FSU Politics/Current Events V

Its great that you still think nations of the world do things out of moral motivation. Every nation execpt the US that is.

 

Russian arms sales to Syria have never amounted to more than 10% of total Russian arms sales in any one year. Arms sales anyway today account for only a small fraction of Russia’s total trade. That Russia would put its relations with the United States, western Europe and the Arab Gulf states under strain because of fear of losing profits from its arms sales to Syria is absurd. Nor does Russia need to use Syria to assert itself as a Great Power because (notwithstanding what some people in the west want to think) it is one. As for the claim that the Russian government fears that the Russian people might become infected by a “democracy virus” if Assad were to fall, it betrays a fundamental failure to understand Russia on the part of those who make it. This claim is anyway refuted by the fact that the Russian government’s policy towards Syria is broadly supported within Russia even by the Russian government’s opponents. Even the so called “democratic” or “non system” opposition which is behind the recent street protests does not publicly criticise it, which is a sure sign that it enjoys popular support.

 

Have a read of this..
Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media
Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... propaganda

Funny image I remember seeing posted in March.

 

Syria is the last secular bastion in the middle east and on the other side, you have repressive Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood. The same time who are now in charge of Egypt, who are burning down churches and demanding Christians convert to Islam or be massacred.

I know that Syria, which once was the most liberal country in the middle east will become the most Islamic. I know that Syria where you would find a synagogue, mosque and church right next to each other will cease to exist.

 

Well firstly I am not Russian, I have been working in Russia for years now but no way do I associate myself as Russian. Although I do like working here. Secondly Bahrain has been actively killing peaceful protestors and not a peep from the media as they are backed by the United States and Saudi Arabia. The majority of the protestors in Syria were proven numerous times to be carrying weapons etc. Fact is they are trying to topple a person that had support from the majority of his people.

I can't believe the Western governments are actively supporting terrorists in destabilising another country, in displacing human lives and causing immense death - yet the majority of people in those Western countries either don't give two ********s or have bought into the lies. It's surreal.

They can't even use the excuse that those people are supporting the government because they're threatened, look at all the Syrian refugees in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere say they left because they were threatened or had family members killed by the 'free syrian army'.

Quite disgusting seeing the rebels attack Damascus hospital in a breach of Geneva Convention, executing doctors, patients and destroying medical equipment. Majority of media reports discussed it of course the BBC conveniently has made no mention.

 

The international laws of war do not apply to non-state actors.

 

I did not know it had achieved civil war status.

I thoroughly believe in many facets of the Laws of War (as I'm sure Zenit would as well).

HOWEVER, they are not in place to protect anything but rich folk's sensibilities. War is just that. You can dress it up however you want, its still one set of joes trying to kill the other set, usually for the interests of a very fortunate few.

 

Let's ask Israel whether they're happy about the Egypt regime change

 

This "Arab spring" confuses me greatly. On the hand, one should be happy of the political choices citizens of some arab nations are now allowed to make. On the other hand, one has got to be scared of the choice they WILL make.

Case in point - Egypt. They selected a Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Muslim Brotherhood has become more of a political force but they have had a long and storied terrorist past. A very anti-secular, anti-Israel and anti-West past. The winner has said that he wishes to keep all of the Egypt - Israel (and others, in general) treaties in force (and why wouldn't he, I am sure a lot of US aid is conditioned upon those treaties). My problem is with his voters - they do not care about US aid. They scream "down with Israel" in the streets and they bring a lot of pressure. And, unfortunately, there is no unified powerful liberal movement to press him from the left.

Were Israelis better off if Mubarrak stayed? Future can only tell. One thing is for sure, the fact that Egyptians (supposedly) have the right to choose their leaders may be a very small (if any) reward for Israel.

 

This is a very tough question. Sinn Fein has some rather transparent links to the Provisional IRA, but Muslim Brotherhood turning into Sinn Fein seems rather unlikely.

Israel is just an easy excuse for the flimsy despots of the muslim world, none of them will dare test Israel. Israel showed in the 6 Day War that they don't hold the combined firepower to test Israel.

 

One more should be in there: Syria: 22.5 mil, Bahrain: 1.2 mil

LOL

Also HDI:

Syria: 0.632
Bahrain: 0.802 (Higher than Russia LOL)

 

But would the 6 Day War be a better measure of the comparative strengths or the Yom-Kippur (1973) War? Yom-Kippur War showed an increase in arab military abilities. I am sure the comparison is far more interesting today. Enough for me (and Israel) to be at least a little worried.

the action in Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 2000, 2006 also showed the increase in arab military strength. Israel has enough reason to be grimly prepared.

 

I think nuclear weapons that Israel possesses are only a nuclear deterrent. Israel would never use them against a conventional opponent. I can not imagine Israel using nuclear weapons on Syria, for example. Too close to Israel itself.

 

I would say the comparison is much closer today. Syria, having lost the USSR to inflate its military, is in worse shape, but Egypt has made marked improvements.

If Israel could not establish air dominance, than Egypt would rip the IDF up in armored conflict, and could foster PLO uprising to bog the IDF down in urban areas.

 

If they did not already have nuclear weapons ready in '67, then they did by '73. If Israel were under true threat of total defeat in conventional conflict, I think they would.

 

But, I believe, Israel would have had many other options prior to that, not least of which is US military might.

 

And don't forget the other forces in the region, which, while non-state actors, would influence things greatly, such as Hezbollah or, possibly, even al Qaeda and other Saudi-related terrorist groups