News
Russia building naval base in Syria - report
Vera Yadidya
Published: 02.06.06, 23:42
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
30 Talkbacks for this article
1. If the Americans can do it, why can't the Russians?
Ellen Prescott ,   Southsea, Hampshire   (06.02.06)
2. Thank you Russia.
(06.02.06)
3. Curious Ellen
Mike ,   Atlanta, USA   (06.03.06)
Your question does not fit in this discussion, Ellen, because the article above does not express an opinion. Normally I appreciate your talent for boiling blood, but please try to provoke in more seamless way next time.
4. to #1
jason white ,   afula,israel   (06.03.06)
Because we will not allow them!
5. Propping up the Alawite dictatorship
howard ,   pacific coast, usa   (06.03.06)
Just what Lebanese need. Just what Israelis need. Just what Jordanians need. Just what Iraqis need. Just what Turks need. Syria is responsible for terrorist attacks on the civilians of all of these countries, and every one of these countries considers the Syrian border as "the gate of darkness" (as an Iraqi minister so eloquently put it). Just what Syrians need too -- someone to keep alive the dictatorship that keeps them from freedom and murders anyone who speaks up. And just what the Palestinians need too -- someone to keep alive the regime that directs and funds the worst terrorists among them.
6. Russia
Brod ,   USA   (06.03.06)
Russia under Putin is becoming more like the Russia of the Cold War. The Russian people can do better than side with terrorist States in the Middle East. Putin seems to be leading Russia in the wrong direction. Putin also seems to have short-term memory. He has forgotten how hundreds of Russian school children in Beslan were slaughtered by Islamist-Jihadist terrorists and scores of other Islamist-Jihadist terrorist acts against the Russian people over the past decade. Russia will much better aligning herself with other democracies like the West and the Free World instead of aligning with the Islamist-Jihadist terrorist States in the Middle East.
7. TERRIBLE NEWS!
ben reinhold ,   detroit usa   (06.03.06)
Im sure everyone who read tis artical saw the part about the anti airmissles... these can onlybe used against Israel !
8. RUSSIA IN SYRIA
BRANT ,   Hilton Head USA   (06.02.06)
Everything old is new again. Putin started the new Cold War in 2004. This may make Bush actually notice. If history repeats itself, Russia will arm the Arabs (and now Iran) to the teeth; the US will arm Israel to the teeth and the two big poweres will watch the little guys go after each other, exactly as they did in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Wonderful.
9. it's about time
(06.03.06)
10. Russia and Syria are just
Jenya ,   Israel   (06.03.06)
trying to prevent a future american invasion or any kind of american attack on syria
11. #1 Prescott
Logic ,   Israel   (06.03.06)
Is your new mission in life to post juvenile swipes against Israel and America at every false opportunity?
12. The Snaggletooth from Southsea doesn't get it.
sk ,   USA   (06.03.06)
I would never dream of addressing Miss Ellen personally, as I have too much scorn for her to waste my time. And yet, her dimwit blurb does require a response. I realize that one cannot expect someone from Europe (a continent whose member states had the most laughably incompetent foreign policy in the world in both the 19th and 20th centuries) to understand why the Russians cannot build up Syria. For understanding this requires political nuance, something at which the Europeans do not excel, despite their pretenses to the contrary. You see, Syria is a totalitarian, terrorist regime. Russia used to be one too, and now seems headed in this direction again. The issue is simple enough: Should the world's only superpower allow an atavism (Russia) and a tin-pot dictatorship (Syria) to join forces? The answer is simple: no. It is not in the American interest, and there is much that the US can do about it. One simple thing is to make sure that the Syrian regime is toppled. Indeed, one way to make sure that Russia is "contained" is to destroy the hardware it sells to other states. Imagine if Israel were really a Jewish state and destroyed Iran's nuclear capacity. The market for Russian nuclear know-how would plummet, as no rational state would pay for something that would shortly be destroyed. A nuanced view requires one to dismiss the laughable idea that a nation state is free to do whatever it wishes. It is not. The purpose of "international law" is to allow states that are basically decent to adjudicate their differences. It is not designed to address the behaviors of outlaw states. Nor should it stand in the way of destroying such states before they become 21st century versions of Nazi Germany.
13. Nr.7
joe   (06.03.06)
"TERRIBLE NEWS!" Do You actually know, what the meaning of the word "ANTI" is???
