UN Syria resolution veto by Russia, China called a ‘travesty' | News | National Post

#1... With all the anti-Putin protests in Russia, no wonder they veto this kind of resolution.
#2... NO country should have a veto in the UN, kinda defeats the purpose of this type of organization.
#3... The resolution would not have changed anything in Syria, anyways.

1. The protests in Syria are more then a little stirred up by covert operations. They very much have a valid concern about this being from the outside, rather than inside.

2. The UN would never exist in the 1st place unless powerful nations of the time sign on and they won't sign off on anything unless there is an exit clause. The UN serves as an relief value for international tensions not as a world cop.

3. Isn't that what Hitler argued about the Armenians?

Overthrowing the Syrian regime may sound like a good idea but the civil war afterwards may be far more destabilizing. Russia has a naval base in Syria and they are not going to just let that go and if Syria falls, Iran will be picking up the pieces, not Turkey or the Syrian people. Israel will be even further isolated.

Depends. Syria is effectively Iran's only real ally in the entire region. If Assad falls then Iran becomes more isolated than they are already. I also doubt that anyone in Israel would be too worried if Assad was overthrown. Syria's going to be their eternal enemy regardless of who's in charge in Damascus.

I have mixed feelings about Syria. Yes, it's sad that the Syrians have to put up with a dictator. But it's also sad that the Arabs seem to be proving over and over that they are well suited to dictatorial rule.

Reluctantly, I will say that China and Russia are making a correct and calculatingly pragmatic call here.

The two travesties in the article:

1. Russia putting their financial interests ahead of human rights (this is SOP for China);

2. How the picture of Hilary Clinton in the article makes her look like Christopher Walken;

Damn, you're right.

I'm really not sure where I stand on this. Syrians themselves are pretty well evenly divided, which means the Civil war will really be bloody once it kicks into full gear. Chances are that Syria will be jumping from the frying pan into the fire if the rebels persevere. Because, as bad as things were for some under the Assad dynasty, they could become a lot worse for more people if some elements of the opposition get their way.

Let's look at some of the arab 'tyrants' who have been toppled in the past decade. More specifically let's look at the major ones, Hussein, Mubarak and Gaddafi. Under their rule, their nations became some of the most egalitarian, prosperous and educated societies in the Arab World. They invested heavily in schools, hospitals, job creation and infrastructure. Women's rights were protected(and enshrined in their constitutions), as were the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. During their tenures truly affluent and secular(by ME/Arab standards) societies developed. Religious extremists were vigorously supressed by the state(Siege of Aleppo(1980)and the Hama Incident(1982)) .

Some in-duh-viduals will make the assertion that it's up to them to choose the type of society they want, even if it's the wrong choice. That being said, do you stand by and watch people drive home intoxicated knowing they can hurt/maim/kill themselves and others?

The West has made some serious errors with the conflicts it has picked, and groups it has supported, starting with Kosovo and ending with Libya. We really need to mind our own business when it comes to Syria. Unlike Iran, which does fight a proxy war through Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria has minded its own business.... for the most part.....and before any Newsweek Historians bring up Lebanon, they would do well to do some actual reading on the region(from the French Mandate birthing Syria and Lebanon on) and the years of conflict following. They'll discover that they(Syria) became involved there as peace keepers at the behest of the Christians, who ran the country at the time(pre diaspora of the Christian Arabs from the Levant)and who were being threatened by an armed insurrection of militant Muslims. For a long time the Bekka Valley, which Syria occupied, was one of the safest places in Lebanon, a virtual sanctuary for refugees fleeing conflict in other parts of Lebanon.

I fail to see why we have to get involved in what is becoming a civil war in Syria. We (The Western world) would not give a rats arse if these people kill each other off if it were not for that demon fact that they have something we love: OIL! We will all show up in a massive show of force and force a Pax Americana upon them, stick around for a bit, declare victory and then bugger off. What happens next..Who knows, but the odds are these people will be right back into their civil war.

I tend to agree. In the Arab world (including Iran) almost every time people over throw a corrupt dictatorial government they put another one in its place rather than set a liberal democratic government.

Perhaps we should stay out the business of their politics. We do business with them and that is fine but what goes on politically inside their borders is something we don't understand.

We think that the world wants to live in a liberal constitutional democracy. It appears though that when the ME countries overthrow some tyrant they put some hard line theocratic regime in its place that suppresses what we consider important liberties more than the jerks before.

I thank God every day that I and my family ended up on this side of the Atlantic in North America.