• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution

According to your link, the Syrian government is denying any chemical attacks and blames the rebels. That's entirely possible, in my opinion. Nothing is as it seems.


It's much more than possible, it's very likely. But never mind, everybody get back, we're coming in.
 
BBC News - Syria crisis: UK to put forward UN resolution



Hold onto your hats because it looks like this is going to happen. Hopefully if they move on this they do it fast.

Russia and/or China will veto any such resolutions. The UK and others leading the effort for a military response against Syria are hoping for majority of Security Council support, even as a veto by any of the permanent members technically means that the resolution wasn't adopted.
 
if the UN are allowed to carry out their inspections without interference then I'm sure we will, don't see that happening however.


Of course you don't. Assad welcomed the UN inspectors, eager to prove he didn't use chemical weapons. But when they arrived, the rebel snipers opened fire on the caravan forcing a retreat. WHO is it that has something to hide?
 
You don't expect either Russia or China to veto?

Mornin Serenity.
hat.gif
Yes the Russians have already told both the UK and us that China and they will veto. So Cameron is looking to go round with what the French said.

Western leaders mull military response in Syria

0eecb8b2be1d9b1c3b0f6a706700fd77.jpg


Western leaders are discussing whether to stage a military response to last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. France and Germany, which refused to support the 2003 Iraq invasion, suggested Monday they may take part. Russia said any such intervention would violate international law.

UNITED STATES
Secretary of State John Kerry says chemical weapons were used in Syria, accuses President Bashar Assad of destroying evidence, and says the U.S. has additional information about the attack and will soon make it public. Kerry calls the attack a "moral obscenity" that should shock the conscience of the world.

FRANCE
Hollande spoke with President Barack Obama on Sunday and told him France, like Britain, would support him in a targeted military intervention, according to the paper.

RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Western nations calling for military action against Syria have no proof the regime is behind the alleged attack.
They cannot produce evidence, but keep on saying that the 'red line' has been crossed and they cannot wait any longer," he said at a Moscow news conference.
Lavrov likened the situation in Syria to the run-up before the 2003 Iraq invasion. He warned against military intervention in Syria, saying "the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council is a crude violation of international law."


TURKEY
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says his country would take part in an international coalition against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime if the U.N. failed to come up with sanctions to punish Syria for the alleged use of chemical weapons.

EUROPEAN UNION
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton says a decision about military intervention in Syria hasn't been made yet and the support of the U.N. Security Council for any such action remains "extremely important."

ISRAEL
President Shimon Peres calls on the U.N. to appoint the Arab League to set up a temporary government in Syria to stop the bloodshed......snip~

Western leaders mull military response in Syria
 
And that's an acknowledgement that the US/UK are playing from the bottom of the deck. And, if you don't want to play by the UN rules, you have to FIRST resign your membership.

It's not an acknowledgement in anything I typed out.
 
Of course you don't. Assad welcomed the UN inspectors, eager to prove he didn't use chemical weapons. But when they arrived, the rebel snipers opened fire on the caravan forcing a retreat. WHO is it that has something to hide?

That's what the evil dictator said yes...:roll:
 
You know the estimated deaths from conventional weapons in the two year old Syrian civil war are estimated between 80,000 to 110,000. Just shocking. Action deemed necessary - Nada.

Meanwhile Chemical attack kills 350 people - Now there's support for Full steam ahead without any concrete proof as to who is responsible for those particular attacks - The Syrian government or the Rebels...

Who are you going to target?
 
There's no way for it to pass, with Russia and China blocking. I get the feeling the decision's made, but the US is reluctant, under pressure from its allies to be policeman again. Cameron's desperate to be seen as more macho.

Heya Skipper. :2wave: Its more of the French. As they think they can do whatever they want by stating they are protecting the people of another country.


US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action

The United States and its allies are looking beyond the painfully divided U.N. Security Council to legitimize military action against Syria, trying to build a cohesive rationale for a strike and win broad international backing.