14. Big surprise - Putin would sell his mom for a dollar
Jenny   (06.03.06)
15. Strange comment ... comming from a Jew
Someone   (06.03.06)
16. Peace Through Strength
richard Hitchings ,   methil   (06.03.06)
Sea Power and Powerful; Anti Air Defences... Excellent news from all who wish Peace in this Area
17. We remember how the last Syrian-Russian cooperation went
Caligula's Horse ,   Solomon's Stables   (06.03.06)
Let me remind you, in Lebanon the Russians crammed state of the art SAMs and AA systems in the highest concentration in the world, IAF destroyed the entier project in a few hours with zero losses. Anyways, I'm just wondering, how can Syria pay for all this? Upgrading 1000 tanks and 100 jets isnt a trivial thing, it costs a lot of money, and Syria is a very poor country. I dont think the Russians are going to invest all their money on an uncovered cheque, they've tried that before, and it didnt work out very well.
18. To Sk
Yolkin ,   Israel   (06.03.06)
Sk said: "The purpose of "international law" is to allow states that are basically decent to adjudicate their differences". Yeah, dear sir, you are right. International law only for basically decent, only for basically loyal. For the rest – the untermenschen – we’ve got torture chambers of Abu Graihb and Guantanamo, massacres of Haditha. International law which fundamental principle is the equality of nations, consensus among them is a ridiculously outdated concept. It is dead. The US, the way it handled Kosovo and Iraq killed international law. Wake up. It’s not the Iranian nuclear program but US messianic quest for “democracy”, Drang nach Osten, that is the most tangible threat to world’s security and stability. It murders innocents, encourages terror, spurs global arms race. When did Iran intensify its nuclear efforts? After it saw neighboring Iraq reduced to ashes under a fraudulent pretext. How many countries did Iran invade in modern times, how many aggressive wars did it wage? Nil. US? Plenty. Sk said: “Nor should it stand in the way of destroying such states before they become 21st century versions of Nazi Germany”. What would you do if your neighbor, a postal-type freak, says he’s gonna kill you and there is no police to stop that? I would buy a gun.
19. Yolkin of Israel (#18)
sk ,   USA   (06.03.06)
Yolkin says: "For the rest – the untermenschen – we’ve got torture chambers of Abu Graihb and Guantanamo, massacres of Haditha." Oh, boo hoo. A naked human pyramid, a decent Cuban prison, and maybe a couple of Marines who may have gone on a rampage. Meantime the Butcher of Bagdad personally ordered whole villages to be gassed. You have a positively European inability to make distinctions even when the differences are enormous. "International law which fundamental principle is the equality of nations, consensus among them is a ridiculously outdated concept." Rubbish. The fundamental principle of "international law" is not the equality of nations, nor is it consensus (which means unanimity). I would think that even an Israeli leftist would know this given that the Security Council demonstrates that no such equality was ever intended. "It’s not the Iranian nuclear program but US messianic quest for “democracy”" X cannot cause Y if Y occurs before X. The idea that the US push for democracy has caused regimes to become vicious is absurd on its face. But surely it is pointless to debate such things with you, as you can't seem to remember even which country (Syria, not Iran nor Iraq) we are talking about. In any event, states do not have "inalienable human rights," and international law is not supposed to replace the use of force, but simply to help resolve conflicts so that force is not necessary. Syria should not be allowed to enhance its connection with Russia because it is not in the American interest, and American foreign policy should advance American interests. Of course, Russian involvement in the ME, which was encouraged as a sort of sop to Russia's lost majesty, should never have been encouraged.
20. 1 Ellen: Are you applying for a prof. job in Russia ?
Gabrielle Goldwater ,   Geneva Switzerland   (06.03.06)
The naivity of YOU is stunning Oh by the way we found out the UK Boycott is paid for an organized by the Communist Party You obviously are being the ISM - member also the Communist party member
21. Nr. 19
joe   (06.03.06)
"...Meantime the Butcher of Bagdad personally ordered whole villages to be gassed." Just one thing is missing: THE PROOF. I follow this US-warcrime called "Liberation" from the begin. Even when Tony B(L)liar http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/717 proclaimed 400 000 VICTIMS - Except from a few small massgraves, containing all in all the corpses of a few thousand people - nothing was found in 3 years! And they are located mostly in the south - so they could be victims of the indiscriminate bombings of the USAns during the first gulfwar. The US have killed approx. 30 000 civilians in this agression - so keep this silly propaganda for Yourself. Its only manure, manufactured by Warmonger-Dung Ltd., Washington.
22. Tell Putin
Isac ,   Florida   (06.03.06)
to build a new port in Ashdod, and finally become REAL friends with Israel!
23. Hey joe, if you think life under Saddam was so great
Caligula's Horse ,   Solomon's Stables   (06.03.06)
Why didnt you immigrate there? Dont be disappointed though, theres still plenty of Arab dictatorships which will please you with their enlightment and safeguarding of human rights, go on.. brrrrrrr.
