• 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

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wait a minute. Cameron is suggesting that the council hasn't lived up to its responsibilities in Syria, meaning Russia and Chinas vetoes on sanctions and use of force are irresponsible. It seems to me they think the west is acting irresponsible. And the resolution will include a condemnation of "Assad's chemical attack", the UN hasn't confirmed that, and there's far more evidence that the al Qaida affiliated insurgents launched the chemical attacks. I seriously doubt the Russians and the Chinese are going to accept this.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,884
Reaction score
27,991
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,759
Reaction score
9,624
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

Its so they can say "well we tried to go through the proper channels". Either way missiles will be fired.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its so they can say "well we tried to go through the proper channels". Either way missiles will be fired.


When you go through the proper channels and your told NO. then missiles don't fly. Otherwise, what is the use of going through the proper channels?
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Without a doubt but it won't stop the Uk/US now. This is just for show

That's a blatant acknowledgment that the US/UK have no respect for the UN and are prepared to act belligerent, and there appears to be glee in your words over the prospect.
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,759
Reaction score
9,624
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's a blatant acknowledgment that the US/UK have no respect for the UN and are prepared to act belligerent, and there appears to be glee in your words over the prospect.

No glee at all actually however I have been calling for intervention in this genocide for about 12 months now. The problem is that countries like Russia are going to do whatever they want to do and it won't matter what evidence we put forward. So we go through the proper channels, present the evidence and when they still don't budge the US/UK take the necessary steps.
 

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
338
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's a blatant acknowledgment that the US/UK have no respect for the UN and are prepared to act belligerent, and there appears to be glee in your words over the prospect.

It's to bad that the US does have some respect for the UN. I wish it had none and left the organization. It's near useless and it's corrupt.

The statement you made makes an assumption that everybody else is not playing cards from the bottom of the deck. That ain't the case.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
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.


Maybe not as fast as some thought. Also the UN has already came out and said they do not seek any Military Solution. Moreover Ban Ki moon came out today and said the UN Inspectors need more time anyways.


US still defining objectives of strike on Syria

383de480dca6b11c3b0f6a706700592c.jpg


The Obama administration is still defining the central objectives of a potential military strike on Syria and considering possible Syrian government reprisals, even as U.S. intelligence agencies prepare additional evidence to show the Bashar Assad government's responsibility for last week's alleged chemical weapons attack, two senior administration officials said Wednesday.

One of the officials also said the administration is considering more than a single set of military strikes. "The options are not limited just to one day" of strikes, the official said, adding that no additional U.S. defensive weapons have been deployed in the region in anticipation of Syria reprisals. The U.S. already has Patriot anti-missile batteries in Jordan and Turkey.

In broad terms, the U.S. and international objective of striking Syria would be to damage the Syrian government's military and weapons enough to make it difficult to conduct more chemical weapons attacks, and to make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons again.

One administration official said Wednesday the administration also is concerned that if Assad is not punished, dictatorial leaders of other nations in possession of chemical weapons, like North Korea, might see the failure to act as a sign that they, too, could get away with using the weapons.

Administration officials have said Assad's actions posed a direct threat to U.S. national security, providing Obama with a potential legal justification for launching a strike without authorization from the United Nations or Congress. However, officials did not detail how the U.S. was directly threatened by an attack contained within Syria's borders. Nor did they present concrete proof that Assad was responsible.

The U.S. and its international partners were unlikely to undertake military action before Thursday. That's when British Prime Minister David Cameron will convene an emergency meeting of Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to vote on a motion clearing the way for a British response to the alleged chemical weapons attack.....snip~

US still defining objectives of strike on Syria
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,759
Reaction score
9,624
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe not as fast as some thought. Also the UN has already came out and said they do not seek any Military Solution. Moreover Ban Ki moon came out today and said the UN Inspectors need more time anyways.


US still defining objectives of strike on Syria

383de480dca6b11c3b0f6a706700592c.jpg


The Obama administration is still defining the central objectives of a potential military strike on Syria and considering possible Syrian government reprisals, even as U.S. intelligence agencies prepare additional evidence to show the Bashar Assad government's responsibility for last week's alleged chemical weapons attack, two senior administration officials said Wednesday.

