Seige on Homs continues, Russians to protect their own interests?

Of course the Russians are trying to protect their own interests, just like everyone else. Please be aware that to the west it's about regime change, not protecting the people.

Sadly, I don't think the Kremlin cares that they, along with the Chinese, are responsible for every murder that happens post-UN veto.

China's defense of the UN veto:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/china-syria-veto-peoples-daily

Aye, you can't really fault their thinking.

yellowcarpet said:
The problem with China's argument is that whether we get involved or not there will be chaos in Syria, I can't honestly see a negotiated end to the conflict. And whether we get involved or not there will be huge massacres. But at least if resolution had been passed it might have just lead to some form of positive outcome, but I canj't see any positive future for Syria with the Assad's in charge.

Amen - for the sake of the Syrians, you have to get a new ruler.

Who are "the people"? You and I, as outsiders, have no way of knowing how popular Assad is. And if our governments think (or act as if) they know, they don't. Democracy is not a universal goal. And even if it is for the majority of Syrians, if outsiders establish a "democratic" government, it will have no legitimacy whatsoever. If there is to be a regime change, it should come from within.

400 dead in the last 6 days: http://www.france24.com/en/20120209-syria-human-rights-watch-activists-assad-protests-un-arab-league

Assad prepping for potential chemical war with his own people: http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-forces-mull-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-homs-opposition-says-1.411954

Issendorf said:
The people are the citizens in Syria.
The point I tried to make is that Syria's citizens do not make up a homogenous group.

Issendorf said:
but I do care when citizens are killed for expressing their disaproval of their government. (...) we can't just sit back and view the slaughter from afar.
Your country can't afford to take out all governments that oppress dissent.

yellowcarpet said:
The Iranians are helping the Syrian government, why shouldn't we help the opposition?
China's position, from the Guardian link: "Currently the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster."

Hopefully, probably not though.
As our last two wars are currently showing oh so well.

yellowcarpet said:
kkkoen said:
yellowcarpet said:
The Iranians are helping the Syrian government, why shouldn't we help the opposition?
China's position, from the Guardian link: "Currently the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster."
The way I see it is that it is already a disaster, and it will continue to get worse, so our involvement would only change the sort of disaster, hopefully with a more favourable outcome.
With the conflict with iran any involvement of United States in Syria may spark a war much more bigger than civil war.
The situation in syria is not that simple as nato's involvement in Libya uprising therefore only arming the rebels is the way to help Syria without causing any bigger wars than what we see today in Syria .

tbh, despite my previous posts I am not sure whether we should get involved in Syria, I understand that it is far more complex than Libya, it is just that I don't believe in outright rejection of anything to help the rebels. Anyway the US is going to bomb Iran anyway this year (maybe), so more likely involvement in Syria will just be a part of an attempt to get rid of Khameini and Assad in one go.
On Iran conflict,i think the answer is quite simple and effective its called BDS Iran and its already effecting the economics in Iran.also with the newest attacks on Israelis in Georgia,India and Thailand its showed that Iran is a third world country and leading nations (Israel and United States) should ignore her and keep boycotting her therefore there is no reason to attack her if Iran was behind this attacks .
even though Iran is a third world country there is no need to go war against Iran cause US citizens cannot afford another war and still maintaining Guantanamo Bay detention camp therefore US should not be involve directly against Syria if it sparks another war bigger than the civil war that is in Syria .

Israel knows well how to backup militant groups with ammunition and weapons therefore the only way to help the situation is Syria is backing and training the rebels against Assad.

yellowcarpet said:
RonJGold said:
Israel knows well how to backup militant groups with ammunition and weapons therefore the only way to help the situation is Syria is backing and training the rebels against Assad.

Israel backing Muslim Syrian rebels. Doesn't that sound a bit silly to you?
It's not the first time Israel done something silly like that .