• 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

donsutherland1 said:
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.

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

I'm interested in what credible and convincing evidence would be? What was presented on Iraq was credible and convincing at the time, there's nothing I can imagine being credible and convincing in todays "nothing is true" media on this issue.
 
greengirl77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That notion cost 400,000 American lives, the last time.
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing funny about the pit Obama has dug for us. All over his stupid "red line" comment. No matter what he does or does not do, our country will pay the price. But that's what we get when we elect someone as incompetent as he is to be President.
 
If a western coalition goes ahead with military action, no good will come of it. There are no "good guys" in Syria, or at least damned few and nobody knows who the hell they might be. No matter which side "wins" this civil war, the Syrian people will most certainly lose.

International belly bumping aside, this is a terrible, terrible idea. :(
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Nothing funny about the pit Obama has dug for us. All over his stupid "red line" comment. No matter what he does or does not do, our country will pay the price. But that's what we get when we elect someone as incompetent as he is to be President.
Click to expand...

Oh and Republicans have done so much better at it please. Last Republican lied to get us into a war. Republicans have dug deeper pits than Dems ever will
 
greengirl77 said:
Oh and Republicans have done so much better at it please. Last Republican lied to get us into a war. Republicans have dug deeper pits than Dems ever will
Click to expand...

Heya Greengirl.
hat.gif
Well on this issue both parties are divided over it. Neo Libs and Neo Cons want to jump. Others don't.

Some lawmakers don't buy it.

“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a statement Tuesday. “I urge the Administration to continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”

Twenty-one Republican lawmakers, joined by one Democrat, so far have signed onto a House letter to Obama demanding that Congress sign off on any military response.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).

Others have made their voices heard separately.


Read more: Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force' - The Hill's Global Affairs
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a big difference. Most if not all of Frances military "interventions" were sanctioned by the UN or they were invited in by the sitting government of the country in question. France rarely unilaterally goes out and does an Iraq.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes but in the Iraq case we knew then (the French and Germans both had evidence that contradicted the US narrative and it was shared but ignored, plus even the US had evidence that contradicted the narrative), and certainly know now, that the Bush administration was cherry picking evidence to suit their narrative. The same thing seems to be happening again here.. and that is what must stop.
 
MMC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only the US and Russia has the airlifting capacity to move large amounts of troops fast.. France needed this because the situation was dire in Mali. And why on earth should every country on the planet have infrared and satellite tracking .. seems a waste when both are members of NATO.

Does France have troops in Syria Pete?
Click to expand...
¨

They have troops in Lebanon.. so almost. Where are the closest US troops.. hmmm Germany or Afghanistan.

Since when do the French decide they can go and punish anyone?
Click to expand...

When the UN says they can.. because normally France asks.
 
PeteEU said:
Only the US and Russia has the airlifting capacity to move large amounts of troops fast.. France needed this because the situation was dire in Mali. And why on earth should every country on the planet have infrared and satellite tracking .. seems a waste when both are members of NATO.

¨

They have troops in Lebanon.. so almost. Where are the closest US troops.. hmmm Germany or Afghanistan.



When the UN says they can.. because normally France asks.
Click to expand...


Well, I would ask Hillary she said they were using them to assist the Syrian Rebels to evade capture when we were only sending minor aid to them.

Closest US Troops Pete.....Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Right there Johnny Quest McCain Style Like on the spot.

Then of course as you Noticed in Africa. Right upwind of the French Foreign Legion in Djibouti. ;)

That's just it Pete.....the UN can say they can. But when will they ever do something on their own. Without US help or assistance or our supplies?

See that supplying issue needs to be dealt with in Foreign Policy with the US. That where I have a little problem with France puffing out their chests to punish people. I don't mind them going and punishing terrorists. I just would rather they use their own **** than ours.
 
MMC said:
Well
That's just it Pete.....the UN can say they can. But when will they ever do something on their own.
Click to expand...

And this is typical of an American who has zero clue on what the UN is..

The UN has no military forces. They have no military infrastructure to speak off.. they are NOT the world police force and were never designed to be. Anything the UN does with military forces is done with donated troops and weapons... something the US almost never ever does... but France does.

So yes the UN will never go out and do anything on their own.. because they cant according to their own rules and treaty...
 
Manc Skipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd say the pressure is more internal than external. Nobody in the US is keen on going to war AGAIN in ANOTHER middle eastern country with zero in return. The least we could have done is taken enough Iraqi oil to pay for the damn war.

Screw that.

Let them solve their own problems. Or let Europe deal with it. They need to pull their weight for once instead of just whining and monday morning quarterbacking.
 
PeteEU said:
And this is typical of an American who has zero clue on what the UN is..

The UN has no military forces. They have no military infrastructure to speak off.. they are NOT the world police force and were never designed to be. Anything the UN does with military forces is done with donated troops and weapons... something the US almost never ever does... but France does.

So yes the UN will never go out and do anything on their own.. because they cant according to their own rules and treaty...
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about the UN going out Pete. We were talking about France leading the Way and always pushing to get involved into other countries business. Yet they cannot do it on their own. Its France that wants to go out and Punish People. So don't you think they should be responsible for funding themselves and to start doing things on their own. Without the US Supplies and Tech? Whats wrong with France paying their own way?
 
