Russia, China Veto Un Security Council Resolution On Syria

[electau]

The US supplies a large amount of money for military aid to Israel and Egypt, to have a proxy war in the region if required. You do not use your own people, you use someone elses to your advantage.

[geriatrickid]

It may not be in Russias or Chinas interest to intervene in Syria and one must respect their position.

The countries around Syria should use their influence and military intervention should not be discarded.

The pro western countries could be used to carry out Western policy in the region. Where does Israel

stand? What side are they on?

Syria's neighbours are indeed involved; Qatar and Turkey are channeling arms and money to the rebels. Iran is supporting Assad, including providing Republican Guards. I don't think there are any "pro-western" countries in the region aside from Israel. Political survival and expediency of some countries should not be confused with a pro-western sentiment. The west is temporarily renting some luke warm loyalty.

As for Israel, it will do what it thinks is in its national interest and survival. I would expect that its military laders are rather concerned at the possibility of Syria's chemical arsenal being used or finding its way to Hizbollah in Lebanon. There is always a possibility of an attack on Israel in a last ditch attempt to rally support. I doubt it though since the Syrians have pulled troops from the Golan to use against its own population.

[GiHadOrange]

It may not be in Russias or Chinas interest to intervene in Syria and one must respect their position.

The countries around Syria should use their influence and military intervention should not be discarded.

The pro western countries could be used to carry out Western policy in the region. Where does Israel

stand? What side are they on?

Take advantage of Assads weakness and the instability and bomb the shit out of anything that could be delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon under the pretense its just about chemical weapon.

Waiting for a success of the Sunni Jihadists to take out the heretical Alawite Assad and hope that traveling terrorist circus turns afterwards to Lebanon and start to fight with a certain political Shia movement there.

Enjoying another 60 vetoes by the US on any coming future resolution on the Palestine conflict, just as they have enjoyd over 60 vetoes by the US in the past and saying one must respect the US position.

[GiHadOrange]

The US supplies a large amount of money for military aid to Israel and Egypt, to have a proxy war in the region if required. You do not use your own people, you use someone elses to your advantage.

The large amount of money for military aid to Egypt might be a thing of the past.

[ttelise]

It may not be in Russias or Chinas interest to intervene in Syria and one must respect their position.

The countries around Syria should use their influence and military intervention should not be discarded.

The pro western countries could be used to carry out Western policy in the region. Where does Israel

stand? What side are they on?

Syria's neighbours are indeed involved; Qatar and Turkey are channeling arms and money to the rebels. Iran is supporting Assad, including providing Republican Guards. I don't think there are any "pro-western" countries in the region aside from Israel. Political survival and expediency of some countries should not be confused with a pro-western sentiment. The west is temporarily renting some luke warm loyalty.

As for Israel, it will do what it thinks is in its national interest and survival. I would expect that its military laders are rather concerned at the possibility of Syria's chemical arsenal being used or finding its way to Hizbollah in Lebanon. There is always a possibility of an attack on Israel in a last ditch attempt to rally support. I doubt it though since the Syrians have pulled troops from the Golan to use against its own population.

Good synopsis. Although the chance is remote, the situation could seriously destabilize if Israel gets sucked in or chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands with regime losing control.

Funny thing is, this is getting very little coverage here in the US. Americans are pretty much sick of this crap and tired of funneling our tax dollars into the middle easy in the form of bombs or foreign aide.

[Steely Dan]

It may not be in Russias or Chinas interest to intervene in Syria and one must respect their position.

The countries around Syria should use their influence and military intervention should not be discarded.

The pro western countries could be used to carry out Western policy in the region. Where does Israel

stand? What side are they on?

Syria's neighbours are indeed involved; Qatar and Turkey are channeling arms and money to the rebels. Iran is supporting Assad, including providing Republican Guards. I don't think there are any "pro-western" countries in the region aside from Israel. Political survival and expediency of some countries should not be confused with a pro-western sentiment. The west is temporarily renting some luke warm loyalty.

As for Israel, it will do what it thinks is in its national interest and survival. I would expect that its military laders are rather concerned at the possibility of Syria's chemical arsenal being used or finding its way to Hizbollah in Lebanon. There is always a possibility of an attack on Israel in a last ditch attempt to rally support. I doubt it though since the Syrians have pulled troops from the Golan to use against its own population.

Good synopsis. Although the chance is remote, the situation could seriously destabilize if Israel gets sucked in or chemical weapons fall into the wrong hands with regime losing control.

Funny thing is, this is getting very little coverage here in the US. Americans are pretty much sick of this crap and tired of funneling our tax dollars into the middle easy in the form of bombs or foreign aide.

Israel have (wisely) been keeping a low profile of late, this has thus far avoided any coordinated action against them at the cost of their enemies getting used to provocations without response. Should Syria use chemical weapons against Israel or even prepare to I do believe Israel will flatten them regardless of the fallout as they have precious little space to move populations to safety in the event of such an attack.

[electau]

It would be far better for the US if Israel were as a last resort declare a pre-emptive strike against Syria or Iran. Eg A proxy war.

[geriatrickid]

It would be far better for the US if Israel were as a last resort declare a pre-emptive strike against Syria or Iran. Eg A proxy war.

I hope not. Iran would retaliate with terror attacks in the west and would disrupt the flow of oil in the gulf. A disruption of the oil would be catastrophic for India, China and the EU. The USA would be hurt, but would be able to manage as its key energy suppliers are Canada and Mexico. Do we really want to see India and China in panic mode? I don't think the world could deal with a desperate India or China. As much as I condemn the Chinese veto on the UN resolutions, I do understand that its primary goal is to ensure that its oil supply is not interrupted.

[maidu]

It would be far better for the US if Israel were as a last resort declare a pre-emptive strike against Syria or Iran. Eg A proxy war.

Iran, maybe. Syria, no. War has all sorts of unseen dire consequences. There was the pre-emptive strike by Israeli jets against an Iraqi nuclear facility, about 15 years ago, which garnered no messy responses - but that's the exception to the rule.

[midas]

Clinton provoked international consternation when she issued a grim warning to Russia and China that they would be made to “pay a price” for not backing Western efforts to put tougher sanctions on Damascus – an ally of Moscow and Beijing.

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov decried the use of such threatening language and said that the Western powers were trying to blackmail Moscow into adopting their adversarial position towards Syria.

The surge in opposition violence – which does not have any internal popular base among Syrians – can be traced to the Western-backed so-called Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul on 1 April, which pledged $100 million in funding for the armed opposition groups.

http://www.pacificfr...ised-assad.html

Edited July 23, 2012 by midas

[Credo]

A link to a blog which provides no supporting evidence of anything.

This what the 'article' says:

"The surge in opposition violence – which does not have any internal popular base among Syrians – can be traced to the Western-backed so-called Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul on 1 April, which pledged $100 million in funding for the armed opposition groups."

So who was in attendance at this meeting? Which countries gave money and how much?

Syria had a very strong national security apparatus. It is a country that would have been hard to infiltrate and having a war without "any internal popular base.." would be rather difficult. I think it would also cost a lot more than 100 million. But that's my opinion.

[ttelise]

Clinton provoked international consternation when she issued a grim warning to Russia and China that they would be made to “pay a price” for not backing Western efforts to put tougher sanctions on Damascus – an ally of Moscow and Beijing.

Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov decried the use of such threatening language and said that the Western powers were trying to blackmail Moscow into adopting their adversarial position towards Syria.

The surge in opposition violence – which does not have any internal popular base among Syrians – can be traced to the Western-backed so-called Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul on 1 April, which pledged $100 million in funding for the armed opposition groups.

http://www.pacificfr...ised-assad.html

Interesting source.

[midas]

A link to a blog which provides no supporting evidence of anything.

This what the 'article' says:

"The surge in opposition violence – which does not have any internal popular base among Syrians – can be traced to the Western-backed so-called Friends of Syria meeting in Istanbul on 1 April, which pledged $100 million in funding for the armed opposition groups."

So who was in attendance at this meeting? Which countries gave money and how much?

Syria had a very strong national security apparatus. It is a country that would have been hard to infiltrate and having a war without "any internal popular base.." would be rather difficult. I think it would also cost a lot more than 100 million. But that's my opinion.

Seventy nations participated in the conference held on 1 April 2012 to support Syrian opposition and increase pressure on the Syrian government.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Syria_Group

Edited July 23, 2012 by midas

[Credo]

Thanks, that sheds more light on the situation.