If people really want a solution for Syria : Mass abduction
All countries should chip in for this ingenious plan We abduct all Syrians and relocate them to the Antarctica, for a weekend... I think that everybody would learn a lesson from such a unorthodox yet pedagogical method ...
Boban1: If people really want a solution for Syria : Mass abduction
All countries should chip in for this ingenious plan We abduct all Syrians and relocate them to the Antarctica, for a weekend... I think that everybody would learn a lesson from such a unorthodox yet pedagogical method ...
You know there's a lot of oil there? how long do you think they would remain ingenious there? they would be snow terrorists before you know it
Iseek: This is a straight forward question, Why NOT give peace a chance by backing Kofi Annan to the absolute hilt FIRST, then consider other options IF peace fails?
Or why not just fully back the Syrian government in its efforts to put down the foreign funded and organized terrorist insurgency?
Why must every solution involve stripping Syria of its sovereignty?
Albertaghost: UNSC Resolutions 660 - 1441 authorized any action necessary to get Iraq to adhere to the various ceasefire conditions so, what action is not permitted when all actions are authorized and, what qualified body has ruled the actions of the coalition illegal?
Glad you brought that up, I spent a VERY long time reading and re-reading ALL the resolutions back then, and then an equal amount of time writing up on the subject. Here is a small sample (and I mean SMALL) of just how wrong you are..
The then United Nations Secretary-General said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.
The UN Charter states: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists said: This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined"
A detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands headed by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids, Stated that the 2003 invasion violated international law.
Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law."
The commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions."
Albertaghost: The bulk of Saddam's arms during this period came from the Soviet Union, Middle East, China and Eastern Europe with the US,even though their role was minimal, providing more military equipment to Iran than Iraq.
We have been here before and despite mine and others producing Your own Government documents on this issue, to prove you wrong you still want to argue... Well this particular part of your post is now considered exhausted...
If a terrorist insurgency funded by foreign powers erupted in your country would you want other nations (including the ones funding the insurgency) to send troops and arms to help the terrorists overthrow your government???
That's what has been happening in all the Arab Spring takeovers.
I think the international community should worry about their own problems and let the Syrians worry about theirs.
Boban1: Cause Assad is presented in the western medias as a tyrant,oppressor of democracy ,Same scenario as Libya
Exactly.
The CIA only has one gameplan for these situations. First they infiltrate the country and set up a terrorist organization to serve as their front. Then they collect some mercenaries and start some violence. Then when the government reacts to try to restore order they blame all the deaths and violence on the government. Then they try to get the world community to sanction the government, impose no-fly zones, bomb air bases, open supply routes to bring in a lot of weapons, etc etc etc.
It's just a new style of colonialist invasion. Always done with some sort of international globalist coalition cover, so that they can call it "peacemaking" as they make war to destroy the country.
RayfromUSA: If a terrorist insurgency funded by foreign powers erupted in your country would you want other nations (including the ones funding the insurgency) to send troops and arms to help the terrorists overthrow your government???
That's what has been happening in all the Arab Spring takeovers.
I think the international community should worry about their own problems and let the Syrians worry about theirs.
Considering the financial state of The US, EU and others, one might be forgiven for thinking this is another avoidance of the problems at home in the above mentioned countries...
The then United Nations Secretary-General said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.
The UN Charter states: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists said: This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined"
A detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands headed by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids, Stated that the 2003 invasion violated international law.
Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law."
The commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions."
We have been here before and despite mine and others producing Your own Government documents on this issue, to prove you wrong you still want to argue... Well this particular part of your post is now considered exhausted...
You are absolutely right.
The Canadian Casper invariably tries to re-write the facts of history to make them conform to his delusions.
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
Iseek: Glad you brought that up, I spent a VERY long time reading and re-reading ALL the resolutions back then, and then an equal amount of time writing up on the subject. Here is a small sample (and I mean SMALL) of just how wrong you are..
The then United Nations Secretary-General said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.
Yet he is not nine of the fifteen members of the Security Council so cannot make a ruling as to what their resolution would or would not allow so, it is merely personal opinion.
Iseek: The UN Charter states: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
And the Security Council supersedes charter as it was formed to deal with matters that the charter does not such as resolving an issue where a nation breeches charter and must be dealt with as this situation dictated.
Iseek: Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists said: This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined"
A detailed legal investigation conducted by an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands headed by former Netherlands Supreme Court president Willibrord Davids, Stated that the 2003 invasion violated international law. Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law."
The commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions."
And since the Security Council is authorized to deal with matters such as the Iraq situation and supersedes all of these bodies what did they say about lesser bodies finding their resolution illegal and did they acknowledge their actions on this matter were illegal and what censures did they make against themselves or, did they just make the logical decision that those bodies don't have squat to do with resolutions made in the Security Council?
Iseek: We have been here before and despite mine and others producing Your own Government documents on this issue, to prove you wrong you still want to argue... Well this particular part of your post is now considered exhausted...
