Russia rejects Assad exit as precondition for Syria deal

Comments (14)
kenrake wrote:

Russia needs to be taken out of the equation and NATO needs to get in there and stomp out Assad’s air superiority. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE SOON….TOO MANY PEOPLE DYING NEEDLESSLY AND RUSSIA HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS AS WELL!

Jan 12, 2013 6:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
BraveNewWrld wrote:

kenrake wrote:
Russia needs to be taken out of the equation and NATO needs to get in there and stomp out Assad’s air superiority. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE SOON….TOO MANY PEOPLE DYING NEEDLESSLY AND RUSSIA HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS AS WELL!

What about our State Department stops digging its heels into “Assad must go” drive, stops encouraging support for the islamist rebels, and renders its support to the Syrian government fighting the latter? Just for the sake of consistency – these “rebels” are the same rebels that US troops were fighting in Iraq just a little while ago. And, by the way, with not much less civilian collateral than in the Syria case.
That would certainly decrease the amount of civilian deaths and suffering in Syria.

As for the opposite case – NATO involvement and all the consequential and related “pro-democracy blah-blah-blah bombings” – no sane person would seriously consider that a positive development. Just look at the track record of such involvement in the recent past – Afganistan, Iraq, Libya. With even US mainstream media finally acknowledging that Bengazi was a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda-linked islamic exttremists for many years – exactly as Gaddafi was saying – what is the credibility of the rational for their actions? ZERO.
Do you have any historical attention span at all?

Jan 12, 2013 9:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

As long as Assad is in Alive in Syria, there will be no Peace. Assad and his Family have caused too much bloodshed for the Syrians people to tolerate him as a leader. Assad and Russia dont want to accept that, which is fine becuase the rebels clearly dont mind finishing what Assad started.

Jan 12, 2013 10:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
Slammy wrote:

Why would Russia want this conflict to stop? They are making bank off the conflict by selling arms to both the regime and the insurgents. Although they are going through intermediaries to supply weapons to the opposition, all of the weapons killing people originated from Russia. And people blame the west for the ongoing violence, funny…

Go Insurgents! You are winning with Russian help, keep up the good work everyone!

Jan 12, 2013 11:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
carlloeber wrote:

the cowardice of President Obama is disgraceful .. I have been to Aleppo .. the president apparently wants the dictator Hitler to stay in power .. he actually wants a stalemate and continued fighting .. that is why he is not helping the rebels to remove Hitler or to protect them with weapons or flying robots .. whatever his reason .. cowardice or listening to the pin-stripped cookie pushers in the State Dept .. it is despicable and astounding .. 673 days of watching mass murder . . Bozo would have shot back at Hitler when he started shooting unarmed protesters 682 days ago ..

Jan 12, 2013 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

From what high horse does the West operate, that it can just conveniently decide what leader should step down, or be attacked? It is up to the Syrians to decide, not the US and the West.

Sorry, leader XXX, we decided we like your territory, you are not treating us (and ally Israel) well enough, so you have to go?

If the West really cared about the Syrian people at this point, they would protect them from the flood of arms and militants infiltrating the country. They would stop the sanctions which are starving and freezing the people.

All the stuff about caring for Syrians, and supporting the ouster of Assad is pure, unadulterated crap! The whole operation absolutely reeks of hypocrisy. It is too obvious even to catalog. In fact, it is so bad, that it makes the West look like shameful, simple-minded fools.

Jan 12, 2013 1:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

I 100% support Russia regarding its Syria position. Naturally Russia has its strategic interests in the region, as we do, but they are a lot closer to it than we are. The major thing they have compared to us, is the moral high ground.

The West has no moral rights whatsoever to bully whatever country it finds convenient for its world domination quest, in this case Syria. No wonder we are losing such respect throughout the world. We display and degrade democracy as just a sham to rule the world.

When our government realizes how wrong it is in Syria, I hope it can just simply turn around and start walking the other way. Don’t worry that it looks like we made a mistake, because we did. No covering it up. The Syrian people are having a hard time making it through the winter. Start supporting them. The obvious way to do this is through Assad. The political mess can be sorted out later, but not on the backs of the people.

Jan 12, 2013 1:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Renbe wrote:

Looking at Russia’s vehement opposition to foreign intervention in Syria, it is clear how the Russians would react to an attack on Iran.

Jan 12, 2013 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:


This is what I’ve been saying. You just say it better.

There is absolutely no reason for Obama or any western leader for that matter to tell any country’s leader in the world to leave office. Who the He!l they think they are?

Western leaders need to mind their own business within their own borders. They are overstepping like in colonial times.

As for Assad, he’ll go nowhere without a fight. He told them in his speech that he’s not intiminated by their patriot missiles.

Jan 12, 2013 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pyanitsa wrote:

Why is the State Dept making Assad’s exclusion from talks a pre-condition for talks?

There are a lot of Syrians who support Assad.

Jan 12, 2013 3:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

This is Syria’s Civil War. No Syrian Army Corps fought for the Union or Confederate armies in the US Civil War. Syrians did not fight in the Russian Civil War in the early 1900′s or in the Chinese Civil War from 1946 to 1949. Russia and China understand what Americans cannot understand. They have nothing to gain by choosing sides, so they deal correctly with the government in charge until someone else sets up a new, effective government. This is called respect.

In Libya, the owners of African slaves and Jim Crow enforcers joined with the colonial masters of Africa to drop bombs on Africans in a former African colony. The owners of African slaves and Jim Crow enforcers helped the colonial masters of Africa engage in an illegal regime change in the former African colony. The African Union condemned the intervention. China supported the African Union and condemned the intervention. Fortunately, US trade with Africa fell in 2012 while China’s trade with Africa grew by double digits. Hopefully, the US will lose more trade with more countries over its continuing interventions while China’s trade continues to grow. Eventually, the US may learn something about dealing with other countries.

Jan 12, 2013 4:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Simpleman2 wrote:

Assad can also rely on regional powerhouse Iran.
Iran a powerhouse, really? I think not!

Jan 12, 2013 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:


“Why is the State Dept making Assad’s exclusion from talks a pre-condition for talks?”

Because this conflict has been since day one about regime change. The tool to achieve that was to use a newly created war pretext in the UN called R2P. And how do you go from regime change objective to R2P? You need a lot of people killed and then use the death toll as a pretext for humanitarian intervention. How do you achieve that? Black ops, foreign mercenaries, terrorist groups… The more people dead the better. 10,000; 20,000;30,000…60,000;… This is the kind of stuff that comes from Hollywood…In Syria life is imitating art(horror movie)

Russia and China were supposed to go along or at least abstain from the UN vote like in the case of Libya…and 3-2=Bombing/Regime Change.

You say: there are a lot of people who support Assad..

To them they don’t matter…They can always be bombed to submission…

Jan 12, 2013 5:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KLR2488 wrote:

I agree with Kenrake to an extent. I don’t really trust the Western media and how it portrays things anyways, nor do I trust what foreign outlets say regarding the situation as well. The only thing I know for certain is that people are dying in the meantime. I do not think we should try to take our political and economic systems and think they will work just as well in other countries, who have different cultures, histories, and religions completely different from ourselves.

The countries jostling over the different plans all relate to each nations, national interests and security concerns, but i think here, just to stop the bloodshed and to introduce a little bit of stability the U.S should drop the insistence on Assad leaving. However, if he falls we should lead the Syrian people decide on how to run their country and stay out of it.

Jan 12, 2013 5:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.