Russia and China veto UN Resolution against Syria

[below_freezing]

If the family of the teen's tortured and kidnapped are themselves saying they were taken by the security forces who can i believe? even though Assad is pro india I must agree with India supporting the UN Resolution today.

what cannot be bought by enough money?

get an accident victim, pay his family to say that he's been tortured, and they pay for his treatment. both sides win.

 

[gubbi]

Along with the naval bases there is arms sales and Syria is a very important country for Russia given past history.
As of 2011, Syria's arms contracts with Russia were worth at least $4 billion.
Russia has significant trade relations with Syria. Its exports to Syria were worth $1.1 billion in 2010 and its investments in the country were valued at $19.4 billion in 2009 according to The Moscow Times

If you have read the text of the resolution, you would understand that in no way the UNSC resolution would endanger Russia's interests in Syria. Oh, BTW, the resolution was framed on the basis of the recommendations of the League of Arab States.

Here is the entire text of the resolution:
Text of proposed UN Security Council resolution on Syria vetoed by Russia, China

Formally, we have refrained from action (veto). But inaction is also action.
Here's an example:
Soviet Union made ​​the mistake of entering troops in Afghanistan. 10 years of war and the losses began to pay for the mistake.
U.S. made ​​a mistake in supplying the Afghan rebels through Pakistan and sponsoring radical Islamic groups fighting against the Soviet Union. In fact, the U.S. created Alkaidu.
In the end, everyone got a reverse shock in proportion to their participation.

The example you quote is not relevant to the ongoing crises in Syria. Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan was on the invitation of the then Afghan govt. Rest is history.

Syria is a different case. Similar to the Arab Spring Revolutions in Libya or Egypt. Read the entire text of the UNSC resolution provided in the link above and tell us how it would adversely affect Russia's interests in Syria.

 

[Yeti]

what cannot be bought by enough money?

get an accident victim, pay his family to say that he's been tortured, and they pay for his treatment. both sides win.

You can see the family in their own words and they want nothing of the sort

 

[pmukherjee]

Formally, we have refrained from action (veto). But inaction is also action.

Here's an example:
Soviet Union made ​​the mistake of entering troops in Afghanistan. 10 years of war and the losses began to pay for the mistake.
U.S. made ​​a mistake in supplying the Afghan rebels through Pakistan and sponsoring radical Islamic groups fighting against the Soviet Union. In fact, the U.S. created Alkaidu.

In the end, everyone got a reverse shock in proportion to their participation.

Yes, that is Karma. One reaps what one sows.

 

[Yeti]

Torture of the child martyr: 'Rebel', 13, shot, kneecapped and had genitals removed before being killed by Syria's sadistic regime



What is the price to a mother for her dead son? why she will cry in front of her dead sons body and lie? what mother would do such a thing


Hamza Ali al-Khateeb the child martyr tortured to death by Syria's sadistic regime | Mail Online

 

[Dron.ru]

But inaction is also action.

Absolute non-interference is not possible, because in this world, everything is interconnected. In addition, there are other principles (ideals). Often there is a conflict of ideals. Still have to take into account that different nations have different ideals. Therefore, there is no universal solutions and the leader of the country must be very wise and careful in finding the right solutions.

 

[fly2012]

Friend, the Libyan resolution which China and Russia abstained was one authorising the NATO to enforce a No Fly Zone. We also abstained that one and it was wrong, we should have opposed it and China being a permanent member should have vetoed it outright. Look at the destruction and suffering three months of war caused to Libya which was once a prosperous country.

This resolution was simply a censure or admonition to Assad. I have a friend in Syria. She has lost two brothers within a month. One was a primary school teacher, newly appointed and the other was an intern at a hospital. None of them were terrorists, just ordinary citizens. Killed in cold blood. They were planning to run away to Turkey but did not survive. India would never support an invasion of Syria. But Assad has to be stopped and made to step down. In fact China and Russia should use their special relationship with Syria and Iran to kick this guy out and not encourage him to cause further mayhem.

My point is that NATO will violate the motion eventually, just as what they did in Libya. There're tons of execuses you can use to move fire power in once this motion had passed.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn Assad myself, I just don't believe foreign intervention can make things better other than neighboring countries providing asylums. I do agree with you that Russia should use their influence to stop this mess. But in reality supporting favorite dictators is always the best interest of major powers. This applies to Russia, this applies to China and this applies to US as well as what we have seen. And that's the exact reason I don't believe foreign intervention. If the motion is to put a sanction on weapon export to Syria, I am all for it.