One of the officials also said the administration is considering more than a single set of military strikes. "The options are not limited just to one day" of strikes, the official said, adding that no additional U.S. defensive weapons have been deployed in the region in anticipation of Syria reprisals. The U.S. already has Patriot anti-missile batteries in Jordan and Turkey.

In broad terms, the U.S. and international objective of striking Syria would be to damage the Syrian government's military and weapons enough to make it difficult to conduct more chemical weapons attacks, and to make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons again.

One administration official said Wednesday the administration also is concerned that if Assad is not punished, dictatorial leaders of other nations in possession of chemical weapons, like North Korea, might see the failure to act as a sign that they, too, could get away with using the weapons.

Administration officials have said Assad's actions posed a direct threat to U.S. national security, providing Obama with a potential legal justification for launching a strike without authorization from the United Nations or Congress. However, officials did not detail how the U.S. was directly threatened by an attack contained within Syria's borders. Nor did they present concrete proof that Assad was responsible.

The U.S. and its international partners were unlikely to undertake military action before Thursday. That's when British Prime Minister David Cameron will convene an emergency meeting of Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to vote on a motion clearing the way for a British response to the alleged chemical weapons attack.....snip~

US still defining objectives of strike on Syria


I think this move by the UK was just to buy time to get everything in order before they go forward with any kind of strike.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No glee at all actually however I have been calling for intervention in this genocide for about 12 months now. The problem is that countries like Russia are going to do whatever they want to do and it won't matter what evidence we put forward. So we go through the proper channels, present the evidence and when they still don't budge the US/UK take the necessary steps.

But when the "evidence" is trumped up, why would they be obliged to accept it. If your not going to accept the results at the UN, then why does it exist. (Its rhetorical)
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,663
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's to bad that the US does have some respect for the UN. I wish it had none and left the organization. It's near useless and it's corrupt.

The statement you made makes an assumption that everybody else is not playing cards from the bottom of the deck. That ain't the case.

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.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,778
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's a blatant acknowledgment that the US/UK have no respect for the UN and are prepared to act belligerent, and there appears to be glee in your words over the prospect.

Why would anyone have respect for the UN?
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh Yeh! We'll kill a bunch of Syrians to stop the killing of Syrians. I can see that Syria is as big a threat to the USA as Saddam Hussein, even in his current state.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,778
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.

No you don't. You can ignore it as well. Although, I do agree that it would be very smart for the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N. That would put it in its grave where it belongs right along side the League of Nations.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think this move by the UK was just to buy time to get everything in order before they go forward with any kind of strike.


Are you salivating for a strike. For the US, a legal strike requires a consensus at the UN and congressional approval at home. Anything short of that will be another belligerent action.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,813
Reaction score
53,495
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When you go through the proper channels and your told NO. then missiles don't fly. Otherwise, what is the use of going through the proper channels?

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.
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,759
Reaction score
9,624
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But when the "evidence" is trumped up, why would they be obliged to accept it. If your not going to accept the results at the UN, then why does it exist. (Its rhetorical)

if the UN are allowed to carry out their inspections without interference then I'm sure we will, don't see that happening however.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Wait a minute. Cameron is suggesting that the council hasn't lived up to its responsibilities in Syria, meaning Russia and Chinas vetoes on sanctions and use of force are irresponsible. It seems to me they think the west is acting irresponsible. And the resolution will include a condemnation of "Assad's chemical attack", the UN hasn't confirmed that, and there's far more evidence that the al Qaida affiliated insurgents launched the chemical attacks. I seriously doubt the Russians and the Chinese are going to accept this.

Heya Monte.....that's because Cameron is following the French on this and what they stated in 2003. As you mentioned to me before that it was under Chiroc.

West vows action in Syria with no details

French President Francois Hollande says the country is ready to punish those who “took the despicable decision to gas the innocent,” while British Prime Minister David Cameron says that any military action against Syria must not entail being dragged into a wider Middle East conflict. Deborah Lutterbeck reports.....snip~

West vows action in Syria with no details - Watch List News
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
3,778
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oh Yeh! We'll kill a bunch of Syrians to stop the killing of Syrians. I can see that Syria is as big a threat to the USA as Saddam Hussein, even in his current state.

No good can come from attacking Syria. This stupid show of force won't change anybody's mind about continuing the civil war. It is actually embarrassing for me to see the U.S. acting this way.
 
Top Bottom