Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

  1. #11
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    well there is such a thing as UN troops they are currently serving in many different countries as peacekeepers representing their own countries. The UN has enough "peacekeeps" to send into Syria to get this mess under control.
    BS. Where are these "UN troops" kept? Who pays and commands these "UN troops"? There is no peace in Syria to keep; that is the whole point of this story. You confuse local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets as "UN troops". Troops require funding, decent firepower, strict discipline and a command structure, but somehow, local thugs, with a bit of pocket change, some light arms and some blue helmets convince you that they are "in charge" as "UN troops" and keeping the peace too.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-07-12 at 05:47 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #12
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by NolaMan View Post
    It does not work that way. The UN cannot simply "redeploy" soliders serving on those missions.
    well actually they had proposed a rapid reaction force but it didnt gain enough support.

    " a standing group, administered by the UN and deployed by the Security Council, that receives its troops and support from current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the event of future genocides."

    this is the kind of action im talking about and something the UN should consider more.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  3. #13
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    well actually they had proposed a rapid reaction force but it didnt gain enough support.

    " a standing group, administered by the UN and deployed by the Security Council, that receives its troops and support from current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the event of future genocides."

    this is the kind of action im talking about and something the UN should consider more.
    Again, with Russia backing Syria, even if such a force were in place -- it would not be deployed in this scenario.

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    No to Libya as UK and French planes were already bombing Libya while Obama decided which course to take but I agree on most of your other point. Sadly the fact of the matter is America has had by far the strongest military and economy since WW2 and have had to lead the way. I think America should use its position to force the UN to make a move, threaten to cut funding or to withdraw completley and lets see how fast they mobilze UN troops.
    What "UN troops"? Everybody seems to think that the UN has troops, but I have yet to see any. Local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets are NOT anything but a show, to get FUNDING - the real goal of the UN at all times, in all places. Name ONE place that the UN has ever "kept peace" with these blue helmet morons.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What "UN troops"? Everybody seems to think that the UN has troops, but I have yet to see any. Local paramilitary thugs with blue helmets are NOT anything but a show, to get FUNDING - the real goal of the UN at all times, in all places. Name ONE place that the UN has ever "kept peace" with these blue helmet morons.
    Ive been to quite a few countries and met many different soldiers serving in the UN a peacekeepers who were not local paramilitary thugs. Rwanda for exmaple there was a heavy presence of dutch and Belgian troops serving under UN command but unfourtuntly the whole command was a **** show.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    BBC News - Syria UN team 'shot at' near Qubair 'massacre site'


    This is starting to remind me of Rwanda, the UN mess around trying to get clear evidence that this is now genocide but are stopped, meanwhile the killing continues and our world leaders sit around pointing the fingers at each other. What did we say after Rwanda " never again"?
    Neither the U.S., nor any other country, has a universal responsibility to intervene militarily wherever civil conflicts are taking place. If the U.S. were to depose of the Assad regime, who would be the next leader? What institutional safeguards would assure that a wider sectarian conflict would not occur? What guarantees would there be that the post-Assad leadership would be able and willing to have friendly relations with the U.S. and U.S. regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, etc.)? What framework would assure that the U.S. would not need to enter a time-consuming and costly nation-building endeavor?

    None of those questions can be addressed with any degree of confidence. The anti-Assad movement has not named a successor leader, much less a successor government-in-waiting. It has not offered any concrete assurances to the U.S. or U.S. allies that it would be a reliable partner. It has offered nothing tangible that it would be able to avoid a larger sectarian conflict. It has provided no indications that Syria would not need a significant nation-building component following Assad's departure.

    At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.

  7. #17
    Educator
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-04-15 @ 11:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    808

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post

    At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.
    Exactly. I have always advocated that the United States only get involved when we have clear interests at stake. There is not one in Syria, nor was there one in Libya -- as Secretary Gates openly admitted.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by NolaMan View Post
    Again, with Russia backing Syria, even if such a force were in place -- it would not be deployed in this scenario.
    would depend on the circumstances, if they proposed a rapid reaction force was under UN command and would deploy if there is a severe violation of human rights and could do so without a unanimous council vote. But then again that would take balls and the UN do not have those.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  9. #19
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Neither the U.S., nor any other country, has a universal responsibility to intervene militarily wherever civil conflicts are taking place. If the U.S. were to depose of the Assad regime, who would be the next leader? What institutional safeguards would assure that a wider sectarian conflict would not occur? What guarantees would there be that the post-Assad leadership would be able and willing to have friendly relations with the U.S. and U.S. regional allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, etc.)? What framework would assure that the U.S. would not need to enter a time-consuming and costly nation-building endeavor?

    None of those questions can be addressed with any degree of confidence. The anti-Assad movement has not named a successor leader, much less a successor government-in-waiting. It has not offered any concrete assurances to the U.S. or U.S. allies that it would be a reliable partner. It has offered nothing tangible that it would be able to avoid a larger sectarian conflict. It has provided no indications that Syria would not need a significant nation-building component following Assad's departure.

    At the same time, no critical U.S. interests are at stake. The U.S. should avoid military intervention in Syria, both for the above reasons and based on U.S. interests.
    Then why bother with the UN at all then? Why not have the US leave?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: UN monitor team shot at by Syrians

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    would depend on the circumstances, if they proposed a rapid reaction force was under UN command and would deploy if there is a severe violation of human rights and could do so without a unanimous council vote. But then again that would take balls and the UN do not have those.
    Russia won't accept such a force. It will assuredly veto any UNSC resolutions on the issue of force. Moreover, even lesser resolutions that leave open the possibility of the use of force will be vetoed, as Russia still believes that the resolutions on Libya were implemented in a fashion that went beyond the limited mandate set forth (regime change instead of protection of civilians). Russia has significant interests in Syria, as well.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •