Russia defends weapons sales to Syria, says U.S. arming rebels - Polidicks

[quote] According to Hillary Clinton, a delivery of helicopter gunships is on its way from Russia to President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. If so, any prospect of a managed end to the bloodshed there is dwindling fast, and Russia will bear responsibility. Foreign military intervention will eventually come if diplomacy fails. The only questions will be when, what form that intervention will take and who will carry it out. In the meantime, many thousands more Syrians will likely die. Clinton, the U.S. secretary of state, did not reveal details of the alleged shipment and a Bloomberg News report, citing Russian officials, suggests the helicopters in question are part of a four-year-old contract to refurbish 20 Mi-24 gunships that Syria bought long ago. Whether these choppers are new or refurbished is irrelevant. At a time when the regime in Damascus has just started using combat helicopters to attack its domestic opponents, it’s troubling that Russia would be choosing to send more. Putin’s statement just a week ago, that his country wasn’t supplying any arms to Assad that could be used domestically, now appears breathtaking in its cynicism. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday in response to Clinton that Russia was only supplying air defense equipment against an external attack. We’re sorry, helicopter gunships don’t count. Bloomberg View was an early proponent of efforts by the U.S. administration and United Nations-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan to persuade Russia’s leadership to cooperate in effecting a Yemen-style transition in Syria. Under such an arrangement, Assad would leave power and those left behind would negotiate a political settlement. Russia would play a significant role in that process and its aftermath. We still believe this would be the best way to save lives in Syria and to ensure against contagion in a rolling sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that could destabilize the region. Talks snagged over Russia’s demand that Iran, Syria’s No. 1 backer, should be at the table. But if Russia’s response to such overtures is to resupply Assad with attack helicopters, the attempt is clearly doomed. Putin, it’s worth remembering, does not believe in popular uprisings, at home and abroad. He appears to be convinced that the Arab Spring was inspired, organized and manipulated by the West, to Russia’s strategic detriment. This view disregards the rights and choices of millions of individuals from Tunisia to Syria. It also, apparently, outweighs the reputational and diplomatic costs of aiding butchery in Syria. There are, of course, two sides to this conflict. The pace of fighting increased significantly in recent weeks, as anti- tank weapons -- purchased with money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- arrived in rebel hands. Those weapons quickly took a toll on a Syrian army that had been able to operate with near impunity. It’s hard to quibble with the right of rebel forces to fight back with the best weapons they can get. But the escalation involved has demonstrated some of the risks that have caused us to oppose arming the opposition. It is no coincidence that some of the worst atrocities of the conflict to date have taken place in step with this arms escalation. Nor is it a coincidence that the regime has, for the first time, deployed combat helicopters, as confirmed by Annan’s UN observers. That’s a logical, if lamentable, step for Syria’s military to take once its tanks have become vulnerable to attack. An article in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday traced a pattern of refugee accusations and movements on the ground that suggest the Syrian military is trying to clear safe, homogenous zones for Syria’s 10 percent Alawite minority along the coast, with a corridor to the capital, Damascus. Such planned ethnic cleansing is all too reminiscent of the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia, where about 100,000 people died in a country with less than a fifth of Syria’s population. Syria has not yet sunk so deep, but it could get there. The last best chance to arrest the fall comes next week in Mexico at the Group of 20 summit. There, President Barack Obama and others need to make the case to Putin that sending Assad more combat helicopters will guarantee not a Syrian government victory but a further arms escalation, probably in the form of shoulder-held anti-aircraft weapons sold to the rebels to shoot down gunships newly arrived from Russia. Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View columns, editorials and op-ed articles. Today’s highlights: The editors on measuring methane leaks; Caroline Baum on the Federal Reserve’s next move; Michael Kinsley on why you’re even poorer than you thought; William D. Cohan on Jamie Dimon’s day in Congress; Ezra Klein on Venture For America; Nicholas Polson on recognizing smart money; Amar Bhide and Christopher Papagianis on fixing money-market mutual funds; Jonathan Reiss on improving regional Fed boards. [/quote] [url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/13/uk-russia-syria-idUKBRE85C0OF20120613[/url] [url]http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/47801959/[/url]

We were rebels once, and they were too Rebels/freedomfighters [editline]13th June 2012[/editline] Also that means we are pre-revolutionary France. OH NO

Would love to see the UK goverment sanction a rebellion in thier own country. I'm sure they wouldn't be as enthusiastic if us Brits rose up against the bullshit going on right now.

Gotta love proxy wars.

