Russia "is ready to promote" a security agreement between Gulf countries and the U.N. Security Counc - Polidicks

[QUOTE](CNN) -- Syrian towns and cities were under fresh attack Monday as the United Nations prepared to vote on a resolution strongly condemning human rights violations by Syrian authorities. The vote by the U.N. General Assembly would be non-binding but would be the strongest statement yet on the violence, which has dramatically worsened since the popular uprising against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad began 11 months ago. After a pause in fighting in the southern city of Zabadani broke down Sunday night, Syrian troops made door-to-door raids and took people away and shelling began, according to an activist with detailed knowledge of the situation. There had been dialogue between the Syrian troops and the rebel Free Syrian Army in the city, but the pause lasted not much more than a day. A military convoy of 45 tanks, armored personnel carriers, and military trucks rolled through another town in the northwest province of Idlib, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human rights, an opposition activist group. Four people in the city of Idlib were wounded by gunfire from Syrian security forces, the group said. And in the city of Homs -- which has endured nine days of heavy attacks by Syrian forces, according to residents -- two civilians were killed by shelling in the hard-hit neighborhood of Baba Amr, the group said. Three soldiers were killed elsewhere in Homs province after a failed attempt by the army to storm a town, the Observatory said. Members of the U.N. General Assembly were expected to consider a three-page draft resolution Monday brought forth by Saudi Arabia that would "strongly condemn" Syrian human rights violations. It cites "the use of force against civilians, arbitrary executions, killing and persecution of protesters, human rights defenders and journalists, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, interference with access to medical treatment, torture, sexual violence and ill-treatment, including against children." [B] The text was provided to CNN by a diplomatic source on the condition that it not be posted in full because it could be amended. Russia, which has vetoed previous U.N. attempts to denounce Syria over the violence, indicated a possible shift in its position Monday. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said his country is ready to promote dialogue and a "regional security agreement" between Gulf countries and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. It remained unclear, however, whether Lavrov's statement meant Russia would support Monday's resolution.[/B] Lavrov made his remarks after meeting with the United Arab Emirates' foreign minister, who attended a Sunday's Arab League meeting in Cairo. The Arab League called for a joint peacekeeping mission with the United Nations and urged member states to provide political and financial support the Syrian opposition, and also cut ties with Damascus. Such a mission would oversee the aftermath of a cease-fire, the Cairo-based Arab League announced Sunday. The Syrian government quickly shot down the Arab League's efforts, saying any decision made without it "is not binding." More than 680 people died last week in Syria, most of whom were killed in Homs, according to the Local Coordination Committees of Syria, a network of opposition activists. CNN cannot independently confirm details of the events in Syria because the government has severely limited the access of international journalists. But despite denials by the Syrian regime, virtually all reports from within the country indicate al-Assad's forces are slaughtering protesters and other civilians en masse. The destruction by al-Assad forces has also yielded a humanitarian crisis. Residents in Homs report scarce or nonexistent access to food, water and electricity. Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers distributed food, blankets and other supplies to Homs and refugees in the city of Bhudan over the weekend thanks to a four-hour cease-fire, the ICRC said. The besieged Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs proved too dangerous for aid workers to enter, however. The agency said it will try Tuesday to deliver supplies to other areas. U.N. officials estimate at least 6,000 people have died since protests seeking al-Assad's ouster began nearly a year ago. The LCC says the toll has far exceeded 7,000. The Syrian regime has insisted "armed terrorist groups" are responsible for the violence.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3[/url]

Do it Russia.

Russia, please veto this resolution. I kind of want to see Assad shot.

[QUOTE=Bittorrent;34679342]Russia, please veto this resolution. I kind of want to see Assad shot.[/QUOTE] What good would that do Would be better to arrest him and take him to court

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34680083]All Russia and China are trying to do is to keep Western intervention in the middle east to the minimum.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sure

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34680083]All Russia and China are trying to do is to keep Western intervention in the middle east to the minimum. You guys cant just go around invading any country you'd like simply because it's having a revolt - even if public support is high.[/QUOTE]Well, considering all they did with Libya was provide primarily anti-aircraft support and protection of civilian centers as outlined by the U.N. Resolution, and there is a major call for intervention from the Syrian resistance and the Arab League. Furthermore, Russia and China don't actually care about keeping Western intervention to a minimum. They carry out arms sales with the Syrian government, which is why they do not want anyone intervening because it could quite heavily impact those sales.

There definitely needs to be some sort of international legal mechanism for determining when a government has lost legitimacy I'm tired of hearing this "THINK OF THE SOVEREIGNTY!!!" bullshit when a government has murdered thousands of its own citizens [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] Then again, Assad's government was never legitimate in the first place, but you know what I mean

I don't think that this could even be considered a US/NATO-only intervention anymore, The Arab Leauge is calling for the biggest shots as of right now.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34680570]I find it amusing how you guys question the motive of Russia and China from the get go and at the same time assume that NATO countries have absolutely no hidden motives whatsoever, and that the intervention in Libya was solely based upon good will. You should always apply the same amount of skepticism for both sides here.[/QUOTE] You are doing exactly the same for Russia and China

My opinion? A government loses it's right to rule the moment it makes the decision to blatantly open fire on it's citizens. Sovereignty went out the fucking window as an issue the second Assad decided it was okay to bombard his own people.

