Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Logic would dictate that the one conducting the violence in Syria is at fault.

The bigger question is where's the Arab League? I don't see them doing anything to help their neighbors. Typical.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Logic would dictate that the one conducting the violence in Syria is at fault.

And who is at fault for not stopping it? Not the Russians.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And who is at fault for not stopping it? Not the Russians.

Clearly the Russians. They sell arms to the Syrian government and have blocked all UN resolutions.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Sousuke

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Currently it's diplomatic dancing in Syria.

China and Russia have both vetoed the UN security council resolution not once but twice. They believe that not only should Assad's regime be called for a cease fire but also the opposition fighters. The original resolution did not include the balance of the opposition cease fire. The US is working on a third draft that includes the call for the opposition to stop as well and the condemnation of the Assad regime. However, for the Syrians it is past the point of diplomatic talk as opposition forces say over 10,000 Syrians have been slaughtered. UN conservative estimates are over 8,000 Syrian deaths in the past year. Because of this in the minds of Syrians the line is already crossed and they will fight until the Assad regime is gone or until they all die fighting.

The US doesn't want to arm the free Syrian army which is made up of mostly defectors of the Assad regime with 7 of his former Generals now in Turkey. Because the US is concerned about who they would be arming. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda have all spoken out about the brutality of the Assad regime and the US doesn't want to arm the people they're supposed to be fighting over there according to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. I mean they want to make sure who they would be arming and also they want to make sure they aren't doing this alone and that it's an international effort. NATO has already stated that it has no military interests in Syria.

The Arab league has been having meetings about potentially arming the Syrians. There have been reports that Saudi Arabia is or has sent arms to the Syrians. Saudi Arabia denies this. In addition to this in a diplomatic move to further isolate Syria four gulf States have closed their embassies there. Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates joined Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in closing their embassies in Damascus. Turkey has advised their citizens to leave the country by March 22nd and has not ruled out closing their embassy. Britain, the United States, France, Italy, Canada, The Netherlands have closed their Embassies there prior to that and many more so that I'm beginning to lose track.

In testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee it was learned that intelligence shows Russia and Iran supply weapons the Syria. The exact details of what and how would be disclosed in a closed meeting. And from the private emails obtained from Assad's account we learned that Iran is advising the Syrian leader on how to handle the uprising in his country. Russia in the meantime admits that they have sent military strategists to Syria but deny arming them or sending an army in. Then they changed their tune and said they sent in forces and weapons to support the Assad regime because they believe he is fighting terrorists. At the same time Russia and China both call for support for the humanitarian envoy into the country.

Refugees have been fleeing the country as violence spreads. It is at an estimated 200,000 in a year with the Red Cross projecting it will reach 500,000. If it does reach 500,000 Turkey is considering going into Syria to create a buffer zone from the Syrian army so that refugees will have safe passage.

The problem with arming the Syrians has been explained in that the tribal divisions of the country are so divided that they believe it will lead to catastrophic civil war among Christians, Sunnis, Alawites and Shiites.

To complicate matters worse reports are surfacing that Iran is sending in covert operations to meddle in Syrian affairs. Iranians shooting Syrian soldiers who refuse to fire on protesters have been captured and identified. However, these reports have not been independently verified like much of the citizen journalism we see coming out of Syria on Youtube. This is for obvious reason because Syria basically targets and kills journalists, especially during this conflict. Currently it is the highest death toll for journalists of any country swept by the Arab Spring according to the Committee to Protect Journalists and in the top 10 most dangerous places to report right now.

I'm really not sure what to think of Russia sending in "Anti-Terror Forces" while saying they back Annon's plan for Syria at the UN.

From a regional strategy I've read this is an indirect battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has this vision of their influence stretching like a crescent across the region and Syria is part of that. If Syria's society changes it takes away from Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to have more regional influence. The articles don't seem to go into why Saudi Arabia wants more influence other than it is opposing side of Iran. Though to me they don't seem to different in their rule of law except. Culturally one is of Persian influence and the other is of Arab but other than that I have more to learn in regards to their countries.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Currently it's diplomatic dancing in Syria.

China and Russia have both vetoed the UN security council resolution not once but twice. They believe that not only should Assad's regime be called for a cease fire but also the opposition fighters. The original resolution did not include the balance of the opposition cease fire. The US is working on a third draft that includes the call for the opposition to stop as well and the condemnation of the Assad regime. However, for the Syrians it is past the point of diplomatic talk as opposition forces say over 10,000 Syrians have been slaughtered. UN conservative estimates are over 8,000 Syrian deaths in the past year. Because of this in the minds of Syrians the line is already crossed and they will fight until the Assad regime is gone or until they all die fighting.