Can't we all be friends? Russia can sell the military some weapons. The US can sell the rebels some weapons. Russia can sell the military some better weapons. The US can sell rebels some even better weapons.... Russia and the US get to have a fun proxy war using the lives of innocent people with affiliations to neither nation. [I]Everyone wins![/I] Well, everyone except for the Syrians. But what is the worst that could happen? :P

[QUOTE=GunFox;36317826]Can't we all be friends? Russia can sell the military some weapons. The US can sell the rebels some weapons. Russia can sell the military some better weapons. The US can sell rebels some even better weapons.... Russia and the US get to have a fun proxy war using the lives of innocent people with affiliations to neither nation. [I]Everyone wins![/I] Well, everyone except for the Syrians. But what is the worst that could happen? :P[/QUOTE]Suddenly, it turns out that the Syrian Conflict was nothing but a ruse, and all the weapons funneled into the area where there to arm a Middle Eastern super state! Then World War Three!

[QUOTE=GunFox;36317826]Can't we all be friends? Russia can sell the military some weapons. The US can sell the rebels some weapons. Russia can sell the military some better weapons. The US can sell rebels some even better weapons.... Russia and the US get to have a fun proxy war using the lives of innocent people with affiliations to neither nation. [I]Everyone wins![/I] Well, everyone except for the Syrians. But what is the worst that could happen? :P[/QUOTE] :P where are the rebels going to get the money to buy american equipment? america's shit is expensive. they'd be better off buying russian equipment that does the same thing at a cheaper price. :P :P

[QUOTE=Torfaldur;36317927]:P where are the rebels going to get the money to buy american equipment? america's shit is expensive. they'd be better off buying russian equipment that does the same thing at a cheaper price. :P :P[/QUOTE] Actually, they might not be giving them equipment, but they are giving them training in cyberwarfare according to this article. Oh, and it's completely free.\ Source: [url]http://world.time.com/2012/06/13/hillarys-little-startup-how-the-u-s-is-using-technology-to-aid-syrias-rebels/[/url] ... :P

Politicians of the world are all hypocrites, what else is new? Besides, one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist. Would the U.S or any other nation that had been backing the 'Arab Spring' uprisings be okay with an uprising against it's own government? Of course not, they would brand them terrorists. In the end all politicians / political entities care about is self interest, not about the people of these countries.

[QUOTE=Trainbike;36318187]Politicians of the world are all hypocrites, what else is new? Besides, one man's "freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist. Would the U.S or any other nation that had been backing the 'Arab Spring' uprisings be okay with an uprising against it's own government? Of course not, they would brand them terrorists.[/QUOTE] *sigh* Let me try to explain things as simply as possible: just because they're all governments/countries does no mean they're the same. The U.S. and Syria are two completely different countries, and (contrary to what OWS would want you to believe) the U.S. has been a lot more tolerant of protest than Syria. The situation and circumstances are different, not all governments are exactly alike.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36318300]*sigh* Let me try to explain things as simply as possible: just because they're all governments/countries does no mean they're the same. The U.S. and Syria are two completely different countries, and (contrary to what OWS would want you to believe) the U.S. has been a lot more tolerant of protest than Syria. The situation and circumstances are different, not all governments are exactly alike.[/QUOTE] alot more tolerant of protest yes, but niether countries have actually listened to or even met the demands of either protest movements. it isn't a good thing if a country's military spares protesters from slaughter, because it shouldn't be done in the first place lol [editline]Edited:[/editline] what does this have to do with the thread anyway. he was talking about how politicans are hypocrites at their core; which they are

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36318300]*sigh* Let me try to explain things as simply as possible: just because they're all governments/countries does no mean they're the same. The U.S. and Syria are two completely different countries, and (contrary to what OWS would want you to believe) the U.S. has been a lot more tolerant of protest than Syria. The situation and circumstances are different, not all governments are exactly alike.[/QUOTE] Okay now go learn how to read. Not once did I say all governments are the same, and I especially never said that "The U.S and Syria are the same country". I did however say that politicians are hypocrites, which they do tend to be and you're pretty ignorant if you think otherwise. Okay maybe saying they're "[I]all[/I]" hypocrites is a bit extreme I'll give you that, but that's not really the point. I don't even understand where OWS comes into this so you've completely lost me there. The closest thing to OWS I mentioned was that no government backing the Syrian rebels would be tolerant of a (hypothetical) uprising in their own country and would brand these (hypothetical) rebels terrorists much like many of the dictators they have opposed have done with rebels in their own countries, which is nowhere near the same thing as saying "The U.S. doesn't allow protests!".

[QUOTE=Trainbike;36318600]Okay now go learn how to read. Not once did I say all governments are the same, and I especially never said that "The U.S and Syria are the same country".[/QUOTE] You're missing my point: the two situations cannot be compared.