[QUOTE=Maximum Mod;34680114]What good would that do Would be better to arrest him and take him to court[/QUOTE] Do you really think Assad would just hand himself over?

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34680570]You should always apply the same amount of skepticism for both sides here.[/QUOTE] No, you should apply an amount of skepticism as warranted by the situation, not assume for every "side" in an argument there's equal amounts of legitimacy. Have you got an equally compelling reason to be skeptical of western intervention as the arms deals are for Russia wanting to prevent it? [QUOTE=Marbalo;34680570]yeah lets just ignore international law and do whatever the west feels is 'right'.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously implying preventing the slaughter of civilians is morally questionable, or that there's another way to do it without applying military force? Because if it's the former, I want to know how many times you were dropped as a child, and if it's the latter, what exactly you think the alternatives are.

If his account didn't date back to last year, I'd just assume Marbalo was another Yaika account.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34682692]Further Western dominance and influence in the region? Seems like a valid enough reason to me. Call my cynical, but I doubt Europe would spend several dozen million and probably more to support the rebels and get nothing in return.[/QUOTE] Then you've just reasoned that all intervention is bad intervention by virtue of the fact that it will always, in some form or another, benefit the intervening party. Try not to argue from a point that shoots itself in the foot via reductio ad absurdum. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34682692]Preventing slaughter of civilians? Well gee whiz how about asking yourself why the dictators were in a position to slaughter civilians in the first place. Hint: mostly supplied and supported by the West when it was deemed comfortable. Furthermore, if you guys are so incredibly hellbent on protecting civilians, why do you only do it in countries where your military is least likely to be in danger? Read: 3rd world nations with a severely outdated, underfunded and outsized military and extremely unstable regimes - basically, nations that are easy to bully around and dictate your own rules to?[/QUOTE] There being [I]better[/I] places to take action do not make taking action [I]wrong.[/I]

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34680690]Simply to balance out the argument since everyone tends to assume Russia and China are the corrupt and evil while NATO is the holy savior of Middle Eastern protesters.[/QUOTE] NATO helped a country getting it's civilians slaughtered and tried to help another. Russia and China prevented it. Gee, I wonder why people think that. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;34682692]Further Western dominance and influence in the region? Seems like a valid enough reason to me. Call my cynical, but I doubt Europe would spend several dozen million and probably more to support the rebels and get nothing in return[/QUOTE] They got an allied country in return, which means a lot in terms of trading.

Regardless of intentions, the West [I]did[/I] stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. Regardless of whether they once put these kinds of nutjobs in power, they have now proven willing, or at least not completely opposed to the idea of getting rid of them. Somehow I doubt whatever other motives the West has for Syria is anywhere near as bad as Assad's regime. I don't trust any government to operate outside their own interests, but we shouldn't expect only pure-hearted moral crusaders to take down these regimes; there aren't any, especially in positions that have the necessary power. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Essentially, we have to pick between the lesser of 2 evils.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34681482]Do you really think Assad would just hand himself over?[/QUOTE] Thousands of angry civilians torching your house would be quite persuasive. Problem is, it's probably surrounded by tanks and soldiers right now. Enter JDAM.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34684519]Nice strawman. Ive never outright said it's wrong, I stated that it was fairly odd that the US does not take action where help is a tad bit harder to bring, thus implying that it operates within its own interests, rather than the interests of the rebels and civilians.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying you're 100% wrong here, but I think a large part of the reason the US isn't willing to take further action in countries with a strong Islamic population is because of the clusterfucks that Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;34684218]NATO helped a country getting it's civilians slaughtered and tried to help another. Russia and China prevented it. Gee, I wonder why people think that. [/QUOTE] Yea, because FUCK them. I don't believe a fuck if any politician ever says that he cares about people, let alone that he cares about the people of foreign country that's so far away from their homeland. I don't really know what interest western countries have there, political stability in the region (Saudi Arabia and every other oil country are scared shitless of wars near and around them) I guess. What Russia wants I know for sure - MONEY, that damn Assad owes us a lot and he isn't going anywhere before he pays (Gadaffi won't pay now, that's for sure, lots of money wasted). Untill then he can crucify and eat his people, it doesn't touch our politicans even slightly. China, probably, wants the same. [b]Edit:[/b] However I think our politicans have some other problems now. Like, preventing a revolution in their own country, for example. Small problem indeed, but still.

