Russia Condemns Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn Syrian Violence - Polidicks

[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62029000/jpg/_62029622_tank_reuters.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE=BBC]Moscow's UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin, told reporters the resolution was one-sided and gave blatant support to the armed opposition. The resolution criticises both the UN's own Security Council and the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Drafted by Saudi Arabia, it was passed by 133 votes to 12 with 31 abstentions. The assembly debated the resolution shortly after the resignation of UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan and the failure of his six-point peace plan. In Syria, government forces backed by tanks launched a new assault in Damascus while shelling continued in the country's largest city, Aleppo. The resolution condemning the Syrian government and calling for a political transition is not legally binding, but its Arab and Western sponsors see the overwhelming "Yes" vote as proof that they have world opinion behind them, despite the deadlock in the Security Council, which they harshly criticised. Even so, the massive majority came at a price: the text had to be watered down in an attempt to win over many states, dropping explicit calls for Bashar al-Assad to step down and for member states to support Arab League sanctions. And even though the opposition was small, it again included China and Russia. Moscow opposed the resolution as unbalanced, making clear that it believes the UN is taking one side in a civil war. So the General Assembly intervention will do nothing to bridge the fundamental divides in the Security Council, and may widen them. Activists say more than 20,000 people - mostly civilians - have died in 17 months of unrest. Russia voted "no" on Friday along with China, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Burma, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Among those states abstaining were India and Pakistan. Mr Churkin told the UN that the Saudi-drafted resolution concealed "blatant support for the armed opposition". He said his country regretted the resolution which "only aggravates confrontational approaches to the resolution of the Syrian crisis, doing nothing to facilitate dialogue between the parties". It was "written as if no armed opposition existed at all", he added. Mr Churkin pointed out that the resolution called on the UN envoy to work towards a transition to democracy in Syria, yet the envoy's task had been to arrange dialogue, not regime change. Russia and China have blocked three attempts in the UN Security Council to impose sanctions against Damascus. Syria's UN ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, suggested Saudi Arabia and fellow resolution sponsor Qatar were trying to act as both "a fireman and an arsonist at the same time". The resolution expresses "grave concern" at the escalation of violence in Syria and deplores "the failure of the Security Council to agree on measures to ensure the compliance of Syrian authorities with its decisions". It says it is up to the Syrian government to take the "first step in the cessation of violence". Susan Rice, the US envoy at the UN, welcomed the passing of the resolution. The UN General Assembly "sent a strong message today: the overwhelming majority of nations stand with the people of Syria", she wrote on Twitter. During the assembly's session, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the conflict in Syria had become a "proxy war" and called on powers to overcome their rivalries in an effort to end the violence. 'Explosions all day' Fighting raged in the Tadamon district of Damascus for a second day on Friday. Eyewitnesses and activists say government forces used dozens of tanks and armoured vehicles to attack what is seen as the rebels' last stronghold in the capital. Troops killed "several" rebels and wounded many more, Syrian state media reported. "The bombs are back, I have been hearing explosions all day," a resident of central Damascus told the Associated Press news agency, asking to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. Fighting has also continued in Aleppo, where government forces have been trying to reclaim areas seized by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the past two weeks. Hundreds of people gathered in the al-Shaar neighbourhood to chanting "The people want the execution of Bashar!" and "The people want freedom and peace", AFP news agency reporter at the scene reports. UN peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous told the Security Council that UN observers in Aleppo were seeing "a considerable build-up of military means, where we have reason to believe that the main battle is about to start".[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19121983[/url]

fuck off Russia

I personally Condemn Russia Condemnation of the Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn the Violence in Syria. The UN needs to be told that they're doing a bad job sometimes and its obvious Russia's Condemnation of the Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn the Violence in Syria is only done purely because they don't want the violence to end (so they can keep selling arms).

[QUOTE=Starpluck;37073659]Russia's Condemnation of the Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn the Violence in Syria is only done purely because they don't want the violence to end (so they can keep selling arms).[/QUOTE] That and Syria is one of Russia's few allies in the middle east. Keeping Assad in power is important to Russa from a strategic standpoint as well.

[I]"yeah well, russia, i condemn you MORE!" - UN[/I]

Is America, France, Great Britain, or China going next?

We here at the UN are currently working to address this problems, we have created an entirely new class of condemnation letters to combat this red scare. We are about to unveil the worlds first doublecondemnation letter.

I condemn the condemning of the UNs condemning of the UNs own ability to not condemn Syria enough.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to condemn even intervene want to do look more like?

