• 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

Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.

It's domestic. His backbenchers and Labour aren't supporting him on the issue - at least until there's conclusive evidence.
 
At least Bush went to Congress

Obama isn't even doing that

Say what you want about the Iraq War (I personally despised that war), at least Bush asked for approval to use force. Only 9% of the country approves of this aggressive action against Syria. This could potentially get out of control and start WW3 REAL fast. Our interests in Syria are opposed to that of a unified China and Russia who are growing more powerful. They are starting to push back. We're arming *&^% Al Qaeda. Think about that.

Bush was called a "reckless cowboy" and he had our allies at his back, congressional approval and also UN approval. The UN in this instance is intervening because of Obama's actions and telling the US to stand down. They need time.

We have no business being in Syria. We had no business being in Libya. These are Obama's wars. We are seeing the fruits of Obama and Hillary's foreign policy failures. So now Obama is acting like a dictator, bypassing Congress and marching warships and planes to Syria. Under what authority does he have to do this? When was war declared? Did anyone get a vote on whether we should go to war with Syria or not?

I don't really care what game you are trying to play here. Whatever it is, it's not working.


Great points Bronson.
 
Biden said that was an impeachable offense.

Biden was referring to Iran. As far as Bush and Iraq, he did go to the UN, but never fully got what he wanted/needed. 1441 did not actually authorise the use of force. He did secure congressional approval though.
 
It's domestic. His backbenchers and Labour aren't supporting him on the issue - at least until there's conclusive evidence.

I'm aware of this, but wouldn't that have a bigger impact on his seeking Parliament's support (still on for tomorrow) than the UN resolution?
 
Heya Pete.....do ya got a link on that. Cameron wont throw in the towel that easy will he? Not with France puffing away.

Ya know France called for action in Africa at the same time. What do you think about France always calling for action somewhere?

Sigh your hatred for France is pathetic.

BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs must vote twice before direct UK action

The House of Commons will have to hold two votes before it can back "direct" military action in Syria, the government has announced.
 
Cameron already folding... no vote on giving the go ahead for an attack for now.. another massive political failure by Cameron.

Citation Pete.
 
Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.

It would still have been illegitimate, it requires a consensus, not a simple majority.
 
Well damn
 
Last edited:
I don't even like the fact that were at the UN before we're having a national debate, or taking it up with congress. With only 9% domestic support, if congress fails to approve, the UN is a moot point. We keep doing this backwards.
 
Well I'm hoping Obama lives up to that promise. I sure as **** don't think we should be in Syria. What's hilarious is Conservatives will try and bash Obama either way. The hawks are screaming for intervention on the right and the propaganda machine is saying if he does it he's a hypocrite.

Like I said...I'm hoping he stays out of the quagmire.

I'm jist wondering why you're holding Obama to a different standard.
 
Prime Minister Cameron was probably hoping and expecting that a vote would see the majority of the Security Council support the resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. That way, Russia and China would be isolated and the U.S./Western military operation would be promoted as enjoying international "legitimacy." What might have happened is that, at least for now, it became clear that the resolution would not command majority support. At least some nations that might be inclined to support it are probably waiting for the UN team to finish its work and report back on its findings. Of course, none of this precludes a military operation.

Yes it does... well for the British. Cameron's government has been at the forefront for demanding military action with the Foreign minister (the idiot) saying very early on it was Assad, and now Cameron has to back down big time, because he does not have the backing of the opposition nor his own party.

He actually recalled Parliament for tomorrow to force a vote, but they are having none of it. There will be a debate, but no vote on military action. And it is a massive embarrassment for Cameron... Parliament was suppose to come back on Monday any ways, but now he has wasted millions of tax payer money to call them in early for a debate that could easily have waited for Monday since then the evidence will have been evaluated by the UN.

BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs to vote twice before direct UK action

On top of that, some of the basis for wanting the military action comes from NGOs in Syria... but they are now complaining big time (was just on the BBC) that the US and British governments are not using all of their evidence and material, but only using selective parts that back up a military strike.. sound familiar? No links yet, since the interview was just on.. and I kinda doubt the media will be picking up on it fast, if at all.. they are very pro attack at the moment.