A U.S.-led coalition is likely to invoke an international doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect, which states that the international community has an obligation to act to prevent crimes against humanity no matter where they occur, said Stephen Biddle, an expert on U.S. military and foreign policy at George Washington University. Biddle noted that the doctrine is increasingly perceived as superceding the need to respect a country's sovereignty.

"The two natural avenues are NATO and the doctrine of responsibility to protect," he said.

With little appetite among Americans for plunging into another Mideast conflict, the Obama administration cast its rationale for striking Syria in narrow terms. The goal would not be regime change — as was the case in Iraq — but punishing Syria for its violations of international treaties on chemical weapons, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said Tuesday that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's stance remains unchanged: "Our focus is away from any military solution and toward a diplomatic solution."

But the United States, France and Britain all argued this week that waiting for U.N. action can no longer be justified.

French President Francois Hollande suggested that the Security Council's failure to act so far is justifying a terrible international crime.

"International law must evolve with the times. It cannot be a pretext to allow mass massacres to be perpetrated," French President Francois Holland said Tuesday. He then went on to invoke France's recognition of "the responsibility to protect civilian populations" that the U.N. General Assembly approved in 2005.....snip~

US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action



So now when France says the UN should go help say the State of Florida.....looks like they are saying they don't need any UN approval from the Security Council. They are protecting the population. It Is a good enuff excuse for them.
Which just for making such a suggestion. France should be removed From the Security Counsel.
 
You know the estimated deaths from conventional weapons in the two year old Syrian civil war are estimated between 80,000 to 110,000. Just shocking. Action deemed necessary - Nada.

Meanwhile Chemical attack kills 350 people - Now there's support for Full steam ahead without any concrete proof as to who is responsible for those particular attacks - The Syrian government or the Rebels...

Who are you going to target?

But see those 350 people dead crossed a "red line" that Obama drew. That's what counts, if a person is to buy into the line he sells. Don't ask me why he said something so dumb.
 
According to your link, the Syrian government is denying any chemical attacks and blames the rebels. That's entirely possible, in my opinion. Nothing is as it seems.

Mornin Maggie.
hat.gif
The Russians have denied it to. Furthermore they stated the Rocket or Missile that fired the Chems was homemade. Assad's people even took that area held by the Rebels. They even found a barrel with markings from Saudi Arabia.
 
if the UN are allowed to carry out their inspections without interference then I'm sure we will, don't see that happening however.

Well, the Rebels delayed that by one day by taking pot shots at the UN people while traveling thru the area they held. Should be speaking volumes but is getting covered over.
 
Heya Skipper. :2wave: Its more of the French. As they think they can do whatever they want by stating they are protecting the people of another country.


US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action

The United States and its allies are looking beyond the painfully divided U.N. Security Council to legitimize military action against Syria, trying to build a cohesive rationale for a strike and win broad international backing.

A U.S.-led coalition is likely to invoke an international doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect, which states that the international community has an obligation to act to prevent crimes against humanity no matter where they occur, said Stephen Biddle, an expert on U.S. military and foreign policy at George Washington University. Biddle noted that the doctrine is increasingly perceived as superceding the need to respect a country's sovereignty.

"The two natural avenues are NATO and the doctrine of responsibility to protect," he said.

With little appetite among Americans for plunging into another Mideast conflict, the Obama administration cast its rationale for striking Syria in narrow terms. The goal would not be regime change — as was the case in Iraq — but punishing Syria for its violations of international treaties on chemical weapons, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said Tuesday that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's stance remains unchanged: "Our focus is away from any military solution and toward a diplomatic solution."

But the United States, France and Britain all argued this week that waiting for U.N. action can no longer be justified.

French President Francois Hollande suggested that the Security Council's failure to act so far is justifying a terrible international crime.

"International law must evolve with the times. It cannot be a pretext to allow mass massacres to be perpetrated," French President Francois Holland said Tuesday. He then went on to invoke France's recognition of "the responsibility to protect civilian populations" that the U.N. General Assembly approved in 2005.....snip~

US, allies going beyond UN to justify Syria action



So now when France says the UN should go help say the State of Florida.....looks like they are saying they don't need any UN approval from the Security Council. They are protecting the population. It Is a good enuff excuse for them.
Which just for making such a suggestion. France should be removed From the Security Counsel.

