Would you happen to have the name of a source? (I know you cannot post links for a while yet)
Syria just has better ‘Press’ coverage. The daily death toll is lower than Afghanistan, Nigeria, Mali, or Somalia, or Libya before Gaddafi fell. Glad to hear the UN observers got shot at -- it should happen more often to give them perspective. Now if the UN observers will just call the mission and Kofi’s negotiations a failure and pull out then Russia will lose some leverage and the Arab League might finally get off the fence.
Russia’s primary access to the Mediterranean is through the Dardanelles from the Black Sea base at Sevastopol and Gibralter from the northern fleet base at Severomorsk. Tartus is just a forward supply base. The real reason for Russian support is that current regime in Syria is the only Russian client state left in the middle east, and without them Russia’s influence in the region will be nearly nonexistent.
Save bet, there are plans and forces in place in Turkey to deal with the WMD situation when it arises. It is in the interest of all parties.
OK, I take it you mean pick sides. On one side we have the murderous Assad regime we want to lose, and on the other we have the al-Qaeda allied religious fanatics that we don’t want to win, finally there is the 3rd side that we want to win, but, uhm …, doesn’t appear to exist. So who do you choose?
The rebels are not in the slightest way monolithic. You have several large coalitions, whose membership, leadership, and guiding philosophy can change on a daily basis. Then several hundred non-member small groups pushing tribal, clan, family, and criminal agendas, all of whom take occasional swipes at each other besides the Assad government . Finally there is the mess of tiny groups of people just trying to keep body, soul, and remaining family in the same approximate location, and stay as far away from all the other groups and the fighting as they can. And that does not include al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, or groups that are fighting on the governments side (at least at the moment). So which of them do you include?
What you described has also happened in Lebanon on a number of occasions and in the occupied territories. What makes Syria so different and why is the West suddenly so concerned? Syria is not the first place in the region where civilians have been killed on a large scale and the current civil war in Syria is not the first instance in recent history, where civilians have been slaughtered. In response to an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982, Assad leveled Hama and the West was largely silent as it was happy to see the Muslim Brotherhood, which was painted as yet another fundamentalist Muslim organisation, eradicated.
Your seasoning is too simplistic. There are other reasons, apart from Tartus, why Russia is taking such an assertive stand on Syria. One reason is that it has long watched the the West having its way in the Middle East, with disastrous results, and it is convinced, with justification, that all this interest in Syria and in getting rid of Assad, is not solely due to concerns about innocent Syrian civilians getting killed and human rights but is also due to geo-strategic reasons, that involve Western interests, which includes Iran. A huge part of the Western reaction towards Syria is targeted at Iran. Iran and Syria are the only 2 countries in the region that continue to resist U.S. and Israeli hegemony, getting rid of Assad would severely weaken Iran and in turn would also weaken Hezbollah.
It's quite ironic as to how AQ and the West have common goals in Syria, they both want to get rid of Assad but for totally different reasons. AQ has for the past few decades been constantly encouraging Arabs to overthrow their un-elected leaders, including former mates of the West such as Mubarak and Ben Ali. The chances however of AQ elements getting their hands on chemicals is slim as Syria's chemicals would be guarded by the most loyal of Alawite units. The biggest danger is not AQ getting its hands on Syria's chemical stockpiles but the long term effects of a Syrian civil war on the rest of an already unstable region!
The Obama administration has already admitted (off the record) to coordinating the supplying of weapons to the rebels by the Sunni nations (a legal nitpick if we ever heard one) in an effort to keep them out of the hands of al-Qaeda and associates or Hezbollah.
If Assad falls, Israel will be forced to deal with the Golan issue. Since 1967 it has avoided negotiations that would have led to the return of the Golan on the basis that such a move would endanger its security in that the Golan could be used as a springboard for a future attack by Syria or by 'terrorists'. Most recently, talks were held between both countries but stalled due to Israeli preconditions or demands that Syria renounce its support for Hezbollah and severe its relations with Iran. Syria in turn has refused to do both and has maintained the position that Israel's continued occupation f the Golan is against international law and contravenes UN Resolution 242, that calls for the return by Israel of land occupied in 1967. Israel has been largely silent on the problem in Syria but last week condemned the violence there and called for international involvement. If Assad is ousted and a new 'democratic' government takes power in Damascus and demands the immediate return of the Golan, on the basis that the Golan is a legitimate part of Syria that is occupied illegally by Israel in spite of a UN Resolution, that Assad is no longer in power and that the 'new' Syria has no other problems with Israel - will Israel comply?
That might be so, but you have to understand that NATO's patience is running out next to the already hammered reputation.
You've set forth some great arguments to act. However, we've been wound up more than once regarding getting involved in other countries problems, only to find that what has been reported as somewhat inaccurate. Of course Iraq comes to mind, but Libya was also started on some misinformation, and when the UN authorized a "no fly zone" and NATO turned that authorization into permission to engage Libyan military, it set Russia and China off, and we'll probably never get their authorization again, because of that.That might be so, but you have to understand that NATO's patience is running out next to the already hammered reputation.
Last time on the news the US slammed NATO for being way to tolerant in regards to Syria.
Questions like: How many more have to die before NATO steps in, How long will NATO sit back and watch this happen?
And imo for good reasons Syria is way past any regulations that would allow them to do what they are doing at this point and the increased violence is reaching a point where one could argue if this is bordering mass killings.
Now regardless what arguments Russia and China have to allow this fact remains that if things are not going to change fast that Syria will end up in a large scale civil war, which is in nones interest.
And honestly all the politics aside things have gone way to far in Syria and personally i believe that International politics have failed in a epic way.
The US cannot act, NATO cannot act, the Arab Community cannot act, Russia cannot act and China can't do zippo either...which is allowing people like assad to kill their civies..
Even the UN security council is increasingly obsolete, because nations argue to much about their interests and keeping each other at bay...but in the mean time thousands of people are victim.
And Imo this is so called blood on the hands of all those nations who have a seat in the UN Council..as they have the power to act..but the only thing they do is talk and watch.
So true, however media reports might have been one sided here, but military intelligence has now some credible facts gathered which do not lie.