Saudi Arabia calls on EU to arm Syrian rebels

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

"It's not that bad to have behind you the Russians, the Chinese and Iranians," Qadri Jamil, Syria's deputy prime minister for economic affairs, told The Financial Times. Read more: www.upi.com...



Those three countries are helping us politically, militarily -- and also economically." Read more: www.upi.com...


Yep money,guns, and despots!

Let freedom ring oh wait just Russia bullets,and missiles, paid for China,'airmailed' by Russia.
edit on 2-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Look

I'm advocating everybody stop supplying both sides You're the one who gets bent at that idea and apparently supports foreign intervention as long as it supports your side.

Right?


Come on man.



edit on 2-7-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So we should side with the rebels, yet when we do we are imperialists.


The sad thing about war is that even when you win, you end up losing so much.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


looks like the west is needing another win,


No one wins in War.



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
whats Russia really gunna do about it?





Russia is going to ARM whoever they can.



Lots of Money to be made on the backs of the infidels........who cares if they bleed red too.

Too bad no one will make the obvious point, cause its easier to blame the evil "West". Right?



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
So we should side with the rebels, yet when we do we are imperialists.


The sad thing about war is that even when you win, you end up losing so much.


Who is "we"? I am tired of all these middle eastern wars. Too much money being drained from the national budget that could be put to better use. And we are making new terrorists from the losing side. Some folks will have an axe to grind.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by beezzer
So we should side with the rebels, yet when we do we are imperialists.


The sad thing about war is that even when you win, you end up losing so much.


Who is "we"? I am tired of all these middle eastern wars. Too much money being drained from the national budget that could be put to better use. And we are making new terrorists from the losing side. Some folks will have an axe to grind.


"We" as in 'Murica!

I too, am sick and tired of the wars.



posted on Jul, 2 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Yes but one stands on the side of the law and the other doesn't. And of coarse there are winners in war
Many people are not aware that Russia and Syria have a mutual defence treaty..
See reference:
The treaty of amity and cooperation, containing 15 articles and signed between Syria and Russia on October 8,1980 just after Camp David Treaty that has been signed on March 26, 1979 is the highest level document which has been signed between Russia and Syria. According to the article 5 of said treaty the parties shall promptly contact each other.in case the peace and security of one of the parties has been threatened for the purpose of eliminating that threat and re-establish the peace. that treaty was a guarantee treaty for Syria. According to the secret protocol of the treaty Russia guaranteed to help Syria with all its power in case of an attack by Israel.
academia.edu...
edit on 2-7-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
Yes but one stands on the side of the law and the other doesn't.


There are many treaties in this World. Not all of them are beneficial, or helpful.
Take for instant Chinas with North Koreas.

Same goes for Laws.


Originally posted by all2human

And of coarse there are winners in war



Not the victims. NEVER the victims.

I would think the dead would say you are wrong.




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


But Russia and China are backing-up Syria militarily,politically and financially, many of the so called victims of war are the ones fighting for there beliefs, even seaking out a death in battle,so in theory most of the dead (in this case) would say I am right.
edit on 3-7-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by sonnny1
 


But Russia and China are backing-up Syria militarily,politically and financially, many of the so called victims of war are the ones fighting for there beliefs, even seaking out a death in battle,so most of the dead (in this case) would say I am right.


WRONG.

Example.


The ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have taken a tremendous toll on the people of those countries – resulting in the deaths of between at least 158,000 to 202,000 civilians. The decade long war in Afghanistan has continued to take lives with each passing year. As of February 2013, between 17,000 and 19,000 civilians have died as a result of the violence. The total number killed in Pakistan may be as high or higher than the toll in Afghanistan, with NGO estimates ranging widely between 18,000 and 49,000 recorded deaths. In Iraq, over 70 percent of those who died of direct war violence have been civilians. Iraq Body Count conservatively estimates that at least 134,000 civilians have been killed in direct violence due to war between the invasion and early March 2013. If trends continue, another 4,000 or so Iraqis can be expected to die in 2013 from continued violence. In addition to the direct consequences of violence represented by these numbers, thousands more Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis are falling victim to the dangers of a battered infrastructure and poor health conditions arising from wars. In the case of Iraq, excess deaths indirectly resulting from the war add several times the 134,000 civilians killed directly by violence.


killed-and-wounded

Honestly?

I really cant believe you can come to that conclusion. Do you know how many civilians Died in Russia, in WW2 compared to soldiers?

Innocent victims will always be the number one victim in War. Period.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I can accept probably not "most" but I do believe I have made my point, Russia IS honouring there defence treaty with Syria and many victims of this conflict are the ones asking for it ,of coarse civilian's are the true "victims"of war,i'll leave it at that
edit on 3-7-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by all2human


Russia IS honouring there defence treaty with Syria and many victims of this conflict are the ones asking for it ,i'll leave it at that.


Sure. For Now.

When Russia doesn't need Syria, things can change. Just remember the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact...........






posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Too bad no one will make the obvious point, cause its easier to blame the evil "West". Right?


The obvious point is that NATO has infiltrated many more countries than russia has after the collapse of the soviet union. Russia did all its conquering shortly after WW2 ended extending between eastern europe to central asia.

Russias imperialism ended when warsaw pact dissolved, BUT nato keeps at it. Russia is trying to keep whatever influence it has left in the middle east via syria and iran. They already lost libya. The middle east was and still is a cash cow for all the super powers including china.

Blame NATO more and warsaw pact less. Stating the truth is unbiased and unfortunately some will consider it "antiamerican" much like telling people that two planes cannot bring down three buildings in new york.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by sonnny1

Too bad no one will make the obvious point, cause its easier to blame the evil "West". Right?


The obvious point is that NATO has infiltrated many more countries than russia has after the collapse of the soviet union. Russia did all its conquering shortly after WW2 ended extending between eastern europe to central asia.

Russias imperialism ended when warsaw pact dissolved, BUT nato keeps at it. Russia is trying to keep whatever influence it has left in the middle east via syria and iran. They already lost libya. The middle east was and still is a cash cow for all the super powers including china.

Blame NATO more and warsaw pact less. Stating the truth is unbiased and unfortunately some will consider it "antiamerican" much like telling people that two planes cannot bring down three buildings in new york.


I think china is moving more towards Africa rather than the middle east. And my perspective changed after watching Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States. Russia was the reason WWII was won by the 'allies'. And you can see how American Politics ensued after creating more problems..





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join