02-09-2012, 09:33 PM
Grace62 wrote:
I see no reason that the US should negotiate from a position that we "fear" Russia, or China. Both have already been embarrassed by the security council vote which they first negotiated in bad faith, then vetoed. That speaks for itself.
Who suggested that we negotiate from a position of fear? I merely suggested that attempting to shame Russia (or China, for that matter) into changing their positions has no effectual basis in history. Can you think of times that it has worked?
Grace62 wrote:
Russia opposed our Libyan involvement, how did that turn out for them?
Yes they want to protect their economic ties to Syria, but after what has happened this week they cannot honestly expect anyone in the world to believe that Assad is serious about negotiating a peaceful end to this bloodshed.
It's our Libyan involvement (and overreach of UNSC 1973's mandate, which was not regime change but civilian protection) that has led the Russians to veto the present Syria resolution. Russia permitted resolution 1973 to pass, and reasonably anticipates that the Syrian resolution means regime change and nothing less. The UN has no authority to overthrow the regime of a sovereign nation, or endorse action intended to do so. It just doesn't.
Grace62 wrote:
The US, working with Europe and the Arab nations, can apply pressure to stop arms sales to the Assad regime, and should do so.
We can support the Syrians fighting for freedom without direct military involvement.
Assad is mostly isolated now, with most of its former friends having turned away.
If we had no evidence of what is happening there, then Russia could probably get away with their position. But that's not the case.
I completely agree. We can provide humanitarian assistance. We can produce economic pressure and enforce travel restrictions. We can refer matters to the ICC. We can move to stop or intercept arms shipments.