Clinton says Russia is going to cause a civil war in Syria, as Rice raises possibility of action 'ou - Polidicks

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9303815/US-raises-prospect-of-intervention-in-Syria.html[/url] [quote=The Telegraph]Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, bluntly criticised Russia's continued backing for President Bashar al-Assad's regime yesterday. This support was illustrated last night by the disclosure that a Russian cargo ship carrying weapons had docked in Syria last Saturday, one day after the massacre in Houla which claimed at least 108 civilian lives. Addressing students in Denmark, Mrs Clinton urged Russia to use its influence on Mr Assad to curb the fighting. [b]"The Syrians are not going to listen to us. They will listen - maybe - to the Russians, so we have to keep pushing them," she said.[/b] Russian officials, added Mrs Clinton, "are telling me they don't want to see a civil war. I have been telling them their policy is going help to contribute to a civil war." Western governments believe that diplomatic cover afforded by the Kremlin has emboldened Mr Assad and encouraged him to resist pressure to negotiate a settlement of the conflict. Earlier, Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, said that Russia's veto-wielding membership of the Security Council would not necessarily prevent international action. If the violence worsened and the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, made no progress, some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN. [b]"Members of this Council and members of the international community are (then) left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council," said Ms Rice.[/b] Leaders of the Free Syrian Army, the rebel movement, issued a statement giving the regime until Friday (today) to obey the Annan plan, or they would formally abandon a ceasefire. But Mrs Clinton noted the obstacles to any Western military intervention, starting with the probable Russian and Chinese vetoes that would prevent any action from having UN support. "We're nowhere near putting together any type of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering," she said. "We have very strong opposition from Russia and China - but it's primarily from Russia - and that makes it harder to put together an international coalition." There are growing fears that Syria risks becoming a "failed state" comparable to Iraq during the worst days of its conflict, when different sects battled for power and militant Islamist groups allied to al-Qaeda also rose to the surface. Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, spelled out the dangers, saying: "The massacre of civilians of the sort seen last weekend could plunge Syria into a catastrophic civil war - a civil war from which the country would never recover." One day after the killings in Houla, a Russian cargo vessel, the Professor Katsman, landed in the Syrian port of Tartous carrying weapons for the regime. Russian arms sales to Mr Assad totalled about $1 billion last year and outstanding contracts are believed to be worth three or four times that total. The Syrian army relies on Russia for most of its tanks, armoured vehicles and heavy weapons. The UN has deployed 290 observers in the country to monitor a ceasefire called for by the Annan plan. But Mr Ban added: "Let me state plainly: the UN did not deploy in Syria just to bear witness to the slaughter of innocents. We are not there to play the role of passive observer to unspeakable atrocities." Some countries want more observers to be sent, noting that violence falls wherever they are deployed. However, there is a real risk of Syria's fighting spreading into neighbouring Lebanon. Hizbollah, the Shia extremist group based in south Lebanon, is believed to have brought weapons into the country from Syria, including medium range missiles. The arrival of these arms in Lebanon will raise tensions between Sunni and Shia, already inflamed by the crisis in Syria. In London, David Cameron convened a meeting of the National Security Council to discuss the situation. Britain will consider pushing for "further sanctions", but the possibility of military action was not on the table.[/quote]

Waiting for Marbalo's justification...

I guess a few thousand deaths is nothing for Russia

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36155393]I guess a few thousand deaths is nothing for Russia[/QUOTE] Colbert joked about this last night. "10 thousand deaths is just a mild winter in Russia!"

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36155413]Colbert joked about this last night. "10 thousand deaths is just a mild winter in Russia!"[/QUOTE] It's funny because it's true. The value of life in Russia is much lower than in the west.

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36155393]I guess a few thousand deaths is nothing for Russia[/QUOTE] Their casualties in WWII were double that of Germany. Not to mention the purges.

Russia's value of life is even shown in strategy games. Generally, their armies and units are much cheaper to recruit than Western ones, along with tending to die easier.

