Russia 'to block' Syria vote at UN Security Council

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Aircraft? We can have a constant rotation of Fighter Wings such as we had in Afghanistan / Iraq. Considering (Obviously) PJs , FACs , UAV recon , and satellites are going to be all over the place? We can reach out and touch them at 50 or so miles on ground targets alone. Hell you have a 300-400 mile radar system on the carrier group (reliably)

It isnt that hard to annihilate ground forces / enemy aircraft with the technology available to America and NATO.

reply to post by SloAnPainful


russia might be able to stop a un action but it seems that the Arab legue might be doing an intervention of their own and i dont think russia wants to risk war with most of the middle east as that would let us "come to the middle easts aid" and kinda screw with russian war plans so unless russia is willing to state that they will nuke any one who tries to invade syria i dont think assad will last to much longer and if russia stands against the Arab legue that pushes the middle east futher into americas pocket and under their infuence more effectively so the un might do nothing but the legue might do what ever it wants(seems to be the saudi operating plan)

I cannot understand why after destroying Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, bringing to its citizens death and suffering, ruining country infrastructure and well being, all under bogus pretexts, there are still people who wish the same fate to Syrians and, eventually, to Iranians...

reply to post by ICanThink


i think some people have a problem with leaders shooting there people in the streets with machine guns and tanks but hey i could be wrong

and the tali ban did a pretty good job screwing up afganistan and the russians took it from a successfull muslim country to what it is today and our invasion is pretty much finishing what russia started afganistan has been screwed with for centuries the invaders always leave but they get knocked back 40 or so years each time

reply to post by ICanThink


That's a fair question.

I suppose some believe TPTB want the Syrian Government to Go one of two ways. Either the Egyptian model, where the people rise up and they are fairly quickly toppled and go or the NATO model of forcing them to Go.

Either way, they must Go.

reply to post by victor7

Millions of pounds worth of UN humanitarian aid for example landing in Sudan.The aid doesnt reach its target as a result 1,000;s die why? doesnt require a genius to work out where money goes.Nearly every famine or drought ridden country has a dubious at best government,so how can you blame the UN for killing 30,000 people.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by ICanThink

 

i think some people have a problem with leaders shooting there people in the streets with machine guns and tanks but hey i could be wrong

Oh yes, you are wrong, if you always stick to the official version of the events.

Originally posted by KilrathiLGand the tali ban did a pretty good job screwing up afganistan and the russians took it from a successfull muslim country to what it is today and our invasion is pretty much finishing what russia started afganistan has been screwed with for centuries the invaders always leave but they get knocked back 40 or so years each time

edit on 30-1-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)

The Russians were asked to come, instead Americans invaded the country for no good reason. Maybe to resume heroin production?

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


that's for you to figure out..............

reply to post by ICanThink


if by asked to come you mean by the puppet that russia put in power after they invaded afganistan from the border and in airliners then ok yeah i gues they were asked but if they were invited why did the afgani people resisit them as hard as they are resiting us ,i was lucky enough to be able to see about 200 slides from photos my mom took in the peace corps before the russian invasion and it used to be a beautifull country with good infrastructure and services and relitively(compared to now) good quality of life with a healthy economy but then i guess they invited the russians over to party and then it all went to hell in a handbasket?

and inregards to your first point well these places seem to have a good deal of youtube videos of rebels vs state and military forces(rember the street sweeper with the rpg who hit that apc?)so are you saying assad or gadaffi were not using military hardwear on there citizens (rebels if you pefer) or were every single one of these people fighting for freedom american plants or cia etc agents all sent in to cause chaos

2011-2012 seems to be the years of regime change (gadaffi,OBL,Mubarak,etc) so who knows if we will just stop at syria or what not it seems the be official policy use tanks and jets on your people no fly zones happen and you got a decent chance of loosing your place of power if you end up shooting your people with advanced military hardware and it ends up on youtube or in the news. so perhaps if these countries did not have such conditions that forced there despotic leaders to depoly military hardwear they would not be under the possiblity of invasion by their neighbors,even if russia vetoes un action that does not stop the arab legue from acting on their own for their own goals so by hook or by crook assads days seem numbered

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by milkyway12
A simple no fly zone where you cant bomb or fly aircraft , and the civilians are protected and let the civil war play out.

Honest question, how would this protect the civilians?

The only thing a no fly zone will do, as evidenced by the whole Libya farce, is provide air superiority to whatever nations that happen to be there to bomb Syria.

EDIT: Yup, see? this is the American view on what a "no fly zone" means:

milkyway12-
Aircraft? We can have a constant rotation of Fighter Wings such as we had in Afghanistan / Iraq. Considering (Obviously) PJs , FACs , UAV recon , and satellites are going to be all over the place? We can reach out and touch them at 50 or so miles on ground targets alone. Hell you have a 300-400 mile radar system on the carrier group (reliably)

It isnt that hard to annihilate ground forces / enemy aircraft with the technology available to America and NATO.

Funny how "no fly zone to protect civilians" equals "annihilate ground forces".

Wow i gotta say i just realised how much ATS forums have such a socialist bias just rename it ATS(RT News)

Many perceive the Arab Spring to be nothing more than local population who are tired of power abuse and tyranny rising up in the name of freedom and democracy. Well I am very sorry to disappoint those individuals - nothing is that simple, especially not in Middle East and not with US/NATO involvement. There is a lot more going on behind the revolts - not to say that the majority of participants are not genuine, but there is a bigger power play going on. Libya and Egypt got a pass, but there are stronger vested interests behind Syria and Iran. And it is not just China or Russia, although they do carry substantial weight.

Originally posted by milkyway12
First of all , if i was the Arab League. Id be wondering right about now why the hell Russia is so interested in Syria that would cause them to go against most of the Middle East as well as the West.

Here is a hint - the Arab League is not a happy go lucky allience of do-good friends who all agree with each other. A substantial portion of the Arab League is significantly concerned about the expansion of Arab Spring into their domain. They are playing a PR game with their stint against Syria, and buying more time. Major Arab League members are looking to tie down the Arab Spring in Syria, and make Syria out to be the big villain getting all of the global media attention. They favor balancing out the two conflicting sides in Syria, so that neither has a quick victory. But few in the Arab League are truly concerned about the wellbeing of Syria's population - their primary concern is themselves. Remember, none of the members are true democracies.

So to answer your question, Russia is not alienating anyone in the Arab League. In fact everyone in the Arab League expected this from Russia. Russia does its own thing, and they do theirs, without really getting in each other's way. As for Russia, its interests lay not just with Assad. They understand the agendas behind Arab Spring, and the vested interests of US and NATO in the outcomes. Russia has made it clear that the line has been drawn at which it will make a firm stand (mostly political not military at this point). It did not make a stand in Libya, instead waiting for more favorable conditions.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Why doesnt Russia offer to help secure a no fly zone and protect the oil exports (Which can be maintained to the world easily through other sources that have already offered to replace the syrian and iranian exports) instead of supporting a genocidal regime.

Why should Russia concern itself with oil exports from Middle East? It has little stake in them, and is itself a net exporter competing with OPEC. There are far better ways to allocate Russia's military resources.

As for "genocidal regime" - that term would be up for debate. Genocide of whom exactly? Did US engage in genocide when it fought against the Confederate South during the Civil War? Did UK engage in genocide in North Ireland? This matter is more complicated than simply writing it off as "genocide". By no means am I implying that the Syrian army is humane, but this is a convoluted conflict and from the outside we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Originally posted by milkyway12
A simple no fly zone where you cant bomb or fly aircraft , and the civilians are protected and let the civil war play out.

That would not protect the civilians. In densely populated areas ground forces can cause nearly as much destruction.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Of course we will provide some CAS , but hell. The guy in Syria has already proved he is radical and a threat to the middle east.

How is he a threat to Middle East, outside of Syria?

Originally posted by milkyway12
Russia has something more invested in Syria than we know about. 20 Billion dollars isnt worth a 500 billion dollar war. If it is a Limited War and not a Total War.

And you think US and Europe do not have something more invested in the Arab Spring and the forces behind it? Why would they be so vocal and concerned about it then?

See, if US or Europe were truly neutral, they would never bring the matter onto the front pages or push it so strongly in the UN - like Darfur and many African countries for instance. But here they definitely have a stake - a very large stake that they seem to be willing to bet the house on.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
That would be nigh on impossible to prosecute we're not dealing with a paper thin Libyan airforce,Syria has nearly a 1,000 aircraft in its airforce and they are not going to knock out all they're bases besides according to this BBC Report
www.bbc.co.uk...

Assad has lost control and his demise is inevitable if i was a betting man id put some good money on Assad making a major statement this week.I got a hunch there are some major players about to turn they're backs on Assad and join the rebel front.If you can read between the lines of politico rhetoric/statements i smell a seismic shift this week.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
if by asked to come you mean by the puppet that russia put in power after they invaded afganistan from the border

Wow, way to simplify history. If only it was as easy as that, we would all be qualified historians. Prior to the "puppet" you reference coming to power, Amin himself already had an important and complicated relationship with the Soviet Union, and the power play that lead to the war started long before his death and USSR's military interference.

And we all know that Reagan, the CIA (and their pet Osama), and Pakistan were just in it to help the poor Afghani civilians, right?

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
so perhaps if these countries did not have such conditions that forced there despotic leaders to depoly military hardwear they would not be under the possiblity of invasion by their neighbors

It worked for a great deal of other countries and regimes, that slaughtered the masses while the world couldn't care less. But those countries were not in Middle East, surrounded by precious petroleum and volatile extremist elements. That which is a blessing is also the curse of the Middle East.

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
even if russia vetoes un action that does not stop the arab legue from acting on their own for their own goals so by hook or by crook assads days seem numbered

Arab League taking action? A good laugh, thanks a bunch mate.

The Arab League needs all of the forces they can muster in the exact place where they are now - at home guarding the ruling regimes.

Originally posted by cuchullainuk777
Assad has lost control and his demise is inevitable if i was a betting man id put some good money on Assad making a major statement this week.

Whatever statement he makes, he is not going anywhere for now. He is assured of support by key elements on the outside, and unlike Gaddafi he has a solid exit strategy for himself and close loyalists. He needs to tread carefully though. Also, the opposition will not have an easy time if they do take power, because too many competing interests with too many guns will remain.

reply to post by KilrathiLG


Afgan is a bit off topic here, but I guess you heard how CIA helped OBL and Co fight soviets in the country.

I have learnt Libyan war very well, it was an eye opener for many.

Do not worry, you will install in Syria you puppet government eventually, and Iran will fall too, because there is no force on Earth that can oppose you now.

reply to post by maloy


There is a vague connection here between whats going on here and what happened in Iraq Saddams power base of Tikrit and the Al-Takriti clan and Assad and his Alawite people taking all the top military posts.They keep him in power and vice versa,They are already infiltrated ,but this is a strange one because Assad gots a retirement home waiting in Russia unlike Saddam who ened up down a 5hit hole.Because of this Russia basically dictate the destiny of how this whole thing pans out.

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


Well there is also the matter of Saddam going rogue on some of his closest supporters on the outside, and getting to confident in himself and thereby more reckless. Nobody was really willing to invest too much into him after the early 90's, which gradually deteriorated his power. Same goes for Gaddafi, nonwithstanding him making amends with the West in the end of his career. Assad did not make those mistakes and was more pragmatic, although that did not help him in the end as he had larger forces acting against him. At the very least his supporters continue to see him as being reliable. As long as he has a fighting force, he will keep at it.

reply to post by maloy

Its like an unfolding chess match so many permeatations :Turkey will regime change mean greater collusion for tackling Turkeys endless Kurd problem,Hizbullah what side of the fence do they sit on?will they have as much autonomy in a changed Syria?.Iran their only reall arab speaking ally and finally Russia USA's queen is chasing Russias King all over the board here because Syria more specifically Tartasus naval base is Russias base on the Med .Why do you think they want Assad in power at all costs if he killled a million Russia would veto UN but as i said earlier expect a statement /development because us/uk/europe have the whip hand in this game as it stands .I cant see a way out of this unless somebody seriously considers playing russian roulette with a doomsday bullet.

If US attacks Syria after Russian veto at the UN, then Russia will shut off the NATO supply route to troops in Afghanistan. 2/3rd of NATO supplies now go through this route. That alone will be enough to make the US rethink of its psychopathic adventures in the ME.