Syria has no intention of using its chemical weapons and is able to safeguard them, a foreign ministry source in Moscow told Russia's Kommersant newspaper.

A "confidential dialogue" with the Syrian government on the security of the arsenal has convinced Russia "the Syrian authorities do not intend to use these weapons and are capable of keeping them under control themselves", the unnamed source said.

The ministry also accused the West of doing nothing to urge the opposition to enter a dialogue with the Assad government.

Tank assault
Residents in Damascus said Wednesday's attack had been the heaviest since the army re-asserted its control of the capital last month.

An aerial bombardment preceded an assault by tanks on the neighbourhood of Kafar Soussa.

"The whole of Damascus is shaking with the sound of shelling," one woman in Kafar Soussa told Reuters.

Activists also reported house-to-house searches by government forces in the Nahr Eishah area.

A journalist working for the state-run Tishreen newspaper, Mosaab al-Odallah, was killed in the searches there, activists and friends said.

Odallah was said to be sympathetic to the opposition.

Activists said the two districts may have been targeted to root out rebels who have been using the area to launch attacks on the Mazzeh military airport.

There were varying reports of casualties in the capital, with activists putting the number of dead at between 23 and 40.

Fighter jets were also reported to be attacking Aleppo, where rebels claim to have taken 60% of the city.

The government denies the claim and a security source told AFP news agency: "Reinforcements from both sides are heading to Aleppo. It is a war that will last a long time."

According to a count by the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 198 people were killed in fighting in Syria on Tuesday. The figure could not be verified independently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19345629
 
We carved the border and created the conditions under which North Korea currently exists.
The conditions that led to the current North Korean regime are complex (due to Russia's involvement) and can be traced all the way back to before World War II. But I'd like to think that we're talking about the justification for the Korean War itself. In other words, on the even of the actual war, was it prudent to proceed with military intervention?
 
The Russian/Chinese way of handling this situation has turned out to be a total failure. Doing nothing has allowed Al-Assad's goons to kill thousands over months and months. Syrian jets are taking potshots at hospitals, which is shameful. To me this has proven that the newly emerging eastern powers are not ready to lead and act decisively in world events.

America and NATO at least get these things settled and ended rather then allow them to go on and on.

It wouldn't be a failure if your president stopped CIA training / arming the rebels, who turned out to be even closer to AQ than the Syria government.
 
The government hasn't armed any AQ-backed rebels.

Then how can you tell your US backed rebels won't share the weapon / intels with AQ-backed rebels?

"you can't clap with only one hand" Not every arab spring turned into a massive civil war, somebody somewhere was obviously backing these rebels from the very beginning. Nobody's hand is clean on this mess.
 
What's with Russia being constantly against intervention? Are they just afraid of the US getting a greater influence over the Middle East if the US intervenens and helps establishing a new goverment for Syria?
Or is Russia doing business with the current Syrian goverment?
Russia protecting the interests of Russia, nothing wrong with that.
 
It wouldn't be a failure if your president stopped CIA training / arming the rebels, who turned out to be even closer to AQ than the Syria government.

I'm Canadian but it's an understandable mistake.

If the rebels were not armed they would be executed by the Shabiba. Al Asaad has made it abundantly clear that all will be killed, including women and children.

And what is so bad about arming anyone against Al Asaad? His fucking father was in charge and the crown got passed down to a son. Decade after decade of ceaseless tyranny. Is there supposed to be a King in Syria? Because that's what those poor people are stuck with. Do away with the despots and their gangster families. Anything is better than that.
 
CHEEZMO™;41296811 said:
Seems legit.
while alex jones is a nut, democracy now is respectable
I'm Canadian but it's an understandable mistake.

If the rebels were not armed they would be executed by the Shabiba. Al Asaad has made it abundantly clear that all will be killed, including women and children.

And what is so bad about arming anyone against Al Asaad? His fucking father was in charge and the crown got passed down to a son. Decade after decade of ceaseless tyranny. Is there supposed to be a King in Syria? Because that's what those poor people are stuck with. Do away with the despots and their gangster families. Anything is better than that.
if the u.s. was concerned with tyranny then how do you explain support for egypt, saudi arabia, etc?
 
This whole civil war is a giant power struggle between regional and global forces. As much as I want the Syrian people to overthrow Assad, I'd rather the US stay out of this since it will inevitably devolve into an even greater mess when Assad is toppled and Turkey/Iran/Russia/the Saudis/Israel/al-Qaeda all manage to find a way to screw things up further.

Historically, the US has a bad track record of picking sides. Assad is probably going down anyway - let the people themselves handle it.

edit: And like beastmode said, it's not like the US is really supporting the anti-Assad forces out of some desire for "freedom". It's just another part of the chess game that is the US' attempt to maintain its hegemony over the Middle East. I'd rather see us just disengage entirely from the region than continue to find ways to screw things up.
 
I kind of agree that helping the rebels in any kind of physical or monetary way should be considered an act of war, or at least an act of aggression. I don't see how it could be considered otherwise.

America needs to stay as far away from the situation as possible. We should just stay out of the region entirely for a few years.
 
again you should be worried about what would happen to those weapons if the radical groups in Syria overthrows Assad
and if his overthrow is near the use of chemical weapons would guarantee no safe asylum for him and his family... it is more likely that he would flee into Iran for protection



Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta publicly acknowledged the question as far back as May. “We do have intelligence that indicates there is an Al Qaeda presence in Syria, but frankly we don’t have very good intelligence as to just what exactly their activities are,” he said, adding, “They are a concern, and frankly, we need to continue to do everything we can to try to determine what kind of influence they are trying to exert.”


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/concerns-about-al-qaeda-in-syria-underscore-questions-about-rebels/

Why bother. 99% of people are perfectly fine with the international communities support of the terrorist group "responsible" for 911. We let the guys sell oil after t hey were done sodomizing the libyan president in the streets without any sort of trial. Its disgusting that we spend our tax dollars, and our troops lives, on this nonsense proxy war. It happens every time we train and support the rebels, they always turn on us, as was their original intention.

lots of great videos on youtube from syrians showing the rebels throwing government workers off the roofs of buildings for supporting assad. I have no doubt these guys will use chemical weapons to gain support for the destruction of syria. And we will go right along with it.

CHEEZMO™;41296811 said:
Seems legit.

Yet everyone is fine with cnn. So weird ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom