This region is too close to Russia. It's better to have old dictators than new unpredictable ones and radical Islamists there.Originally Posted by Bloo
If there would be been some positive exp. from Lybian or Egypt cases, in terms of bargaining civilian peace and prosperous it would be been another story, but there isn't. Just new faces.
So the side "let's try to make them change, but without repeating previous ones" seems to be most rational and logical. Both for Russia and Europe btw.
And yet Assad will fall, I guess, leaving Russia with little but memories of their past romance with the Syrian Baath.
The problem is that such regimes do not want to change, as change means less power. And after awhile, they just can not change, because less power means losing control of the country.
This region is too close to Russia. It's better to have old dictators than new unpredictable ones and radical Islamists there.
If there would be been some positive exp. from Lybian or Egypt cases, in terms of bargaining civilian peace and prosperous it would be been another story, but there isn't. Just new faces.
So the side "let's try to make them change, but without repeating previous ones" seems to be most rational and logical. Both for Russia and Europe btwThere's a topic for the Syrian Civil war, FYI.And yet Assad will fall, I guess, leaving Russia with little but memories of their past romance with the Syrian Baath.
The problem is that such regimes do not want to change, as change means less power. And after awhile, they just can not change, because less power means losing control of the country.
Yes, but since this piece of news is related to Russia's management of the Syrian Civil War (the opening line of the article states as much), and since you chose to post this article separately (which to me is justified), we are bound to broach that subject here as well, aren't we?
Don't know what you guys are getting so worked up about. I will post what I please. And if it gets me banned than so be it. It's not even like I'm such a valuable member that mp.net 'doesn't want to lose'. I don't post any photos or anything.
I'm no nut, just so you know. Actually I have no problem whatsoever with any of America's actions or policy up until 1945, back then it played a positive role in world politics. I mostly have no problem with their actions until 1991 - they were guided by their need for national security and defense, and that was fair enough. But everything after 1991 - pure bull****.
So spare me the defense of Human Rights Watch here. It's just another propaganda organisation, the article is right on the money about that.
Last edited by Flamming_Python; 06-11-2012 at 10:05 AM.
Yes. But there is no insurance than next regime will be better. If it was in Europe-maybe, but in this region situation may become much worse than it was been.
And I doubt that current one can't change at all. Slowly, step by step, year by year, they can. And rationally it's the best way.
One of the problems is that people sometimes confuses democracy and prosperity. It was in our country. And it will be there. But they haven't got same amount of resources to give a piece of them to ppl. So there would be anger and manifestations again and again. Bringing adepts to alkaeda and so on.
In current situation there maybe it would be not bad to send UN's peacekeeprs.
Valid points, I was mainly concerned because the Syrian topic is a sensitive one to certain members and since this particular thread is not as well regulated as the Syrian Protests, there might be less incentive to be civilized.
That's my mindset as a "peacekeeper."
Fair points aswell.
They can, just as they could in the past decades, just as they could have from day one. But they haven't, they don't, and they won't. And now oddly enough, the situation has moved beyond whatever small step Assad the Younger can offer (not to mention he'll have some trouble convincing anyone he's really proposing genuine reforms).
Russia can always propose that and see what Assad has to say about it.In current situation there maybe it would be not bad to send UN's peacekeeprs.
As for Eurosatory, the show's organisators have decided to ban three NGOs vocally opposed to arms trade (and to a lesser extent to Russia's participation to the show) : Oxfam France, Amnesty International and CCFD- Terre Solidaire. Perhaps HRW will join them in the show's blacklist.
I doubt the French government will choose to advise against Rosobornexport's presence, though I'm sure the Russian ambassador will be told how regrettable it is that his government's stance about Syria gives credence to the NGO's concerns.
A real concern, I concur. I too hope we can keep this civil and informative, if only because mods have better things to do than to remind us posters that we are all supposed to be grown-ups!
That would make it much harder for the French to assist the Russians in espionage efforts against those same Americans.
What? Since when did I hate Russia? I love it.
Nothing is impossible. CPSU was way more powerful in all meanings than Baath. As about situation, well, maybe it's just I didn't heard about, but no one from ze West were saying that both sides should stop violence like Russia was doing. All sanction from there is only for Assad&Co, no?
It was proposed some moth ago btw. Lavrov's point was that there should be peace first, which later could be been kept by peacekeepers. It's task for both sides, to have some kind of "stop firing" agreement.
But so far neither side has signaled much interest for a permanent ceasefire that doesn't come with "total victory/enemy crushed" attached - at which point, of course, peace-keepers won't be needed anymore...
As for Eurosatory, it certainly does not look like the show's organizers pay any heed to the HRW demand, and I have yet to hear one French politician making a comment on Russia's presence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote