I think this statement is true, and I think it's evidenced by the overthrow of pretty much every dictator in the mid-east; they all have just a small enough majority of extremist Muslims that that faction always wins the day. It is sad (unbelievable, really) that Putin has become a voice of reason. WTF kind of world do we live in where Putin, a guy who unapologetically throws his political opponents in jail willy-nilly, has to be on the side of common sense, reason and law, because we've derelicted those things years ago? Does he have ulterior motives? Certainly. But I'm not sure it matters why he's right, just that he's right in this case (and I'm convinced he is right). We have no business getting into this fight. It's a no win for us any way it turns out. We should stick to the business of humanitarian aid here. It's also interesting that he suggests that the opposition may have released the chemical weapons, not a line you hear often in the American media, but often suggested in the foreign media (so I'm told by people I know who can read Arabic). Bascially the argument goes like this: There was a chemical weapons attack in August just two days after inspectors arrived, and it took place about 5 miles from where they were known (by the government and everyone else) to be staying. Why in god's name would Assad do such a thing in such proximity to them when he controlled their movements from the outset? It doesn't make sense. This isn't evidence, but it's definitely curious. It's obvious that we can't win by any loose definition (perhaps Obama will adopt the Bush Doctrine, which is to wait and see what happens then call that a win? Can't lose that way; it's brilliant!). So what's the point? Is it about getting rid of Iran's biggest Arab ally? Is it just about the US saving face after drawing an arbitrary "red line"? Any other guesses?Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.
If can politely disagree with you here... First of all, Putin isn't acting in the interest of international law. Putin is acting in national interest: Russia's sole Mediterranean naval base is in Syria--and in the region in which the Syrian controlling group reside. On top of that, Russian arms contracts, both in progress and existing, value over $5,000,000,000. This is vital to the Russian arms industry; already, $13,000,000,000 has been lost due to sanctions against Iran, and $4,500,000,000 in cancelled Libya contracts. Russian companies' investments in Syrian infrastructure, tourism, and energy were valued at $19,400,000,000 in 2009. Second, these claims that "the opposition may have released the chemical weapons" are completely ungrounded. Both sides are spreading incredible lies about each other; the FSA blames attacks claimed publicly by Al-Nusra (Syrian arm of al-Qaeda) on the government, for example. Few claims are to be trusted. HOWEVER, the UN inspectors will provide evidence that points to Assad's regime. Given, the evidence is exclusively circumstantial, and the report will not directly accuse Assad of using chemical weapons. However, there is also this evidence, which I have researched myself: There are four chemical weapons production facilities in Syria. Three are in areas of regime control, one is in an area in disputed control (Aleppo). There are three chemical weapons storage facilities in Syria, and all of them are in areas of regime control. Evidently, the regime capacity for chemical weapons attacks are vastly superior to opposition and FSA capacity. Finally: On the actual strike against Syria. Syrian regime actions up until the usage of chemical weapons are regrettable, but do not violate international law nor do they necessitate any action by advocates of such law. However, the usage of chemical against the Syrian people by the Syrian regime is a direct violation of international law. As President Putin says, international law must be enforced. A red line has indeed been drawn; not by the USA, but by the UN. If the Russians are intent on preventing any UN action, then action must be taken by other means. Assad may continue his fight against the opposition, the FSA, and al-Nusra. But he may not, in my eyes, continue his usage of chemical weapons.But I'm not sure it matters why he's right, just that he's right in this case (and I'm convinced he is right). We have no business getting into this fight. It's a no win for us any way it turns out. We should stick to the business of humanitarian aid here.
U.N. inspectors have collected a "wealth" of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.
I've only seen this article on one "American" website, and it wasn't remotely reliable. I've been wondering what the foreign media are saying about that as well. Huh.It's also interesting that he suggests that the opposition may have released the chemical weapons, not a line you hear often in the American media, but often suggested in the foreign media (so I'm told by people I know who can read Arabic).