Maybe some Chinese politicians genuinely believe that the people of country X should sort out the mess in country X which was created by people in country X.
Crazy notion to the bosses of Team America: World Police, I know.

And maybe China knows that, given half a chance, and if they could do it without getting their asses totally kicked, the US would love nothing more than to "stop the bloodshed in China" (human rights, tibet, xinjiang etc) break up the country, and install a nice little puppet government in Bejing that gives the US everything it asks for. All for human rights and democracy of course.

that's a pretty bold and risky statement. I admire your courage and unique point of view.

Certainly most people appreciate a government which slaughters its own.

kudos, sir

(secret: I like pizza...I was fearful of admitting this in public before I saw your heart rending example. tenacity incarnate!)

If you f-ing cowboy Americans really want to do some humanitarian intervention, I suggest cleaning up Mexico. But then you can't do that: the leaders you stooge for need that cheap brown labor, so a chaotic Mexico is all part of the plan.

I'm OUTRAGED and SYPHILITIC!!

I wish you would call me friend instead of mate. I am a former Marine not a sailor.

Yes and in English "Mate" means 1/2 of a whole. You are not my other half. I asked you nicely and you insult me. I said I wish and you called me absurd. How absurd is that?

I am in no way pedantic. I use words in the method they are used in my native society. I am never pedantic about anything. I just believe in using the broader more accurate usage of words. Using the word mate to signify an acquaintance is inaccurate. You know too little about me to either call me mate or call me pedantic.

You are not my other half. We, in no way come together to produce offspring. Therefore it is impossible for you to be my mate. I can accept the more loosely used term friend because acquaintance is too cumbersome to apply in most situations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Blowing_a_raspb...

I don't think so. In British English (and elsewhere), 'mate' is frequently used as an informal alternative to 'acquaintance'.

Not in my mind. I have two socks they are mates. I have a wife, she is my mate. I have a best friend, he is my mate. However, someone that I have no knowledge about is definitely not my mate nor am I his mate. I will answer to Bud, I will answer to Guy but I will not answer to dude or mate.

Not to be an a**, but Russia and China have nothing to lose by supporting Assad's Syria.

Russia and China don't care about pesky international issues like democracy, human rights or if a few civilians get abused or killed. While Assad stays in power, he spends money with Russia and China. If Assad stays in power, he's a pariah in the west. As a pariah, he continues to turn to his old buddies Russia and China. Russia and China become the prime contractor for any future money he spends.

If Assad gets kicked out of power, the rebels are going to react negatively to Russia and China for a few years as supporters of the old regime. Over time, Russia will be tolerated since most of the Syrian military is Russian built. China will throw in financing for contracts, which all new regimes need. A new regime merely means Russia and China have to spend a few years, and few billion $ rebuilding the relationship.

From Russia and China's view, may as well cash in with the current Assad regime as long as it lasts. Worry about post-Assad when it happens.

Russia and China rejected it because the vote was forced too fast while discussions and diplomatic maneuvering were still underway. When the permission was given for the UN to prevent loss of innocent lives in Libya, the Un overstepped the intent of this permission and actually helped to get the government out of power, under the guise that it will save lives. The playing field was not set clear enough. Extent of what is permissable and what is not was not clear enough. (again, the intent was to save lives and not assist in overthrowing any government.)

They would have voted for it when the wording was such as to limit it to truly only protecting innocent civilians and not stretching the permission in such a way as to assist toppling the regime.

Syria is not Libya. Syria has much more populated cities, large military, modern equipment, etc. The UN, if granted permission, would not be able to even bomb with precision bombs without a tremendous loss of innocent lives, not to mention it would not be as quick as in Libya.

The Arab council should work this out. YES, there is currently bloodshed unfortunately, but there is not going to be as much with the Arab council handling it as there would be with the involvement of the UN.

The US has a hidden agenda in this case. Topple Syria, it weakens Iran, which also supports Hezbolah, so they weaken also. Because if something isn't done soon, the US will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and they will have to make a tough decision which is to secretly grant permission to Israel to attack. Iran is the true reason behind this bloodshed now.

In this case, it is not only about oil as normal, but about nuclear weapons.

Bleeding heart Americans cannot see the forest through the trees and this is the intent of all governments towards their people. You do not have access to the information they have access to and Iran needs to be stopped, but they cannot directly do this at the moment.