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;36156037]It's funny because it's true. The value of life in Russia is much lower than in the west.[/QUOTE] Yeah, maybe in the Soviet period. Those are outdated stereotypes and stupid anyway.

I wonder if Russia is hoping that if it can ship enough weapons in it will not result in a civil war but a massacre.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36156366]Russia's value of life is even shown in strategy games. Generally, their armies and units are much cheaper to recruit than Western ones, along with tending to die easier.[/QUOTE] Eh that's more of a trope of the Russian HURAAA Generally speaking before the collapse russian technology on keeping soldiers alive was fairly similar to western ones. Obviously theyr'e using some older stuff these days because of the economic collapse but by and large the military isn't that different. They're definitely a lot more brutal in how they aproach situations though. A good example is Beslan or those terrorists in the cinema.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36156366]Russia's value of life is even shown in strategy games. Generally, their armies and units are much cheaper to recruit than Western ones, along with tending to die easier.[/QUOTE] Sobotnik's investigative essay on the value of Russian life in the context of video games made by Western companies [I]Bibliography: Red Alert, Westwood[/I] Come to this thread, same time next week, to see the expository "Animes and their depictions of african americans".

[QUOTE=CheeseMan;36156409]Sobotnik's investigative essay on the value of Russian life in the context of video games made by Western companies [I]Bibliography: Red Alert, Westwood[/I] Come to this thread, same time next week, to see the expository "Animes and their depictions of african americans".[/QUOTE] Well it is kinda true when you look at the Tsarist and Soviet armies. In late Tsarist Russia, the railway system which supplied the army during WW1 was incapable of moving both the armies and supplies around to the point that the railway system broke down under the strain, and Russian soldiers went into battle without boots or guns. Although they had good manufacturing capabilities (Russia produced more shells in 1916 than Germany) their abilities to get the supplies to the troops needed was very poor.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36156366]Russia's value of life is even shown in strategy games. Generally, their armies and units are much cheaper to recruit than Western ones, along with tending to die easier.[/QUOTE] Russian value of life isn't lower. They just tend to have difficulties keeping their soldiers alive either through bad logistics or bad leadership. [editline]1st June 2012[/editline] I mean, numbers alone can't win a war. The Soviets didn't win their war against Germany simply because they had a higher number of soldiers(they didn't at the beginning).

I wonder what RT's take on this is like...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36157385]Russian value of life isn't lower. They just tend to have difficulties keeping their soldiers alive either through bad logistics or bad leadership.[/QUOTE] Certainly the local gentry and police of tsarist Russia had a low opinion of the peasantry. Very often the nobility would refer to the peasantry as "It" rather than as actual human beings. This was one of the points that soldiers in the Tsarist army complained about, in that their masters always referred to them as though they were animals that were easily expendable.