Doesn't mean much coming Russia to be honest. This open and escalated conflict is a direct result of over a years worth of protest and then violent crackdown. When your country wants you booted out finally and the only way you try to maintain control is by instilling fear through violence massacring a village or two, or three...then I think it's fair to say that most should agree where any support should go. I understand why Russia maintains their support but it's like hanging onto a sinking ship here. There's no point in supporting Assad at this point. His days are numbered and everyone should know this since the international community has overwhelmingly in favor of the rebels and asking Assad to give it up already.

What?

[quote] Drafted by Saudi Arabia, it was passed by 133 votes to 12 with 31 abstentions.[/quote] You know shit's bad when Saudi Arabia criticizes you for human rights abuses

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;37073804]Doesn't mean much coming Russia to be honest. This open and escalated conflict is a direct result of over a years worth of protest and then violent crackdown. When your country wants you booted out finally and the only way you try to maintain control is by instilling fear through violence massacring a village or two, or three...then I think it's fair to say that most should agree where any support should go. I understand why Russia maintains their support but it's like hanging onto a sinking ship here. There's no point in supporting Assad at this point. His days are numbered and everyone should know this since the international community has overwhelmingly in favor of the rebels and asking Assad to give it up already.[/QUOTE] If anything by supporting the rebels they might have some influence over the new government over there, by still supporting Assad there's pretty much no chance of that happening anymore. At this point it's not a matter of if Assad will fall but when.

"Thats it Russia-house, you're on double-secret condemnation"

Russia(n politicians) can go fuck themselves. They actively contribute to the slaughter to sell arms and they don't even try to hide it. [quote]Russia voted "no" on Friday along with China, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Burma, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Among those states abstaining were India and Pakistan. [/quote] The new axis of evil

Syria should have voted yes for a laugh

Condemnation.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;37074020]Russia(n politicians) can go fuck themselves. They actively contribute to the slaughter to sell arms and they don't even try to hide it. The new axis of evil[/QUOTE] But China, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Burma, Zimbabwe and Venezuela are famous for their tireless efforts to improve the human rights of their citizens and those of people world wide! [i]How could they possibly be evil or wrong?![/i]

The UN condemned itself in a letter to itself for not condemning Syrian violence? Don't they have meetings or something?

It seems like all that ever happens is nations (and the UN) sending angry letters to one another. What's the point? It's not like anyone really gives a shit about a strongly worded letter. I suppose it's better than an actual conflict starting, but it's still just so pointless.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;37074020]The new axis of evil[/QUOTE] Weird that Lebanon didnt vote against it.

[QUOTE]Russia voted "no" on Friday along with China, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Burma, Zimbabwe and Venezuela[/QUOTE] Bastions of democracy.

That's a lot of condemning to be honest. I'd like to see someone get the balls to actually publicly tell someone here just how much they fucking suck.

I condemn the both sides for being stupid and being unwilling to sort their differences.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37075887]I condemn the both sides for being stupid and being unwilling to sort their differences.[/QUOTE] Russia's "difference" is getting thousands killed just because they want to maintain relations.

[quote]Moscow's UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin, told reporters the resolution was one-sided and gave blatant support to the armed opposition.[/quote] "Your resolution [I]unfairly[/I] supports the people who don't want to be massacred! Have you even thought about what the people who are doing the massacring want, you bigots?" It's best if you read that in a whiny, nasally voice.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;37075938]Russia's "difference" is getting thousands killed just because they want to maintain relations.[/QUOTE] Every super power is stupid and does anything to defend their own interests.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;37075938]Russia's "difference" is getting thousands killed just because they want to maintain relations.[/QUOTE] The USA would have(and have) done the [b]exact[/b] same thing if it served their interests. Russia is not worse than the USA, they just have different interests. The west wants to support the armed resistance only because it means the loss of one of Russia's allies.

I can't take the UN seriously anymore.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37076166]The USA would have(and have) done the [b]exact[/b] same thing if it served their interests. Russia is not worse than the USA, they just have different interests. The west wants to support the armed resistance only because it means the loss of one of Russia's allies.[/QUOTE]Like with Libya, right? Or no, was that just about oil in that one? Perhaps they want to support the resistance because the Syrian government is a tyrannical regime slaughtering thousands of innocents? What the U.S. might do or has done in the past is irrelevant at this time because what matters is what is happening right now. And right now, Russia and China are willfully and knowingly blocking support for the Syrian people, prolonging the conflict and resulting in many more innocent deaths.