Russia, China renew opposition to foreign intervention in Syria

This world has turned into a contest just like the ol days if a big nation intervenes their a bully but if they dont they have blood on their hands I think its time countries forget about reputation and end the violence in Syria.

In my opinion, it would be far better if any intervention/peacekeeping was lead by a nation like Turkey, and not the US.
It just looks better that way.

And there won't be. For some time at least. If, for instance, the US just attacks Syria, right now, what would happen. Another Iraq. Except even worse. For one, it is just the US heading in without UN backing, and Russia and China, who are pro-Assad, are already supplying him with weapons, mercenaries, etc. And the problem with the bombing of Syria is that almost 50% of the population of Syria is located in the two major cities, Aleppo and Damascus, and both are government controlled. Are you suggesting we bomb these places? The civilian casualties wills skyrocket, and be higher than any caused in the year of fighting. And as I keep saying time and time again, the rebels are still divided and unorganized, with no central authority to effectively lead them. Assad knows this, and thus will stay in power. My solution is to simply put sanctions on Syria.

Well my solution was based on somehow getting UN support......it wasn't really a solution that took into account the current state of geopolitics.

Well even with UN support, there is still Russia and China who block a resolution to the Syrian crisis in the Security Council. Personally, give the Syrian rebels more time to actually get a leader and then help them. Put sanctions on Syria is a big thing that would aid the rebels.

The UN is a joke.

Not a joke. More a flawed system. The problem is the Security Council. The five permanent members (the US, France, the UK, Russia and China) all have the ability to veto any resolution passed by the Security Council and any legislation from the GA and Economic and Social Council that has to be approved by the Security Council. So if a resolution on Syria wants to be passed, and 14 countries say yes, and Russia says no,, it should pass, but Russia evokes its veto, and the resolution doesn't pass.

I agree with most of what you're saying... But Mercenaries? I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Sorry. Thinking of Bahrain. You know. That other country with an oppressive government that no one gives a crap about.

The problem is you can't just 'end' the violence. IT's not as black and white as that.

Bahrain who?

BUT...if Assad did something really stupid to piss off the Chinese and Russians then perhaps we could actually do something.

No, the theory is amazing. The problem is, all the different countries have different agendas. I'm sorry your hurt because not every country in the world likes the US agenda.

I missed the times where countries only solved problems within their own borders.

When? I really can't think of any time in history like that...

Neither can I.

what I meant by that was when other nations only cared about themselves, and didn't ACT all humanitarian, UN doesn't give a shit about Syria in reality, in their eyes this is probably a good oppurtunity to gain resources, War has and always will be good for an economy.

I don't agree...

The UN isn't a country. It doesn't have resources. Syria does not have resources. Please leave.

EDIT: And to add to this: YES! Obviously Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Spanish-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Arab-Israeli Wars, and Mexican-American War were all caused by the economy.

That one actually was...

Depends how you look at it.