Posted on 04/05/2012 5:30:32 AM PDT by nuconvert
Russia warned Western and Arab nations on Wednesday against arming opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying it would lead to years of bloodshed without helping the rebels to defeat government forces.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the "Friends of Syria" group of Western and Arab nations is undermining international envoy Kofi Annan's efforts to end more than a year of violence, and criticized countries that support arming the opposition.
"It is clear as day that even if the opposition is armed to the teeth, it will not defeat the Syrian army, and there will simply be slaughter and mutual destruction for long, long years," Interfax news agency quoted Lavrov as saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If the rebels are allah heads then by no means should they be armed.
Isn’t it very likely that whoever would replace Assad would be worse than him, putting Russia on the right side of this issue?
I mean, as a rule of thumb, if someone is taking the opposite position of that of the Obama administration, they are probably right.
Russia and China and N. Korea are the very agents arming Iran and Syria, and by way of affiliation, the terrorists of the world.
What is the point of giving voice to any “warning” they might issue?
So they arm the Shiites to balance out the Sunni-sponsored terrorists elsewhere. Big deal.
“to balance out”
I reject your assigned motive.
They arm to ensure chaos in the free world and maintain fertile ground for infiltrating Western culture.
The utterly corrupt mafia controlled Russian government should really focus on making the lives of their people better (average life expectancy for a male in Russia is 65 years) rather than playing world politics… The same thing goes for the Chinese government…
They also ensure chaos in the Arab world.
I’m with the Russians on this one.
Stay the hell out of Syria. Given what populates that hellhole, the alternative to Assad will NOT be an improvement.
The U.S. cravenly obeyed Russia on ratification of the last go-round on START... this is one warning they SHOULD heed.
Because as a matter of pragmatism, the Assad regime is the "best" available option. We don't need yet another Arab country falling into the clutches of the Muslim Brotherhood or any other al-Qaeda - affiliated group.
Who were the Libyan "rebels" and why did America have to help them (via NATO) depose Qadaffi? What's happening there now that Qadaffi's gone?
What's going on now in Egypt, after America encouraged the removal of Mubarak?
How much goodwill did Bill Clinton buy America (via NATO) in the Muslim world by ignoring Russia and bombing the Christian Serbs, our former WWII allies against the Nazis and Nazi-allied Muslims?
whoever provides arms will own the problem. if Arabs want to own the problem, fine, but we should not.
“best” available option”
Thank you for your opinion.
Hope you don’t mind that I disagree with supporting a regime that is killing the countries entire Christian community...
Sorry, if you don’t find that “pragmatic”.....
I'm not referring to supporting Assad. My contention is the idea of supporting the opposition is foolhardy, as was backing Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the islamists who now run the show in Libya.
Perhaps a better expression would've been "least worst."
Assad killing Christians? Last time I’ve check it was ‘freedom fighters’ who does.
Thanks nuconvert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.