 

[Yeti]

The Russian foreign minister has spoken in defense of Russian arm sales to Syria, saying they did not affect the regional balance of power.

Russia, which counts Syria as a major weapons client, has made clear that it will not accept an arms embargo or economic sanctions.




Russia will continue it's arms sales to Syria it is putting it's own interest first even if Assad carry's on with the bloodbath.

 

[Yeti]

(e) allow full and unhindered access and movement for all relevant League of Arab States' institutions and Arab and international media in all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor the incidents taking place; and

(f) allow full and unhindered access to the League of Arab States' observer mission;




The Assad regime will not allow this as it will highlight the media show for the uprising

 

[iajj]

If you have read the text of the resolution, you would understand that in no way the UNSC resolution would endanger Russia's interests in Syria. Oh, BTW, the resolution was framed on the basis of the recommendations of the League of Arab States.

indians have adopted their shiny new american daddy for merely a few years and they already got the american disease? they are telling russians what their interests are?

in fact, since russians and chinese have sat on the council table longer than indians and arab leaguers and have played the game of geopolitics for a lot longer, the indians and arabs should look to russia and china and ask them to define on their behalves what indian and arab interests are.

 

[fallstuff]

Amazingly after all that sh*t that went downhill same folks are getting all worked up.

In Libya there was this fake story of Libyan Air Force attacking, in Iran the BS of the Nada, now we got some tortured kid. Anybody catching the drift here ?

Arab League mission was hastily cancelled anybody wonder why ?

 

[iajj]

My point is that NATO will violate the motion eventually, just as what they did in Libya. There're tons of execuses you can use to move fire power in once this motion had passed.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn Assad myself, I just don't believe foreign intervention can make things better other than neighboring countries providing asylums. I do agree with you that Russia should use their influence to stop this mess. But in reality supporting favorite dictators is always the best interest of major powers. This applies to Russia, this applies to China and this applies to US as well as what we have seen. And that's the exact reason I don't believe foreign intervention. If the motion is to put a sanction on weapon export to Syria, I am all for it.

completely agree - assad has shown himself to be quite a bastard. but anglo-americans cannot be trusted with any language that remotely hints at armed intervention - and i don't just mean they cannot be trusted by russians and chinese (who, after all, would suffer little if they wrongfully placed their trust in anglo-saxons like they did in the libyan case), but by syrians and arabs most important of all because the arabs stand to be screwed the hardest if they invite americans to rewrite arab history

 

[gubbi]

the indians and arabs should look to russia and china and ask them to define on their behalves what indian and arab interests are.

ROFL. A Chinese telling us to look up to their policies. Pray what be your "moral" or "world vision" policies apart from having an insatiable appetite for other countries' natural resources to feed your own manufacturing industries? Human rights are a non-issue to the Chinese. You guys are a joke in UNSC. Or let me rephrase, UNSC is a joke because of China's policies and its vetoes.

 

[pmukherjee]

My point is that NATO will violate the motion eventually, just as what they did in Libya. There're tons of execuses you can use to move fire power in once this motion had passed.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn Assad myself, I just don't believe foreign intervention can make things better other than neighboring countries providing asylums. I do agree with you that Russia should use their influence to stop this mess. But in reality supporting favorite dictators is always the best interest of major powers. This applies to Russia, this applies to China and this applies to US as well as what we have seen. And that's the exact reason I don't believe foreign intervention. If the motion is to put a sanction on weapon export to Syria, I am all for it.

We don't think very differently after all. My feelings exactly.

No way can the west get a UNSC sanction for an invasion of either Syria or Iran. That is simply out of question. Yes they may do it unilaterally outside the UN under the NATO and for that I believe that Russia should arm Syria, its ally. As otherwise, Syria too will be soon vanish under a rubble of destruction like Libya. The other major power in the area, Turkey should oppose the involvement of NATO in Syria as it is also a member of NATO.

Hey buddy, gotta to peel off now. Way past my bed time. Thanks for the meaningful discussion.

 

[iajj]

Why? Doesn't China have a mind of its own? Why does it always have to support Russia? And this is not a tug of war that two will pull the rope better than one. One veto is enough.

What relations with Iran? This is Syria and not Iran. Iran may be supporting the Assad regime but how does supporting Assad in the killing of Syrian civilians equal supporting Iran?

russia acted out of its defense of arabs; china acted out of its moral objection to americans' planned slaughter of arabs. we just happened to converge on the veto.