24. 21 joe: You missed those Iraqis that said Thanks
Gabrielle Goldwater ,   Geneva Switzerland   (06.03.06)
http://www.theotheriraq.com/
25. #21 (joe)
sk ,   USA   (06.04.06)
If the quality of your talkbacks doesn't improve rapidly, I will treat you as I treat David from Al-Quds, which is to say, I will just dismiss you with a causal insult. You have no idea how to evaluate evidence, or what "PROOF" means. I do not tally the number of Iraqis Hussein murdered, but there isn't any doubt regarding the use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villages. Indeed, proof of their use was part of the argument that Hussein was stockpiling chemical weapons, which everybody agreed he was doing AT SOME POINT. The idea that you can find a web site that proclaims itself to be unbiased and nonprofit and that says "White is Black" and that somehow this proves anything at all is just absurd. Think about this: Hussein was a dictator. True or False? Dictators rule by force. True or False? Force includes killing people as well as torture. True or False? Hussein ruled Iraq for decades. True or False? If you actually think about HOW Hussein could rule for so long, you would necessarily conclude that he MUST have used brutal methods. The suggestion that "only" a few thousand were killed MUST be nonsense. And it's not like we don't have lots of experience with dictatorships. We can look at China, the USSR, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc. Time and again we find regime claims that no mass murders occurred to have been false. Were you born yesterday?
26. to sk
Yolkin ,   Israel   (06.04.06)
SK said: “Oh, boo hoo. A naked human pyramid, a decent Cuban prison, and maybe a couple of Marines who may have gone on a rampage. Meantime the Butcher of Bagdad personally ordered whole villages to be gassed. You have a positively European inability to make distinctions even when the differences are enormous”. You have a hopelessly American inability to see general pattern underlying separate facts. It is pretty simple. Let me explain it to you, SK. I was not speaking just about Syria, Iran or Iraq, just about Guantanamo, Abu Graihb or Haditha (I could easily double or triple the list or post here a copy of Amnesty International 2005 report), what I was referring to is the policy of the US, its Weltanschauung that made all these seemingly separate facts possible. It’s like if I said “Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dahau” and someone would respond: “Boo hoo. Big deal”. It doesn’t matter how many you killed. One is enough to become a murderer. But, yeah, dear sir, you are right again. Differences are indeed enormous. Though Saddam and Bush both lack respect for human life and dignity, Saddam at least did not try to play a global cop. SK said: “A nuanced view requires one to dismiss the laughable idea that a nation state is free to do whatever it wishes. It is not”. I can’t agree with you more. Let's start with the US. SK said: “Rubbish. The fundamental principle of "international law" is not the equality of nations, nor is it consensus (which means unanimity). I would think that even an Israeli leftist would know this given that the Security Council demonstrates that no such equality was ever intended”. No, SK, it is not rubbish. It is your incompetence. You don’t know the difference between two terms: “international law” and “the system of international relations”. The latter used to incorporate the former. Not anymore.
27. to sk
Yolkin ,   Israel   (06.04.06)
SK said: X cannot cause Y if Y occurs before X. The idea that the US push for democracy has caused regimes to become vicious is absurd on its face. Let’s grossly oversimplify the whole affair. For educational purposes strictly. US invades Iraq claiming that Saddam has WMD. It turns out that there are no WMD in Iraq. So we have X (invasion = push for democracy) without preceding Y (WMD) which was supposed to justify X. Invasion turns Iraq into a quagmire of violence, civil war and terror claiming thousands of lives. Where is absurd here? Now, Iran sees what happened to Iraq (which didn’t have WMD) and what did not happen to North Korea (which apparently has WMD) and it expedites its effort to acquire nuclear capabilities. Historic example: Israel started a Six-day war in 1967 ("became vicious") because it saw an imminent existential threat emanating from its neighbors. Where is absurd here?