LOL. And when America went to war with Iraq, one of the reasons being the same as what is going on now in Syria, where was all this kind of talk? Then it was nothing but how evil the US was. Screw these people.

And using NATO as a guise for a civil war that has nothing to do with a member nation? Whats that guy been drinking for lunch?
 
Public opinion. This is the game that Obama plays, on the world stage as well as at home. As long as Obama claims to be "doing the right thing" his fan base is fine with doing "unprecedented" things. Whether it is "dreamy" immigration law reform or blowing up things/people in foreign nations you can do it as POTUS because nobody will stop you. Money flows and flags wave.

Is it not odd that you hear basically one of two things: Obama should have acted 30 months ago before simply watching 100K deaths in Syria or that we should not get involved in the mess that is now likely to leave Syria in the control of radical Islamists. Obama knows that once the missiles start to fly that there is no turning back and even his critics will wave the flag and praise the "fine job" that our military is doing to "restore order to the region". Never mind that Libya and Iraq are messes after they were "saved" orby the USA or that a military coup has actually occured in Egypt.

Rest assured that Obama will use this new "mini war" to explain why he needs the "patriotic" support of all of the American people to raise the debt "ceiling" (which is really now only the debt floor) to some absurd level (enough to last until after the 2014 elections?) and that we must put aside our partisan differences to let him simply do as he pleases. After all, he is the Nobel Peace Prize guy, so starting another foreign military campaign is cool even with the code pink folks.

Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Yep, Obama was told by McCain.....then he was told by Russia and China yesterday. Late like! This drive By will do nothing but show that we can do whatever the hell we want. It's Not Regime Change Obama wants. So says Jay Carney. Yet how does this stand up with Obama saying Assad must go. Cant be saying regime change and now come back and say. Its not for Regime Change. Its so we can punishing Assad for using Chems. Even tho then we would have to go punish those Sunni Rebels for using them.....huh?

See how the French can't think beyond the words that come out of their mouths.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an influential voice on military matters, pressed the administration to go further, calling for the U.S. and its allies to provide weapons to "the resistance on the ground."

"The important part of this whole situation is, is this just going to be just a retaliatory strike that has no lasting impact or something that changes the momentum on the ground in Syria?" McCain told reporters in Mesa, Ariz., after an event on immigration reform.

Tuesday, a fifth guided-missile destroyer, the USS Stout, also entered the Mediterranean, through the Straights of Gibraltar, but officials said it wouldn't take part in any cruise missile attack.

"The four destroyers now in place have more than enough cruise missiles," one official said.

Some U.S. allies, notably Britain, have signaled that a limited strike could take place without Security Council approval. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it would be a "very grave violation of international law," and China said through its government-run news service that the U.S. must refrain from "hasty armed intervention.".....snip~

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say - World News

Edit.....that 5th Destroyer.....is in case Assad has any Russian P800 missiles. It is a ship killer. One Strike!

Now what happens if Assad sinks one of our Ships.....for attacking him without a UN Resolution?
 
Last edited:
Well, the Rebels delayed that by one day by taking pot shots at the UN people while traveling thru the area they held. Should be speaking volumes but is getting covered over.

the rebels did? Can we confirm that?
 
the rebels did? Can we confirm that?

Sure, just as well as we "confirmed" Assad carried out a chemical attack. Let me ask you, who has to say that the rebels fired on the UN inspectors in order for YOU to accept it as confirmed?
 
That's what the evil dictator said yes...:roll:

Yeah that's what Assad said and did.....after the Russians set the whole thing up. While the Rebels refused to go to a Peace Conference. Stating no Alawites in the Future of Syria.
 
Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Yep, Obama was told by McCain.....then he was told by Russia and China yesterday. Late like! This drive By will do nothing but show that we can do whatever the hell we want. It's Not Regime Change Obama wants. So says Jay Carney. Yet how does this stand up with Obama saying Assad must go. Cant be saying regime change and now come back and say. Its not for Regime Change. Its so we can punishing Assad for using Chems. Even tho then we would have to go punish those Sunni Rebels for using them.....huh?

See how the French can't think beyond the words that come out of their mouths.

But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an influential voice on military matters, pressed the administration to go further, calling for the U.S. and its allies to provide weapons to "the resistance on the ground."

"The important part of this whole situation is, is this just going to be just a retaliatory strike that has no lasting impact or something that changes the momentum on the ground in Syria?" McCain told reporters in Mesa, Ariz., after an event on immigration reform.

Tuesday, a fifth guided-missile destroyer, the USS Stout, also entered the Mediterranean, through the Straights of Gibraltar, but officials said it wouldn't take part in any cruise missile attack.

"The four destroyers now in place have more than enough cruise missiles," one official said.

Some U.S. allies, notably Britain, have signaled that a limited strike could take place without Security Council approval. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it would be a "very grave violation of international law," and China said through its government-run news service that the U.S. must refrain from "hasty armed intervention.".....snip~

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say - World News

Edit.....that 5th Destroyer.....is in case Assad has any Russian P800 missiles. It is a ship killer. One Strike!

Now what happens if Assad sinks one of our Ships.....for attacking him without a UN Resolution?

The timing is perfect for making the debt "ceiling" debate and the Benghazi anniversary into minor background noise - the front page will be Syria, U.S. miliatry "victories" and, better yet, lots of very patriotic flag waiving. Obama is all about politics and this is the perfect situation - a "war" without any of those nasty "preconditons" like even a clear goal or "boots on the ground". Naturally, if we did nothing, for another 30 months, then the "Syria situation" (whatever that is) would have destroyed the U.S. economy. ;)
 
LOL. And when America went to war with Iraq, one of the reasons being the same as what is going on now in Syria, where was all this kind of talk? Then it was nothing but how evil the US was. Screw these people.

And using NATO as a guise for a civil war that has nothing to do with a member nation? Whats that guy been drinking for lunch?

Looks like the UN Sec General.....has told Obama, Cameron, and Hollandaize Sauce just where the UN is standing on this.
 
The timing is perfect for making the debt "ceiling" debate and the Benghazi anniversary into minor background noise - the front page will be Syria, U.S. miliatry "victories" and, better yet, lots of very patriotic flag waiving. Obama is all about politics and this is the perfect situation - a "war" without any of those nasty "preconditons" like even a clear goal or "boots on the ground". Naturally, if we did nothing, for another 30 months, then the "Syria situation" (whatever that is) would have destroyed the U.S. economy. ;)

Well here is what this professor is saying. Still how does Obama justify 820k per tomahawk with the military already being depleted. Which he will then have to replace what he fires. Hows that help us economically in that area. This is a big mistake. Syria or Russia can start **** elsewhere. But one thing is for certain. Russia is just luving getting us into this Proxy war. We lose credibility if we do something and if we don't.

Yet we need to know who all the players are and who wont be round. Which we can't stop Syria from splitting into 3 separate regions. As they are already doing.

Local Expert: Firing Cruise Missiles At Syria Would Be ‘Drive-By Shooting’

We’re merely gonna to what I would call a drive-by shooting and will do some damage to the Syrian forces but it won’t shift the balance of power on the ground at all,” said Mearsheimer.

So he’s suggesting retaliatory strikes by the U.S. be delayed, perhaps permanently.....snip~

Local Expert: Firing Cruise Missiles At Syria Would Be
 
Yes, this Civil war was started by the MB and the Salafists. How could you not know this?

and here was me thinking the civil war broke out on the back of the Arab spring with protesters demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has held the presidency in Syria since 1971.....
 
the rebels did? Can we confirm that?

Whats to confirm.....the UN people said they were traveling thru the areas held by the Rebels. What were they going to say somehow Assad's people got down in there and infiltrated them just to take a high risk shot at the UN Investigators?
 
Back
Top Bottom