The US doesn't want to arm the free Syrian army which is made up of mostly defectors of the Assad regime with 7 of his former Generals now in Turkey. Because the US is concerned about who they would be arming. Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda have all spoken out about the brutality of the Assad regime and the US doesn't want to arm the people they're supposed to be fighting over there according to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. I mean they want to make sure who they would be arming and also they want to make sure they aren't doing this alone and that it's an international effort. NATO has already stated that it has no military interests in Syria.

The Arab league has been having meetings about potentially arming the Syrians. There have been reports that Saudi Arabia is or has sent arms to the Syrians. Saudi Arabia denies this. In addition to this in a diplomatic move to further isolate Syria four gulf States have closed their embassies there. Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates joined Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in closing their embassies in Damascus. Turkey has advised their citizens to leave the country by March 22nd and has not ruled out closing their embassy. Britain, the United States, France, Italy, Canada, The Netherlands have closed their Embassies there prior to that and many more so that I'm beginning to lose track.

In testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee it was learned that intelligence shows Russia and Iran supply weapons the Syria. The exact details of what and how would be disclosed in a closed meeting. And from the private emails obtained from Assad's account we learned that Iran is advising the Syrian leader on how to handle the uprising in his country. Russia in the meantime admits that they have sent military strategists to Syria but deny arming them or sending an army in. Then they changed their tune and said they sent in forces and weapons to support the Assad regime because they believe he is fighting terrorists. At the same time Russia and China both call for support for the humanitarian envoy into the country.

Refugees have been fleeing the country as violence spreads. It is at an estimated 200,000 in a year with the Red Cross projecting it will reach 500,000. If it does reach 500,000 Turkey is considering going into Syria to create a buffer zone from the Syrian army so that refugees will have safe passage.

The problem with arming the Syrians has been explained in that the tribal divisions of the country are so divided that they believe it will lead to catastrophic civil war among Christians, Sunnis, Alawites and Shiites.

To complicate matters worse reports are surfacing that Iran is sending in covert operations to meddle in Syrian affairs. Iranians shooting Syrian soldiers who refuse to fire on protesters have been captured and identified. However, these reports have not been independently verified like much of the citizen journalism we see coming out of Syria on Youtube. This is for obvious reason because Syria basically targets and kills journalists, especially during this conflict. Currently it is the highest death toll for journalists of any country swept by the Arab Spring according to the Committee to Protect Journalists and in the top 10 most dangerous places to report right now.

I'm really not sure what to think of Russia sending in "Anti-Terror Forces" while saying they back Annon's plan for Syria at the UN.

From a regional strategy I've read this is an indirect battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has this vision of their influence stretching like a crescent across the region and Syria is part of that. If Syria's society changes it takes away from Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to have more regional influence. The articles don't seem to go into why Saudi Arabia wants more influence other than it is opposing side of Iran. Though to me they don't seem to different in their rule of law except. Culturally one is of Persian influence and the other is of Arab but other than that I have more to learn in regards to their countries.

Why should the U.S. get involved? We should be withdrawing all our troops from the Middle East now and not getting more involved. Also no moreaid to any country.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The US just recently rented a Russian air base for the Afhgan fiasco. Blame the EU though for not putting Russia in a cage. They had the chance to get Georgia into NATO and the Germans being Germans balked on the idea for the fact they are dependent on Russia's gas. The only way to deal with Russia is through force. That country respects force and pure brutality but it doesn't respect anyone who caves in on negotiations. If I had my way that country would be split into thirds.

Best thing the US can do atm is build that missile shield in Europe and build it now.

If Europe wants a missile shield they can spend their own money and build it. The U.S. should have no troops in Europe at all. Russia cut the spigots off to Europe already and hurt Europe badly but they could only do it for a bit as they need the Euro's badly to keep their economy from taking a dive. The country respects money more than anything. In this case diplomacy would be better. Do as Russia wants and all will be happy. No one wanted to go into a major war for Georgia. Why would anyone?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Why should the U.S. get involved? We should be withdrawing all our troops from the Middle East now and not getting more involved. Also no moreaid to any country.

The argument that seems to be made by the US is it is too complicated to get involved other than through humanitarian efforts. One one cheek they don't want to look hypocritical for intervening in Libya when Ghadafi threatened genocide against his people that wanted freedom. On the other cheek Assad is the US's man but somehow Russia and China stepping in made him on the other side of history for the US. They did want him in there to maintain stability but they don't want to risk being on the wrong side of a democratic revolution. But what they see is that revolution is so weak with its divisions in pieces. While some Syrian people are calling for freedom it isn't necessarily the freedom of a democratic society that they are calling for. It is for control of their country but different fractions of the country are fighting for the control instead of uniting in one cohesive movement. Some of those fractions don't want democracy they just want power to run it the way they want to. We may never see them unite. Without the West actually coming out and saying it, it may be in the Wests best interest to let this internal conflict play out while trying to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and civilians trapped inside the country that aren't part of the fighting.