Cold War 2: Electric Boogaloo

[QUOTE=Bobie;36318595]alot more tolerant of protest yes, but niether countries have actually listened to or even met the demands of either protest movements. it isn't a good thing if a country's military spares protesters from slaughter, because it shouldn't be done in the first place lol [editline]Edited:[/editline] what does this have to do with the thread anyway. he was talking about how politicans are hypocrites at their core; which they are[/QUOTE] What's in the scope is not someone listening to the demands of any protesters regardless their goals and aims, but rather the freedom to protest and express one's opinion. The first one (listening to the demands - by that I mean taking seriously and adopting policies in favor) isn't always good, as many fringe groups protest too. What if some dumb free-market libertarian dumbshit group protested and asked for all the social programs to be deleted and reversed, because they believe that social programs are somehow evil because the government is somehow inherently evil? Should these crackpots be listened to as well? Should policies in favor of their goals and aspirations be adopted? No. If you mean literally listening - that is, listening to the arguments - then yes, arguments should be listened to. However, all the groups and individuals should be free to protest, assemble and express their opinions. Because that makes new ideas evolve, by new thesis and antithesis being constantly provided.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36318671]You're missing my point: the two situations cannot be compared.[/QUOTE] what about the us trying to install democracy and remove the taliban in the middle east? thats pretty comparable, only the US caused more civilian casualties [QUOTE=GenPol;36318785]What's in the scope is not someone listening to the demands of any protesters, but rather the freedom to protest and express one's opinion. The first one (listening to the demands) isn't always good, as many fringe groups protest too. What if some dumb free-market libertarian dumbshit group protested and asked for all the social reforms to be deleted and reversed, because they believe that social programs are somehow evil because the government is somehow inherently evil? Should these crackpots be listened to as well? Should the policy in favor of their goals and aspirations be adopted? No. However, all the groups and individuals should be free to protest, assemble and express their opinions. Because that makes new ideas evolve, by new thesis and antithesis being constantly provided.[/QUOTE] regardless, everyone should be listened to- facts should be weighted against eachother in their varying aspects of effecting society. i hate crackpot conservative ideals as much as anyone else on fp, but i would never ignore one if a conservative tried to debate or present his views to me, instead of outright ignoring people you should present your own views in the same way and come to a moral understanding from both sides of the argument

[QUOTE=GunFox;36317826]Can't we all be friends? Russia can sell the military some weapons. The US can sell the rebels some weapons. Russia can sell the military some better weapons. The US can sell rebels some even better weapons.... Russia and the US get to have a fun proxy war using the lives of innocent people with affiliations to neither nation. [I]Everyone wins![/I] Well, everyone except for the Syrians. But what is the worst that could happen? :P[/QUOTE] Israel.

[QUOTE=Bobie;36318788]what about the us trying to install democracy and remove the taliban in the middle east? thats pretty comparable, only the US caused more civilian casualties regardless, everyone should be listened to- facts should be weighted against eachother in their varying aspects of effecting society. i hate crackpot conservative ideals as much as anyone else on fp, but i would never ignore one if a conservative tried to debate or present his views to me, instead of outright ignoring people you should present your own views in the same way and come to a moral understanding from both sides of the argument[/QUOTE] By listening I mean taking seriously and adopting policies in favor. If by listening you mean literally listening, then sure, arguments should be listened to.

[QUOTE=Bobie;36318788]what about the us trying to install democracy and remove the taliban in the middle east? thats pretty comparable, only the US caused more civilian casualties [/QUOTE] And how exactly is that related/relevant/similar?

[QUOTE=GenPol;36318964]By listening I mean taking seriously and adopting policies in favor. If by listening you mean literally listening, then sure, arguments should be listened to.[/QUOTE] well, everyone should be taken seriously. your ideals are not perfect, nor are mine, nor does any human on this planet have the 'best' ideals. however, open mindedness acts as a gateway for understanding a great deal about your surroundings. the best solution governments have for their own countries, their people, their economies etc. is to simply [I]listen [/I][QUOTE=asteroidrules;36319000]And how exactly is that related/relevant/similar?[/QUOTE] the taliban believe themselves to be freedom fighters, rebels with a cause for their own religious faith and country. the US military acts to suppress them, with sheer military might that results in vast amounts of civilian casualties. the two are comparable, because i just compared them in a very comparable manner.

[QUOTE=Bobie;36319024]the taliban believe themselves to be freedom fighters, rebels with a cause for their own religious faith and country. the US military acts to suppress them, with sheer military might that results in vast amounts of civilian casualties. the two are comparable, because i just compared them in a very comparable manner.[/QUOTE] I suppose your manner could be called "comparable", although "blind" is a more accurate term. You're only proving my point: black/white differences here.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36319134]I suppose your manner could be called "comparable", although [b]"blind"[/b] is a more accurate term. You're only proving my point: black/white differences here.[/QUOTE] how so? please explain. since last year, there have been 16,000 civilian casualties in syria (caused by both rebels and the government), in 2011, 4,000 civilian deaths were caused as a direct result of the US military in afghanistan and pakistan. i could throw around statistics all day but it has nothing to do with my original point anyway lol

[QUOTE=Bobie;36319242]how so? please explain. since last year, there have been 16,000 civilian casualties in syria (caused by both rebels and the government), in 2011, 4,000 civilian deaths were caused as a direct result of the US military in afghanistan and pakistan. i could throw around statistics all day but it has nothing to do with my original point anyway lol[/QUOTE] exactly, what your saying is completely unrelated.