28. Yolkin (26, 27)
sk ,   USA   (06.05.06)
The highest levels of fatuity cannot be attained except with a little knowledge. Nor can such a malady be cured once it develops; it must be prevented. Gentle readers, I direct you to Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language," which should be used for prophylaxis in every high school. Israel cannot afford more Yolkins. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit I suppose I should respond to a couple of specifics, but truly how can I choose among such riches? Yolkin: --- It's like if I said "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dahau [sic!]" and someone would respond: -"Boo hoo. Big deal". It doesn't matter how many you killed. One is enough to become a murderer. But, yeah, dear sir, you are right again. Differences are indeed enormous. Though Saddam and Bush both lack respect for human life and dignity, Saddam at least did not try to play a global cop." --- In Yolkin's "Weltanschauung" (English having failed him yet again), "it doesn't matter" whether one man is killed accidentally or six million are killed as part of a genocide. Aggression is also no different from self-defense. Now, in Abu Ghraib not a single man was killed. Yolkin's "Weltanschauung" apparently does not distinguish between a human pyramid and mounds of ashes in the crematoria. Oh, but I forgot: Abu Ghraib is part of a "pattern" that Yolkin, being Israeli, can grasp in its totality, Israelis being good with big pictures. And what, pray, is Yolkin's big picture? It is a world where Saddam Hussein and Bush are considered similar because "both lack respect for human life and dignity." Yes, I recall that Bush gassed whole Iraqi cities and raped countless women, with the help of his brother Jeb, in the American raping rooms of the Green Zone. In the "general pattern" that our Yolkin sees so clearly, the Middle East is full of pacific and decent Muslim-majority regimes that mind their own business until a messianically pro-democratic America threatens or attacks them, at which point these regimes become brutal despotisms or devolve into civil war. The "general pattern" that I see, however, is that the Middle East is full of bestial despotisms that threaten their own citizens and American citizens as well. Before they acquired vast amounts of oil money, their primitive ideas could only be perpetrated on the locals. Now, alas, such despotisms have global reach. Bush may or may not be right in trying to democratize the Middle East. I'd give Iraq a 2:1 chance of success, and apparently Iraqis are hopeful, based on repeated surveys. It seems clear, though, that the US's Cold War approach of working with bastards because they are "our bastards" led to 9/11.
29. sk (USA)
yip ,   wellington   (01.30.07)
[quote]It's like if I said "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dahau [sic!]" and someone would respond: -"Boo hoo. Big deal". It doesn't matter how many you killed. One is enough to become a murderer. But, yeah, dear sir, you are right again. Differences are indeed enormous. Though Saddam and Bush both lack respect for human life and dignity, Saddam at least did not try to play a global cop." [/quote] In naming German death camps are you saying that Israel now has the right to do whatever it pleases? Did you know that only 6million Jews were reported to have been killed in NAZI Germany as a direct result of the war over 20 million Russian and Soviet Citizens died? The Soviet Citizen had its territories invaded by Germany, and in response went on a "pre-emptive" occupation of every nation-state that could threaten it, the United States stood against these occupations because the attitude of the Soviets while understandable was wrong. [quote]Yet the same United States supports Israel in its occupations Palestinian territories and is even attempting to help it set up obedient client governments within those states n Yolkin's "Weltanschauung" (English having failed him yet again), "it doesn't matter" whether one man is killed accidentally or six million are killed as part of a genocide. Aggression is also no different from self-defense. Now, in Abu Ghraib not a single man was killed. Yolkin's "Weltanschauung" apparently does not distinguish between a human pyramid and mounds of ashes in the crematoria.[/quote] And whose words are we to believe on this? Yours? Your government which lied about weapons of mass destruction and started a war of aggression, there is no international oversight as to what is going on in Abu Ghraib prison and the only people giving us reports are the same people who told us that Iraq was a clear and present danger. The world has been lied to once by these people it would be foolish of the world to trust blindly that the truth is being told. [quote]Oh, but I forgot: Abu Ghraib is part of a "pattern" that Yolkin, being Israeli, can grasp in its totality, Israelis being good with big pictures. And what, pray, is Yolkin's big picture? It is a world where Saddam Hussein and Bush are considered similar because "both lack respect for human life and dignity." Yes, I recall that Bush gassed whole Iraqi cities and raped countless women, with the help of his brother Jeb, in the American raping rooms of the Green Zone.[/quote] Not personally they are more interested in raping Iraq of its oil then having the woman gang raped, but the soldiers are certainly enjoying themselves, reports of rape and murder are common place, the United States troops have gone on a 3 year bender. As for the big picture, the Iraqi invasion probably had more to do with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabian oil then with the threat that Iraq posed to the United States [quote] Bush may or may not be right in trying to democratize the Middle East. I'd give Iraq a 2:1 chance of success, and apparently Iraqis are hopeful, based on repeated surveys. It seems clear, though, that the US's Cold War approach of working with bastards because they are "our bastards" led to 9/11.[/quote] Wow just Wow. Iraq is failing stop believing your propaganda machine, your 2:1. As for 9/11 please tell me how many Iraqis were involved in the attack on America, while your there please tell me the reported reasons for such an attack? Your heavily influenced by your own personal bias and must get most of your news from fox, which would explain your ill-informed arguments
30. US shall fall like the USSR
roflmao ,   Russia   (06.21.07)
viva Russia!
Back to article