[QUOTE=Maximum Mod;34680114]What good would that do Would be better to arrest him and take him to court[/QUOTE] Like we arrested Gaddaffi, right? The US is just destabilizing the region and any dictators that don't conform to it's demands. I bet this has been going on for much longer than the media has had it's eye on it for.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;34684631]Regardless of intentions, the West [I]did[/I] stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. Regardless of whether they once put these kinds of nutjobs in power, they have now proven willing, or at least not completely opposed to the idea of getting rid of them. Somehow I doubt whatever other motives the West has for Syria is anywhere near as bad as Assad's regime. I don't trust any government to operate outside their own interests, but we shouldn't expect only pure-hearted moral crusaders to take down these regimes; there aren't any, especially in positions that have the necessary power. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Essentially, we have to pick between the lesser of 2 evils.[/QUOTE] I don't get it, why don't just leave them alone? They'll find the solution, one way or another. This really is internal problem of a given country. If a war breaks out or something - then yes, intrnational stability has to be secured, but why bother in any other situation? Some countries in central and southern Africa live so bad they've got to eat each other or die from nasty diseases (the last one goes for India too), and nobody cares, but yet Europe had to help bring Gadaffi (thanks mate, I wondered how his name is spelled) down. He's a motherfucking monster (I probably am too as I'm glad he faced his destiny), yes, but [b]why[/b] help them? They could do it by themselves at some point.

[QUOTE=gudman;34689711]I don't get it, why don't just leave them alone? They'll find the solution, one way or another. This really is internal problem of a given country. If a war breaks out or something - then yes, intrnational stability has to be secured, but why bother in any other situation? Some countries in central and southern Africa live so bad they've got to eat each other or die from nasty diseases (the last one goes for India too), and nobody cares, but yet Europe had to help bring Gadaffi (thanks mate, I wondered how his name is spelled) down. He's a motherfucking monster (I probably am too as I'm glad he faced his destiny), yes, but [b]why[/b] help them? They could do it by themselves at some point.[/QUOTE] Because resources. You think America gives a fuck about the people? Please, if the media wasn't reporting it, the people here (USA) wouldn't second guess that shit.

[QUOTE=Sickle;34689756]Because resources. You think America gives a fuck about the people? Please, if the media wasn't reporting it, the people here (USA) wouldn't second guess that shit.[/QUOTE] I don't think that any politician gives a fuck about any people (yeah, I'm cynical). But Gadaffi was selling oil, and a new 'government' is selling oil, nothing changed, at some point the price is going to even rise. I don't see any profit there.

[QUOTE=gudman;34689711]I don't get it, why don't just leave them alone? They'll find the solution, one way or another. This really is internal problem of a given country. If a war breaks out or something - then yes, intrnational stability has to be secured, but why bother in any other situation? Some countries in central and southern Africa live so bad they've got to eat each other or die from nasty diseases (the last one goes for India too), and nobody cares, but yet Europe had to help bring Gadaffi (thanks mate, I wondered how his name is spelled) down. He's a motherfucking monster (I probably am too as I'm glad he faced his destiny), yes, but [b]why[/b] help them? They could do it by themselves at some point.[/QUOTE]Because they specifically requested help from the international community, and it is better to assist and prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible rather than have in drag on for years, reduce the country to rubble, and quite plausibly see the uprising fail. Fact is, they were already trying, and it wasn't going well, so they called for help. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] It's basically the same thing as helping someone in a disaster affected area, like helping Japan or Haiti after their respective earthquakes. Could they do it on their own? Probably. But is the right thing to do to just let them fend for themselves when the rest of the world is more than capable of helping? Not by a long shot.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34690217]Because they specifically requested help from the international community, and it is better to assist and prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible rather than have in drag on for years, reduce the country to rubble, and quite plausibly see the uprising fail. Fact is, they were already trying, and it wasn't going well, so they called for help. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] It's basically the same thing as helping someone in a disaster affected area, like helping Japan or Haiti after their respective earthquakes. Could they do it on their own? Probably. But is the right thing to do to just let them fend for themselves when the rest of the world is more than capable of helping? Not by a long shot.[/QUOTE] Yeah, sure, drop medical supplies here and there. I may forgot something, but as far as I know assistance in a disaster does not include shooting, bombing or any other ways of killing people? Or even loosing your own men, who serve to protect [b]your[/b] country from military invasions?

[QUOTE=Bittorrent;34679342]Russia, please veto this resolution. I kind of want to see Assad shot.[/QUOTE] Wasn't this guy's main permad for saying the Syrian protesters deserved to be shot?

[QUOTE=gudman;34693602]Yeah, sure, drop medical supplies here and there. I may forgot something, but as far as I know assistance in a disaster does not include shooting, bombing or any other ways of killing people? Or even loosing your own men, who serve to protect [b]your[/b] country from military invasions?[/QUOTE]Well, in disaster relief, the problem isn't because people are trying to overthrow their oppressive government that is actively trying to kill them. And no, militaries are not designed for protecting their home country from invasion alone.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;34693860]Wasn't this guy's main permad for saying the Syrian protesters deserved to be shot?[/QUOTE] Most likely, he also said that Gaddafi was doing a good thing and that the west should have kept their nose out..

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34694942]Well, in disaster relief, the problem isn't because people are trying to overthrow their oppressive government that is actively trying to kill them. And no, militaries are not designed for protecting their home country from invasion alone.[/QUOTE] Defending the interests of their respective countries, yes. Conflict of interests. Russia wants money (arms dealing), and Europe wants money (save them at least, Saudi Arabia is quite concerned about the situation in the region, so oil prices can raise; also probability of arms dealing with new government). Nothing about people here. Just money.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You're just throwing out paranoid crap and hoping something sticks.