Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.
if the UN are allowed to carry out their inspections without interference then I'm sure we will, don't see that happening however.
You don't expect either Russia or China to veto?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
if the UN are allowed to carry out their inspections without interference then I'm sure we will, don't see that happening however.
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.
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.
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.
That's what the evil dictator said yes...:roll:
the rebels did? Can we confirm that?
That's what the evil dictator said yes...:roll:
so you think this civil war was started by terrorists?
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?
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?
so you think this civil war was started by terrorists?
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.
Yes, this Civil war was started by the MB and the Salafists. How could you not know this?
the rebels did? Can we confirm that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?