It's atrocious but it is not a policy that hasn't been taken before in regards to other situations such as in the recent conflict in the Ivory Coast or Ughanda. The difference is the location and regional interests. The US is heavily invested in the MENA region with a prior war in Iraq and a current war in Afghanistan. Many of it's allied countries surround Syria. The conflict seems contained within the country in localized regions. Now if the conflict started spilling over the borders particularly in key countries we may see a swift shift. However, with Russia in there currently we may wait until they're out. Then again we may not.

Edited March 21, 2012 by ॐ

[^_^ 5,021]

One one cheek they don't want to look hypocritical for intervening in Libya when Ghadafi threatened genocide against his people that wanted freedom. On the other cheek ...

The naysayers can be so cheeky.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The argument that seems to be made by the US is it is too complicated to get involved other than through humanitarian efforts. One one cheek they don't want to look hypocritical for intervening in Libya when Ghadafi threatened genocide against his people that wanted freedom. On the other cheek Assad is the US's man but somehow Russia and China stepping in made him on the other side of history for the US. They did want him in there to maintain stability but they don't want to risk being on the wrong side of a democratic revolution. But what they see is that revolution is so weak with its divisions in pieces. While some Syrian people are calling for freedom it isn't necessarily the freedom of a democratic society that they are calling for. It is for control of their country but different fractions of the country are fighting for the control instead of uniting in one cohesive movement. Some of those fractions don't want democracy they just want power to run it the way they want to. We may never see them unite. Without the West actually coming out and saying it, it may be in the Wests best interest to let this internal conflict play out while trying to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and civilians trapped inside the country that aren't part of the fighting.

It's atrocious but it is not a policy that hasn't been taken before in regards to other situations such as in the recent conflict in the Ivory Coast or Ughanda. The difference is the location and regional interests. The US is heavily invested in the MENA region with a prior war in Iraq and a current war in Afghanistan. Many of it's allied countries surround Syria. The conflict seems contained within the country in localized regions. Now if the conflict started spilling over the borders particularly in key countries we may see a swift shift. However, with Russia in there currently we may wait until they're out. Then again we may not.

Just because we intervened in Libya (I was against that too) doesn't mean I should support going in Syria. The U.S. is involved in MENA and we shouldn't be at all. We should be withdrawing all troops from the region. We are spending a fortune there in money but my military brothers are shedding blood and life. If the conflict spills over then so be it. Let them handle it.

[^_^ 5,021]

However, with Russia in there currently we may wait until they're out. Then again we may not.

Well put and totally accurate. We will either wait or we won't. There are really no other options here, other than those two.

Good post.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Just because we intervened in Libya (I was against that too) doesn't mean I should support going in Syria. The U.S. is involved in MENA and we shouldn't be at all. We should be withdrawing all troops from the region. We are spending a fortune there in money but my military brothers are shedding blood and life. If the conflict spills over then so be it. Let them handle it.

I understand your sentiments and honor and acknowledge our soldiers sacrifices. However, the US involvement in this region goes way back and is deeply entrenched. I do not foresee a withdrawal of all our troops from the region anytime soon. This may go on for many years. It was going on long before I was alive and possibly may go on long after I'm gone.

Well put and totally accurate. We will either wait or we won't. There are really no other options here, other than those two.

Good post.

I should also mention from reports that I've read Russia doesn't seem to go into countries for humanitarian reasons. The reason they are really in Syria is because of a Naval base that is stationed there that they want to protect. It is said to be the only one outside their country that they have. So from my understanding the Russians being in Syria is to restore stability to the country even if they have to bring peace through force using terminology the West is familiar with, "anti-terror forces", yada yada yada.

Edited March 21, 2012 by ॐ

[^_^ 5,021]

I should also mention from reports that I've read Russia doesn't seem to go into countries for humanitarian reasons.

Really??? Wow, I had no idea. Nothing I know about the history of modern Russia or the USSR would lead me to believe that.

Very insightful, thank you for sharing.

Edited March 21, 2012 by \

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Alright cheeky. I'm going to bed. G-nite.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I understand your sentiments and honor and acknowledge our soldiers sacrifices. However, the US involvement in this region goes way back and is deeply entrenched. I do not foresee a withdrawal of all our troops from the region anytime soon. This may go on for many years. It was going on long before I was alive and possibly may go on long after I'm gone.

I should also mention from reports that I've read Russia doesn't seem to go into countries for humanitarian reasons. The reason they are really in Syria is because of a Naval base that is stationed there that they want to protect. It is said to be the only one outside their country that they have. So from my understanding the Russians being in Syria is to restore stability to the country even if they have to bring peace through force using terminology the West is familiar with, "anti-terror forces", yada yada yada.

No I doubt you understand my sentiments on this. We may have been there but the U.S. needs to stop and come home where we belong. We march in and we can march out. Bye. Whoever wins call us if want to talk...we may listen.

[MyLittlePony 340]

The troops need a long break from the middle east let them handle own problems.