The cluster**** of Iraq is now coming back to haunt the US and UK, since no one trusts them... the whole crying wolf a few too many times. Yes there was a chemical attack, but who did it, is very much up to debate as there is zero evidence that it was the regime, plus no motive what so ever to do so. On the other hand.. the rebels, full of suicide bombing terrorists... gain everything from this. Even Camerons own back benchers are demanding proof, and not another Iraq mistake...
 

Try again Pete.....I luv French women. ;) But can you tell me why France is running around and saying they are going to Punish Syria. Now they want someone to move out on the Central African Republic. They want action. Why does the French always want action.....yet don't want to ever be on the Front lines Pete?

France's Hollande urges U.N. action on Central African Republic

r


French President Francois Hollande called on the U.N. Security Council and the African Union on Tuesday to stabilise the situation in the Central African Republic, warning it was at risk of going the way of Somalia.

Senior U.N. officials warned this month that Central African Republic was on the brink of collapse and the crisis was threatening to spread beyond its borders, calling for the Security Council to fund and support an African Union peacekeeping force.

A French diplomatic source said Paris was prepared if needed to send more troops to the country, where it already maintains a small force at Bangui's airport.....snip~

France's Hollande urges U.N. action on Central African Republic | Reuters
 
It would still have been illegitimate, it requires a consensus, not a simple majority.

Security Council authorization requires a simple majority with the requirement that none of the permanent members vote against the resolution. Legitimacy is entirely a different matter that Security Council authorization. Legitimacy does not necessarily depend on the UN, but Security Council support can be helpful in demonstrating legitimacy.

Having said that, if there is not credible evidence as to who was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, the legitimacy of a military response will be questionable, as it would be plausible that the "wrong" party were being punished. Considering that, at least up to now, there is not the kind of evidence required to assess blame and the lack of U.S. interests involved in the sectarian conflict, I don't support military action against any faction in Syria. However, it appears that a military response has been agreed in principle by the U.S., UK, France, and perhaps some additional states, with perhaps only a few details to be worked out. The UN investigation appears to be irrelevant to that decision given some of the public commentary that has been reported.
 
Try again Pete.....I luv French women. ;) But can you tell me why France is running around and saying they are going to Punish Syria. Now they want someone to move out on the Central African Republic. They want action. Why does the French always want action.....yet don't want to ever be on the Front lines Pete?

Err.. you do realize that France has troops in more countries with active combat zones than the US has right? The French want action, but mostly in their old colonies and where they have influence.. and not backing up the US empire. Does the US have troops in CAR? nope.. how about Mali? Or Chad? Ivory Coast? Gabon? nope!

Syria is an old colony, and the French are more respected there than the British and Americans... and that is why they give a damn.
 
Err.. you do realize that France has troops in more countries in active combat zones than the US has right? The French want action, but mostly in their old colonies and where they have influence.. and not backing up the US empire. Does the US have troops in CAR? nope.. how about Mali? Or Chad? Ivory Coast? Gabon? nope!

Yes but like here, Pete. Keeping a small force at the Airport to hurry on out. Doesn't count. Plus For Mali.....France had to have us ship them and carry them to their own fight. Use our Infrared and Satellite tracking. Things the French should be able to do all on their own.

Does France have troops in Syria Pete? Since when do the French decide they can go and punish anyone?
 
Yes it does... well for the British. Cameron's government has been at the forefront for demanding military action with the Foreign minister (the idiot) saying very early on it was Assad, and now Cameron has to back down big time, because he does not have the backing of the opposition nor his own party.

He actually recalled Parliament for tomorrow to force a vote, but they are having none of it. There will be a debate, but no vote on military action. And it is a massive embarrassment for Cameron... Parliament was suppose to come back on Monday any ways, but now he has wasted millions of tax payer money to call them in early for a debate that could easily have waited for Monday since then the evidence will have been evaluated by the UN.

BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs to vote twice before direct UK action

On top of that, some of the basis for wanting the military action comes from NGOs in Syria... but they are now complaining big time (was just on the BBC) that the US and British governments are not using all of their evidence and material, but only using selective parts that back up a military strike.. sound familiar? No links yet, since the interview was just on.. and I kinda doubt the media will be picking up on it fast, if at all.. they are very pro attack at the moment.

The cluster**** of Iraq is now coming back to haunt the US and UK, since no one trusts them... the whole crying wolf a few too many times. Yes there was a chemical attack, but who did it, is very much up to debate as there is zero evidence that it was the regime, plus no motive what so ever to do so. On the other hand.. the rebels, full of suicide bombing terrorists... gain everything from this. Even Camerons own back benchers are demanding proof, and not another Iraq mistake...

Pete,

I'm suggesting that what the UN does or, in the case, fails to do, will not stop the U.S., UK, France, and some others from carrying out military action. Such action appears increasingly likely and imminent. Given the pace of consultations, it would not surprise me if the operation's timing is a matter of days rather than a matter of weeks away.

I don't support such action. We are in agreement that even as there is abundant evidence of a chemical weapons attack, the evidence as to whom was responsible is lacking, and cases can be made for others aside from the Assad government bearing responsibility. I am wary of undertaking a military response in the face of what appears to be incomplete evidence.

In the U.S., much was made about the Bush Administration's rush into Iraq before there was evidence that it had reconstituted a WMD program. Post-war, it was found that it had not. Now, it appears that the U.S. is poised to launch another military operation in the face of incomplete evidence and significant uncertainty.

Personally, I don't see the need for a rush. One can wait for the evidence. Waiting entails no substantial costs. If credible and convincing evidence becomes available that the Assad dictatorship were responsible, then some kind of strikes against that government's chemical infrastructure (probably production and delivery chain, but not storage facilities given environmental and health risks) would not be unreasonable. Instead, there seems to be no appetite for patience and no willingness to make an evidence-based decision. Moreover, some news reports have suggested that the military response would be aimed at degrading the Assad government's air power (its overriding competitive advantage in the sectarian conflict), hinting at perhaps an implicit downpayment toward regime change.

P.S. It appears that the British Parliament is putting the brakes on military participation by the UK. Some are looking to make any operation contingent on the findings of the UN team. It would be nice if the U.S. Congress were similarly invested in trying to push the U.S. toward a response tied to the evidence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114
 
Last edited:
I'm not...the Iraq war includes a laundry list of issues Democrats had with Bush. Not getting UN approval was just one of them.

Bush DID get UN approval.

The alledged laundry had one item on it: Bush is a Republican.

Now that it's Obama: "oh, anything just fine".
 
OOOOOOHHHHH! A UN resolution will shiver me timbers!! I bet that will put those Syrians in their place! The UN is worth as much as air conditioning in an outhouse. Pretty much useless! Time for America to flip the rest of the worlds problems the bird and say see ya wouldnt want to be ya!! WE have problems at home!
 
Bush DID get UN approval.

The alledged laundry had one item on it: Bush is a Republican.

Now that it's Obama: "oh, anything just fine".

Not for war.....
US ambassador to the UN
[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security

After the Blix report there was talk about a resolution to use force but it was abandoned as the majority of Security Council members opposed it.
 
OOOOOOHHHHH! A UN resolution will shiver me timbers!! I bet that will put those Syrians in their place! The UN is worth as much as air conditioning in an outhouse. Pretty much useless! Time for America to flip the rest of the worlds problems the bird and say see ya wouldnt want to be ya!! WE have problems at home!

Yeah, we tried that once, back in the 30's, then 400 thousand Americans died.
 
Yeah, we tried that once, back in the 30's, then 400 thousand Americans died.

Seeme to me this time around we need to set this one out. We can no longer be the worlds police force! Plus as George Washington said "avoid foriegn intanglements". Since you are conservative you should be licking up that statement off the floor. Honestly you sound more like a NeoCon.
 
Back
Top Bottom