Maybe Russia doesn't want to throw its good relations with the current Syrian government down the toilet. You don't see Russia insisting that the USA should sacrifice its relations with Bahrain to help improve human rights. People are being killed, yes, but don't think that's the only reason US and the west is interested in getting involved in this. I'd imagine the US would love nothing more than to replace a pro-eastern dictator with a pro-western dictator, then with claiming credit for ending the bloodshed to earn some points with countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The fact is it's a very good excuse to force a regime change, and it's just the same old imperialist shit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see an end to the bloodshed, just not with intervention, especially US/UK intervention.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36157569]Certainly the local gentry and police of tsarist Russia had a low opinion of the peasantry. Very often the nobility would refer to the peasantry as "It" rather than as actual human beings. This was one of the points that soldiers in the Tsarist army complained about, in that their masters always referred to them as though they were animals that were easily expendable.[/QUOTE] I'm talking mostly about the Soviet Union since I'm not as well versed in Imperial Russia.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;36157663]Maybe Russia doesn't want to throw its good relations with the current Syrian government down the toilet. You don't see Russia insisting that the USA should sacrifice its relations with Bahrain to help improve human rights. People are being killed, yes, but don't think that's the only reason US and the west is interested in getting involved in this. I'd imagine the US would love nothing more than to replace a pro-eastern dictator with a pro-western dictator, then with claiming credit for ending the bloodshed to earn some points with countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] You honestly think the Syrian people are revolting against Al-Assad's dictatorship only to have another one put into place? They're taking action like Libya; hoping to abolish the dictatorship rule that has governed them for years in place of probably a more democratic ruling of the country (at least that's what we'd hope, right?). You have a very cynical outlook of the West's intentions. With all the killing that has been going on it's not justifiable for Russia's avid resistance (veto galore) against sanctions. If anything the Arab Spring has demonstrated a massive shift in the Middle East. It's like a form of modernization where people are trying to drop those archaic dictatorships for something more progressive.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36157769]You honestly think the Syrian people are revolting against Al-Assad's dictatorship only to have another one put into place? They're taking action like Libya; hoping to abolish the dictatorship rule that has governed them for years in place of probably a more democratic ruling of the country (at least that's what we'd hope, right?). You have a very cynical outlook of the West's intentions. With all the killing that has been going on it's not justifiable for Russia's avid resistance (veto galore) against sanctions.[/QUOTE] We still don't know how the Libyan Government is going to turn out. Violent revolutions have a tendency to end in authoritarian governments. Even the Libyan Government leans towards being Islamist. They don't necessarily want democracy, they want self-determination.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36157849]You have a very optimistic outlook on revolutions.[/QUOTE] Not revolutions in general, just this one. I recognize these people's potential as much as I do with the Libyan people. Only time will tell though.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36157569]Certainly the local gentry and police of tsarist Russia had a low opinion of the peasantry. Very often the nobility would refer to the peasantry as "It" rather than as actual human beings. This was one of the points that soldiers in the Tsarist army complained about, in that their masters always referred to them as though they were animals that were easily expendable.[/QUOTE] You sound like you're reciting shitty history coursework.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36157769]You honestly think the Syrian people are revolting against Al-Assad's dictatorship only to have another one put into place? They're taking action like Libya; hoping to abolish the dictatorship rule that has governed them for years in place of probably a more democratic ruling of the country (at least that's what we'd hope, right?). You have a very cynical outlook of the West's intentions. With all the killing that has been going on it's not justifiable for Russia's avid resistance (veto galore) against sanctions. If anything the Arab Spring has demonstrated a massive shift in the Middle East. It's like a form of modernization where people are trying to drop those archaic dictatorships for something more progressive.[/QUOTE] I have a very cynical outlook on diplomacy, especially diplomatic intentions - diplomatic agencies will say anything if it gets them what they want, and besides that people rarely make preparations go to war based on principles and good intentions alone. Don't forget I'm putting forward a very cynical view on Russia's intentions too; that they are perfectly happy to let thousands of people die if it means they don't have to press the reset button on their diplomatic efforts. Killing happens everywhere. If people hate their government enough, they'll effect their own change. Some people in Syria might be happy with Al-Assad in charge, maybe some people don't want the regime to change. It isn't our right to police the world, nor should we impose our beliefs on others. I hope Al-Assad gets what's coming to him for allowing or even ordering such massacres to take place, but if take the attitude that every country with a pro-democratic group is entitled to our military intervention we're no better than communists or fascists who are ready to align a new country to them for any excuse.

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;36157663]Maybe Russia doesn't want to throw its good relations with the current Syrian government down the toilet. You don't see Russia insisting that the USA should sacrifice its relations with Bahrain to help improve human rights. People are being killed, yes, but don't think that's the only reason US and the west is interested in getting involved in this. I'd imagine the US would love nothing more than to replace a pro-eastern dictator with a pro-western dictator, then with claiming credit for ending the bloodshed to earn some points with countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The fact is it's a very good excuse to force a regime change, and it's just the same old imperialist shit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see an end to the bloodshed, just not with intervention, especially US/UK intervention.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's a conspiracy against Russia and China to install a "pro-Western dictator"! Never mind the fact that over 10,000 have died under violent government crackdown. No, this situation is comparable to Bahrain somehow, right? Dude, look at Libya. Where is the "pro-Western dictator" there?