PeteEU said:
And this is typical of an American who has zero clue on what the UN is..

The UN has no military forces. They have no military infrastructure to speak off.. they are NOT the world police force and were never designed to be. Anything the UN does with military forces is done with donated troops and weapons... something the US almost never ever does... but France does.

So yes the UN will never go out and do anything on their own.. because they cant according to their own rules and treaty...
Click to expand...

Every time the UN has ever used military force in the past 50 years it's been predominantly US forces with a few European troops sprinkled in to make the operation appear "international."

The Persian Gulf War is the most glaring example. I think the US had like 80 percent of the troops and equipment in the fight, although the operation was under the flag of the UN.

The US pays for the UN. The US is the most important member of the UN. If the US withdrew from the UN, the UN would no longer be relevant.
 
MMC said:
Heya Greengirl.
hat.gif
Well on this issue both parties are divided over it. Neo Libs and Neo Cons want to jump. Others don't.

Some lawmakers don't buy it.

“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a statement Tuesday. “I urge the Administration to continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”

Twenty-one Republican lawmakers, joined by one Democrat, so far have signed onto a House letter to Obama demanding that Congress sign off on any military response.

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” says the letter, spearheaded by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.).

Others have made their voices heard separately.


Read more: Kucinich: Syria strike would turn US into 'al Qaeda's air force' - The Hill's Global Affairs
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Click to expand...

I know! I do not care what side of the fence anyone is on! Sending our boys and girls to fight a war that does not in anyway defend our freedoms is insane. I never had a problem going into Afganistan (sp) that had to be done. Now the rest of the wars between WWII and the Afganistan were wars of choice. That we had no business in fighting. I do not want to demean the service of the men and women who fought in them. However, shame on the ones that made them fight in them. Syria, Iran, and the rest of those rat holes can blow themselves up for all I care. When they cross the Atlantic God help them. I just am a firm believer in the fact we have no business messing in other countries affairs, let alone send good money overseas to the asshats only to be be fighting them 10 years down the road. We have made that mistake to many times. Plus I am sick of seeing our service people being brought back home in body bags for fighting for a bunch of people who could really give a damn.

Honestly, I would be happy if Obama went to Congress and ask for military action. I hope they tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine. Our military is not a police force, nor is it a tool to make money for war profiteers. These men and woman are not mercenaries despites what more than a few Congressmen and Presidents have thought in the past.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Every time the UN has ever used military force in the past 50 years it's been predominantly US forces with a few European troops sprinkled in to make the operation appear "international."
Click to expand...

Bull**** on so many levels. Where were the US troops in Cyprus, most conflicts in Africa and so on.

The Persian Gulf War is the most glaring example. I think the US had like 80 percent of the troops and equipment in the fight, although the operation was under the flag of the UN.
Click to expand...

No it was not. It was authorized by the UN, but not under the UN flag, because the US refuses to let its troops be commanded by anyone else but an American. Big difference. There were no blue helmets on the ground.

The US pays for the UN.
Click to expand...

No, we all pay for the UN. The US being the biggest economy, pays the most yes. That is how it is.

The US is the most important member of the UN. If the US withdrew from the UN, the UN would no longer be relevant.
Click to expand...

Talk about being arrogant.. If the US withdrew from the UN, then yes it would be less relevant for the US, but it would be irrelevant. It would also make the US isolated and irrelevant.. but hey!
 
MMC said:
We weren't talking about the UN going out Pete. We were talking about France leading the Way and always pushing to get involved into other countries business. Yet they cannot do it on their own. Its France that wants to go out and Punish People. So don't you think they should be responsible for funding themselves and to start doing things on their own. Without the US Supplies and Tech? Whats wrong with France paying their own way?
Click to expand...

It was the British who started the "punishing" comments and wish, not the French. But I am guessing you have no problem helping the British eh?
 
PeteEU said:
Bull**** on so many levels. Where were the US troops in Cyprus, most conflicts in Africa and so on.
Click to expand...

There was a war in Cyprus?

PeteEU said:
No it was not. It was authorized by the UN, but not under the UN flag, because the US refuses to let its troops be commanded by anyone else but an American. Big difference. There were no blue helmets on the ground.
Click to expand...

OK but if it was sanctioned by the UN, and the coalition that fought the war comprised of 34 countries, what is the difference? The US still had nearly 80% of the troops in that war, even though it wasn't our problem. Europe barely lifted a finger.


PeteEU said:
No, we all pay for the UN. The US being the biggest economy, pays the most yes. That is how it is.
Click to expand...

Good, so you admit the US pays the most for the UN, more than any other country.


PeteEU said:
Talk about being arrogant.. If the US withdrew from the UN, then yes it would be less relevant for the US, but it would be irrelevant. It would also make the US isolated and irrelevant.. but hey!
Click to expand...