That's right, you did attempt to show how a decision made by the highest body on the planet and one that was formed to make rulings was somehow able to be over run by local and lesser bodies.
The only body able to state the action was illegal are the ones who made the resolution authorizing the action and so far, they have nt even condemned it. Know why? Because they approved it.
Iseek: Which would put your country and the West in general, in a very uncomfortable position, having encouraged the arming of the Rebels in Syria, OR at the very least turned a blind eye to the fact..Yep, I have noticed that, the propaganda and lies have already started, like HE does shoot to kill lists, he instructed use of stuxnet virus etc, etc, So I guess YOU are now asking me to understand that nothing but an attack on Syria and Iran will get your President reelected.. So I ask again HOW does this SAVE innocent lives in Syria? REALLY?
The mans name IS KOFI..
REALLY? YOU actually BELIEVE that!! No, you like to avoid the question, you like to circumvent the actual debate, and you like to let the world know of your importance..
Jesus, You know, from American friends, I had been told that the loonies in Washington were doing their best to get the good ole cold war going again, but I didn't realize just how far back to the 50's you guys went...Absolute Tripe, Russia losing Veto, just to begin with! Dear God, it REALLY sticks in your gullet, that there MIGHT be EVEN a slim chance of PEACE...
I thought you wanted to stop the killing in Syria. Save the 1000s of Syrian that are dying.
Kofi Annan cannot do it alone. He needs peace keeper. If Russia has them. Why not use them.
But you are going to play some hard politics on Mr. Putin to do so. Placing his UN Security Council seat on the line....is playing some hard ball politics. Aren't Russian peace keeper good enough for you? What is wrong with 300,000 Russian in Syria? Russia is putting 15,000-20,000 in there now. Just add some more and give them cans of blue spray paint.
Are you saying the General Assembly cannot write such a resolution on Russia? Heck it writes such resolutions on Israel all the time. Give up this quarter acre of land or the UN will fly the Isreali Flag up side down in protest.
The UN gave the US a mandate to over fly Iraq and to protect the Kurds and Shia.....we did exactly that.....even in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Is Russia to big to obey a UN mandate?
No, you don't want Russian troops in there. You want American troops in there......so they can be target for all the foreign fighter that are in Syria. You just wish to kill Americans with your Kofi Annan plan.
Why did Kofi Annan come straight to the United States after his Syria visit? Because he knows that the United States is best hope to find a major peace keeping force for the country. Screw that....pardon the French.
No, we have other military plans for American....those military options for Iran....remember? I said Syria is only a diversion to our real threat. That threat is not Syria. But this why ever US troops under a UN command is such a really bad idea.
But sending some Russian troops into peace keep in Syria give me a real thrill up my leg. Just the thought of having Russia with a large deployeed force in a very hostile land give me quivers. After what Russia did in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
It would give the people of Syria real thrills and quivers as well. Ever stop to think....that the atrocity doers just might be Russian? Because that is exactly the kind of thing they did in both places.
But let us not speculate. We can just wait for Assad and Annan to tell us who did them. Assad is already saying it was not his people. It was to monsterous a thing to do.
See we have seen this in the past. Sadam Hussien used the same tactics on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Remember he had the pushed out many kurds of northern Iraq into the southern area of Turkey? All those camps in the Turkish hills.....with no water....with little food....with no shelter.
Well just take the hills to be the eastern side of the Baka Valley hills just across the Lebanon border. Assad people or the Russian want to reduce the Sunni presence in the western side of Syria. So they start these atrocities....knowing Sunni men will move their families to safety across the border. So fewer Sunni men to fight.
That is exactly what is happening here.
But for the Irish and French peace keeper in Lebanon.....allot of bad is coming. Summer time they can live outside. But come fall and winter....they food/shelter/heat....the Sunni will begin to raid down into the Hezbollah held villages that the UN Peace Keeper protect. Or go to the main cities.....
These little troubles in Lebanon, now?....those are only scouting groups of Sunni getting caught in the cities. Scouting for what? Food, fuel, shelter.....for their families up in the Baka Valley hills.
So I would not be so picky about the Peace Keeper that I found for Syria. If you can beg, borrow, or steal them for Syria from Russia, China, or Africa....you better do it. If doing some hard ball politics on Putin is below your high moral standards.....it will Irish peace keeper in the body bags. You can explain that high moral standard to their families.
By the way.....this scenario of a large Russian army being in Syria....is one of the Christian signs for Armeneggdon. The final battle and final war. So in the past, I would not have recommended it.
But......
But little Isreal just finished her nuclear triage. She has nuc missiles, nuc aircraft and now....nuc subs. So the first Russian troops that steps across the border into Israel. Moscow is toast. Putin does not want that. So he will keep them inside Syria.
But who knows.....everyone and anyone can get lost at times. Are not you glad Israel fenced and walled that Syrian border now?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Mass abduction
All countries should chip in for this ingenious plan
We abduct all Syrians and relocate them to the Antarctica, for a weekend...
I think that everybody would learn a lesson from such a unorthodox yet pedagogical method ...