[QUOTE=erazor;36158279]You sound like you're reciting shitty history coursework.[/QUOTE] How? Russia's had a long history of being ruled by despots who had little regards for their people.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36157805]We still don't know how the Libyan Government is going to turn out. Violent revolutions have a tendency to end in authoritarian governments. Even the Libyan Government leans towards being Islamist. They don't necessarily want democracy, they want self-determination.[/QUOTE] I guess we should ignore the fact that the Libyan constitution outlaws Islanist government and that there is no evidence of a brutal dictatorship forming. You and Marbolo seem to be making things up about how most revolutions end up in more dictatorship and bloodshed when there is really no evidence for this except ancient historical examples that do not apply to this situation. Also, Marbolo: I was talking about your pending justification of Russia's repeated vetoes.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36159806]I guess we should ignore the fact that the Libyan constitution outlaws Islanist government and that there is no evidence of a brutal dictatorship forming. You and Marbolo seem to be making things up about how most revolutions end up in more dictatorship and bloodshed when there is really no evidence for this except ancient historical examples that do not apply to this situation. Also, Marbolo: I was talking about your pending justification of Russia's repeated vetoes.[/QUOTE] Well it is rather true that a revolution ends up with more or less the same government as before. Examples of which are the American, French, Russian, German, English. They had a revolution to overthrow the real or perceived oppression of them, and ended up with the same people in power as before.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36159853]Well it is rather true that a revolution ends up with more or less the same government as before. Examples of which are the American, French, Russian, German, English. They had a revolution to overthrow the real or perceived oppression of them, and ended up with the same people in power as before.[/QUOTE] American and Russian? Explain Also what 'German revolution' are you referring to?

[QUOTE=smurfy;36159961]American and Russian? Explain Also what 'German revolution' are you referring to?[/QUOTE] In the American one, it was basically some landowners who got themselves into power. Beforehand, it had been British landowners. In the Russian Revolution, you started with a despotic Tsar who held authority over all of Russia using a secret police, massive bureaucracy, prison camps in Siberia and state control of religion. After Lenin died, little much had changed from the days of the Tsars. And by German, I refer to how revolutions sprouted out through Germany in 1848, yet failed to achieve their original goals.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36159721]Yeah, it's a conspiracy against Russia and China to install a "pro-Western dictator"! Never mind the fact that over 10,000 have died under violent government crackdown. No, this situation is comparable to Bahrain somehow, right? Dude, look at Libya. Where is the "pro-Western dictator" there?[/QUOTE] Libya doesn't have a government yet, just a load of militia running around shooting at the national transitional council. We'll have to wait and see what happens there. Removing someone from government that doesn't like you is still a positive outcome, if you end up with a neutral government. The US government doesn't give a fuck about democracies or dictatorships, as long as the government of that country has good relations with them. It's the same for every government in the world. The US didn't give a fuck when Bahrain machine gunned protesters in the street, because if they damaged relations they'd lose their 5th Fleet base. It's all politics. Russia are backed against a wall here, and the US know they are. If the US want to intervene they can do it without the UN, it's not like they ever gave a fuck.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36159806]I guess we should ignore the fact that the Libyan constitution outlaws Islanist government and that there is no evidence of a brutal dictatorship forming. You and Marbolo seem to be making things up about how most revolutions end up in more dictatorship and bloodshed when there is really no evidence for this except ancient historical examples that do not apply to this situation. Also, Marbolo: I was talking about your pending justification of Russia's repeated vetoes.[/QUOTE] Islamist government is banned eh? [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_%28Libya%29"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Libya)[/URL] So if these guys get into power they won't be able to act? Also, the Libyan Constitutional Declaration is actually inherently Islamist. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_interim_Constitutional_Declaration[/URL] [quote]The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia"]Islamic Sharia[/URL] is its principal source of legislation[/quote]