Russia: Don't Turn Syria Into Another Iraq

[Purveyor]

Source: CBS NEWS

By DAVID MORGAN / CBS NEWS/ August 25, 2013, 2:11 PM

(CBS News) The Russian Foreign Ministry today drew a parallel between reports that Syrian government forces has used chemical weapons and claims by the administration of President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction - claims which lead to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a decade ago.

In a statement reported by Reuters, Moscow warned against assigning blame without a full investigation by U.N. inspectors of Wednesday's alleged toxic gas attack on the eastern suburbs of the Syrian capital. Moscow's warning came after a U.S. officials said the Obama administration has "very little doubt" the Assad regime in Syria is guilty of deadly chemical weapon use.

Russia also warned the U.S. against taking unilateral military actions toward the Assad regime.

"We once again decisively urge (the United States) not to repeat the mistakes of the past and not to allow actions that go against international law," the foreign ministry said.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600013/russia-dont-turn-syria-into-another-iraq/

[AzDar]

1. God, how embarrassing.

This once-great country has truly lost its way.

[AverageJoe90]

2. And yet, Putin is still arming Assad's forces anyhow.

If Putin was that truly concerned about international law, then Russia would *definitely* back off, and stop giving arms to Syria.....and yet, they have not made that critical move yet. Can you say, "flaming hypocrite", anyone?

[David__77]

3. Russia is not violating international law by doing so.

There are no sanctions against Syria. You can argue the morality of it, but not really the legality.

[Vic Vinegar]

4. no hypocrisy

No, Putin is trying to maintain the balance of power and maintain his DIPLOMATIC TIES, the US has no diplomatic ties to these states because the doctrine of the Bernard Lewis Plan or partition studies is their idea of how the Middle East should develop.

Since day one of the protests against Assad there has been violence coming from a third party from the gulf emirates and European NATO countries to stir up violence, for example Snipers firing at the crowd and army and then putting out propaganda that the snipers were from the army. So Assad due to natural law has the right to retaliate.

If Syria falls to these foreign pressures then Iran will follow and maybe Egypt that is not to be sacrificed for some stupid ideological utopianism. Anyway, Assad has put in place many of the reforms that legitimate democracy protestors had demanded, he is trying to work the his way out of the narrow constraints his father's regime put him in. Okay?

[AverageJoe90]

6. Regardless of the Gulf States' involvement.....

It doesn't change the fact that Putin remains a hypocrite.

Anyway, Assad has put in place many of the reforms that legitimate democracy protestors had demanded, he is trying to work the his way out of the narrow constraints his father's regime put him in. Okay?

I'm sorry, but I am calling serious bullshit on this. No offense meant to you, personally, but there is a LOT of bullshit that's been flying out there over the past few years.

[Vic Vinegar]

8. no offense taken

Assad isn't even close to the best and I certainly agree with that but he is nothing to risk the destruction of a nation state for.

[dipsydoodle]

5. And the US isn't arming the insurgents ?

02 Aug 2013

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'

Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.

The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.

The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out.

So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html

Note - source is CNN. Telegraph is simply re-reporting as the media does.

[Vic Vinegar]

10. good you mentioned Benghazi

Some of us knew about this on day one. The idea was that some Romney backers in the CIA gave a stand down order to ruin Obama's ratings before the election.

Anyway yes it is the whole of NATO that is taking place in this mostly the CIA, Britain, France and Turkey.

[Ghost Dog]

17. Welcome to DU.

[Cha]

12. Don't you get it?

Russia good/USA BAD!

It doesn't matter if Putin's being a hypocritical asshole.. he's the good guy here.

Poor putin.

[Celefin]

20. Please don't insult our 'sweetheart'

Oh please come off it.

The topic is international law - none of which is currently being broken by Russia delivering arms to their sanction-free ally Syria.
It's the US administration that is breaking international law by supplying the rebels with arms and training and -the astounding idiocy of it all, really- arming Al Quaida terrorists. They are also -again- openly calling for a coalition willing to break international law. We've seen THAT movie before, no?

Does that make Putin an Angel?
Nope, still an ex-KGB hypocritical asshole... but an ex-KGB hypocritical asshole that is acting within the bounds of international law on this issue. Which was kind of the topic.

[Cha]

21. Poor Putin.. he's only obeying the law.

[Celefin]

22. How about refuting the argument instead of a no-text must have last word?

Or show me where I said something that could be construed as 'poor Putin', for that matter.
Right now on this issue it's the US and not Russia breaking international law / calling for partners in breaking international law.
Hypocritical assholes and all that.

[Cha]

23. Snowden "broke the law".. some laws are good and

some are bad? USA bad/snowden good?

[Celefin]

24. So you can't refute the argument. Nice deflection, though.

If you'd rather discuss the USA's or Snowden's morality or lack thereof in the light of current legislation I suggest you find a thread on the topic.
Have a nice day.

[warrant46]

25. Why throw that guy in the mix ?

I just love discussions where someone interjects boat smoke ----Zimmerman tied to Syria next ?

[Scootaloo]

13. Well, Assad's government is the recognized govenrment of the nation of Syria

And Russia is allied with that government. Russia is violating no international laws.

On the other hand, if the US decided to fund and arm the insurgents, we'd be violating our own laws, to say nothing about international laws - we would be come a state sponsor of terrorism with that. Not that that's stopped us in the past of course, but just making the point.

So too if we decide to attack Syria, at least without international consensus (and not just Britain, Palau, Israel, and Micronesia). After our "adventures" in finishing off Iraq and Afghanistan, I rather doubt we're going to achieve such consensus.

[Daniel537]

15. "Russia is violating no international laws."

Yeah, that whole providing weapons to a dictator so he can murder his own citizens is just swell. I guess your also ok with Putin's anti-gay laws, after all, it doesn't violate any international laws?

[Scootaloo]

19. Nice try.

I guess your also ok with Putin's anti-gay laws, after all, it doesn't violate any international laws?

Nice flubber logic, there.

[go west young man]

7. The real scoop on Syria.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-130813.html It's about oil once again.

[Vic Vinegar]

9. meh

Oil is a incentive for some but you have to look at how it fits into the whole NATO action going on in the middle east; it's about dissolving Middle East nation states so we can fight China for minerals, oil and cheap labour while destroying the ability of Russia and the BRICS to create some huge infrastructure projects like the "Second Nile" or a BRICS oil pipeline

[go west young man]

14. Agreed.

The larger picture is about reigning in the giants that are gaining power over the EU and US.

Article excerpt in regards to Gazprom interest.

It's instructive to remember that in 2009, Damascus did not sign an agreement with Qatar for a pipeline via Syria; but they did sign the memorandum of understanding last year for the US$10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. So the point is for Damascus, the deal with Iran was much better; and if the pipeline is ever built Gazprom may even be part of it, in infrastructure and distribution. What Moscow has concluded is that Gazprom won't lose its energy grip over Europe to the benefit of Qatari natural gas. A case can be made that Gazprom holds more power over the distressed, decaying, virtually insolvent eurozone than the European Central Bank (ECB).

[russspeakeasy]

11. If it looks like a money maker, we're all in.

[Daniel537]

16. Putin's already helped turn that country into another Iraq.

The old KGB thug doesn't want to lose Tartus. He already got burned twice when he lost his buddies Saddam and Moammar.

[Vic Vinegar]

18. nihilist alert

I don't quite think you get that in underdeveloped countries its strong centralized economic nationalist government or massive poverty and starvation and free trade zones, etc. Pick one.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. When will we ever learn?

Neither Putin nor Assad represents a positive role model and there is little to commend either, except that Putin did at least slow the wholesale looting of the Russian Republic before he became enamored with unlimited power and its perks. But what do the rebels represent? More importantly, what do the majority of the Syrian people want? Political stability in their own country has got to rank pretty high for the latter, especially as they watch what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere under the so-called "Arab Spring."

The huge majority of Americans have no clue what is really going on in the ME - just as many have no clue what is going on in their own country, btw - but all too many of the clueless are only too willing to commit us all to another catastrophic venture in a battle that is not ours.

Juan Cole is one who tries to explain what is happening. But who in the US really wants to be informed? http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/bombing-unlikely-effective.html

One prescient paragraph from the link:

[Bill] Clinton compared what the US could do in Syria to Ronald Reagan’s effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. But that covert operation of giving billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry to Afghan jihadis was a huge catastrophe, contributing to the creation and rise of al-Qaeda and setting the background for the emergence of the Taliban. It surely would have been far preferable to let the Soviets try to build a socialist state in Afghanistan, as they tried in Uzbekistan. The whole thing would have fallen apart in 1991 anyway. (There is no truth to the notion that the Afghanistan war bled the Soviet Union or contributed to its collapse. Soviet military spending was flat in the 1980s). The Reagan jihad destabilized both Afghanistan and Pakistan and left us with a long term terrorism problem. We let the Soviets alone in Kazakhstan, and we never worry about today’s Kazakhstan.