Keith;
"Russia and China strongly oppose a military intervention by NATO in Syria"
Whatever line the Russians and the Chinese have taken on Syria, it shouldn't make the slightest difference to your own as - taking your own words as a guide -   
"Military intervention is not considered practical for several reasons, even if there was no veto."
Your own opinion reflects theirs perfectly, so what's your gripe with their using a veto that ends up achieving something you support?
Yes, they have sold weapons to Syria, just as Britain sold small arms ammunition to Assad, which was possibly used against the people of Homs, or at the very least, to train the snipers who slaughtered so many people there.
You claim we basically agree - I support neither: you pay lip service to condemning one while defending the other (by denying that the sale took place, you having identified the equipment sold, by belittling its importance because of the size of the sale and the date it took place, by claiming (without evidence) thaat the sale was agreed, but the licence was withdrawn.... and a whole host of other excuses.
Mike
I find Keith one of the most offensively racist, hypocritical and dishonest individuals I have ever debated with.
I was not brought up to pass by on the other side - sorry
Can't help but notice that you choose not to discuss the fact that your own stance (gunboat diplomacy) coincides with that of Russia and China)
Jim Carroll