No, the UN would become irrelevant. It would become a bunch of talking heads that nobody listens to, much like the EU of today only with a few third world countries added.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm being realistic. The United States is the world's only superpower. It is the strongest nation to ever exist in the history of the world. We are comparatively stronger than the Roman Empire was at the height of its power, stronger than the British Empire, stronger than every single country in the entire continent of Europe combined.

You're living in an era known as Pax Americana. Enjoy it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Every time the UN has ever used military force in the past 50 years it's been predominantly US forces with a few European troops sprinkled in to make the operation appear "international."
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair assessment. To expect smaller countries with smaller populations, smaller economies, and smaller armed forces to match U.S. capabilities is not realistic. For example, in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. contributed approximately 600,000 troops. Saudi Arabia contributed close to 100,000. U.S. manpower commitments amounted to somewhere between 25%-30% of its armed forces at the time. Saudi Arabia's commitment exceeded 50% of its armed forces at the time.

The U.S. has reliable partners who are willing to make sacrifices for common security interests, sometimes when U.S. interests in given conflicts loom larger than their own e.g., Afghanistan. The U.S. also does the same e.g., providing support to France in Mali, even as the French troops took on the big risks in that conflict. That mutually beneficial relationship should not be discounted. Indeed, if it were discounted at the policy level, the U.S. would ultimately wind up only able to create ad hoc coalitions based on interests at a given time rather than the more stable and enduring partnerships it currently enjoys. That would be a "lose-lose" proposition for all who currently benefit from the partnerships, militarily and non-militarily, including the U.S.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Not only does the UN investigation appear to be irrelevant, just like the rush to war in Iraq, it appears the inspectors will be advised to leave as bombing commences, just as Hans Blixx was to his solemn protestations. Telling the UN they are relevant when they agree with us, and marginalising them when they don't, is getting old. But not just to me. That is why two very powerful countries have been consistent in their vetoes on Syria, citing abuses in Iraq and Libya.
 
Ben K. said:
I'm interested in what credible and convincing evidence would be? What was presented on Iraq was credible and convincing at the time, there's nothing I can imagine being credible and convincing in todays "nothing is true" media on this issue.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? NOTHING Colin Powell presented was credible and convincing! There was no smoking gun, there was no threat of a mushroom cloud over an American city (Saddam hadn't the means) and Blix was given unprecedented access and found nothing and was told to leave, we're bombing anyway. Because, intelligence was fixed around policy!!
 
Montecresto said:
Not only does the UN investigation appear to be irrelevant, just like the rush to war in Iraq, it appears the inspectors will be advised to leave as bombing commences, just as Hans Blixx was to his solemn protestations. Telling the UN they are relevant when they agree with us, and marginalising them when they don't, is getting old. But not just to me. That is why two very powerful countries have been consistent in their vetoes on Syria, citing abuses in Iraq and Libya.
Click to expand...

Given developments in France and the UK, it appears that the UN investigation will not be cut short. It will conclude on Saturday as scheduled with the findings made available to the Secretary-General and Security Council shortly afterward. If the UN team needs more time, I hope the team will get the time it needs.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Given developments in France and the UK, it appears that the UN investigation will not be cut short. It will conclude on Saturday as scheduled with the findings made available to the Secretary-General and Security Council shortly afterward. If the UN team needs more time, I hope the team will get the time it needs.
Click to expand...


That we can agree on.


This is what happened Sunday, which helped prompt my response:

WASHINGTON - After initially insisting that Syria give United Nations investigators unimpeded access to the site of an alleged nerve gas attack, the administration of President Barack Obama reversed its position on Sunday and tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. to call off its investigation.

The administration’s reversal, which came within hours of the deal reached between Syria and the U.N., was reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday and effectively confirmed by a State Department spokesperson later that day.


https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/28
 
PeteEU said:
It was the British who started the "punishing" comments and wish, not the French. But I am guessing you have no problem helping the British eh?
Click to expand...

How was it the British Pete.....when the French just like with Libya, officially recognized the Syria Rebels first before all others and was the Very First pushing for Armed Intervention?

Can you explain how the French could Officially recognize AQ, the MB and Al Nusra? Don't you think the French should be Punished for making such a Universal and Colossal mistake in the world. Shouldn't the French have to suffer the error of their ways.
 
Peter Grimm said:
There was a war in Cyprus?



OK but if it was sanctioned by the UN, and the coalition that fought the war comprised of 34 countries, what is the difference? The US still had nearly 80% of the troops in that war, even though it wasn't our problem. Europe barely lifted a finger.




Good, so you admit the US pays the most for the UN, more than any other country.




No, the UN would become irrelevant. It would become a bunch of talking heads that nobody listens to, much like the EU of today only with a few third world countries added.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm being realistic. The United States is the world's only superpower. It is the strongest nation to ever exist in the history of the world. We are comparatively stronger than the Roman Empire was at the height of its power, stronger than the British Empire, stronger than every single country in the entire continent of Europe combined.

You're living in an era known as Pax Americana. Enjoy it.
Click to expand...

yeh Turkey invaded Cyprus in the early 70's ( believe it was around there) and they occupied the northern side of the island which they still hold to this day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom