How can there be a security Council resolution on the matter when Russia has a veto that it uses repeatedly?
It's like requiring a unanimous vote to investigate a sexual assault case when the accused's father is on the committee.
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
How can there be a security Council resolution on the matter when Russia has a veto that it uses repeatedly?
It's like requiring a unanimous vote to investigate a sexual assault case when the accused's father is on the committee.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,136
If you're looking for accuracy, his location should read Moscow instead of NE Lincolnshire
Crimea is next to the Russian borders, consisting mostly by Russians, who voted to join Russia, having Russian base there since before USA ever existed even as a British colony, while the whole area was Russian until 50 years ago. And Russia didn't started a war to take Crimea.
Which nothing of these is the case of the US base at Homs.
Except you're ignoring the fact it was a part of Ukraine. A sovereign country. The vote was illegal. Russias occupation illegal. It also didn't have a Russian base there, it had a base of the Russian Empire which ceased to exist in 1917. The whole area was Soviet until 50 years ago, not Russian. It was the Soviets who effectively ended the Russian Empire with a war. Someone needs to go read up on their history.
Also who cares if it's next to their borders? Does that mean the US can take Mexico? I mean they're next door...right?
But UN is designed to not having someone do what they like and all must agree unanimously.
LN was dissolved because Japan, Italy and Germany wanted to do what they liked without agreeing with others. Using exactly the same rhetoric we use today.
At least doesn't have sheep.
Before preaching me to read history, you should first...
So going to refute any of that?
Russia is using the veto process precisely to do what it likes and to allow its ally to do the same.
Or is it only the west your objections apply to?
Interesting that May (post bombing) speech, although it referenced Salisbury did not repeat assertion that Russia was responsible.
Nytimes said an English sub launched a cruise missile too, if only7030 of the 100 missiles got through is that expected efficiency.
(did our cruise). From radio report Russians also say attack on helicopter base, which may have launched Chlorine gas attack failed
Press seem interested in suggesting Trump versus Mattis division, but an explanation here, is just that this is a ploy on their part, to suggest indecision to Russia/Syria
Nytimes said an English sub launched a cruise missile too, if only
(did our cruise). From radio report Russians also say attack on helicopter base, which may have launched Chlorine gas attack failed
Press seem interested in suggesting Trump versus Mattis division, but an explanation here, is just that this is a ploy on their part, to suggest indecision to Russia/Syria
Last edited:
It is amazing how many Russian news sites have such detailed information about missiles launched and intercepted.
It is also amazing that so many posters that rubbish the MSM for feeding propaganda to the sheep like masses lap up the Russian propaganda like it was Gospel.
who is MSM ooi ?
[some suggested rules to counteract propaganda
Allies have the opportunity to counteract their narrative with facts, maybe they are not known, but I guess missiles report back.
[some suggested rules to counteract propaganda
]
Allies have the opportunity to counteract their narrative with facts, maybe they are not known, but I guess missiles report back.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,082
Amazing isn't it, we're perfectly happy to bomb anyone we don't like, except Russian controlled areas are strictly off limits thats one particular war we won't get involved in. And so the proxy war instead goes on and on...
If we/russians just left them to it this war would probably have been over long ago, it might not have been an outcome we wanted with people in control we don't like very much, but it would have been over...
Even without Western meddling things will keep fracturing in the ME - if that war was over it is likely a new one was just beginning.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,082
But they'd probably settle into some kind of normality, maybe not a normality we'd like, but it would settle. Even under Saddam Hussein Iraq was by middle eastern standards, reasonably prosperous - and stable. Then Bush decided he don't like the guy and the rest is history.
Heck even the paradise that Isis thinks it created was so reviled the people that lived under it that they'd rise up against it eventually and once the scales fell from idealistic jihadi's eyes thats its not all its cracked up to be the attacks on our soil would in all likelyhood cease in time but as usual we can't resist stirring the pot. Isis directly evolved from the chaos that was post war Iraq.
Well that won't stop the usual CT nutters who question everything in western media from accepting any Russian/Syrian claims at face value.
That is fine as long as if appearances are all that matter.
If another war occurs after Syria is over with, then while i agree it's up to the locals own issues (Tribalism), but all these lines were drawn when Britain and France decided them in the first place. Then we were told to shut up, and the Americans took over, making Sunni Islam it's preferred market and directly pushing Wahhabi agendas. Emboldening one side was always going to cause friction.
You can't just blame it all on the locals.
It's no mistake that ISIS was Wahhabi extremism at it's worst, not that it was the desire of the west to create such an unfortunate group of people, but it indirectly did it nonetheless.
You can't just blame it all on the locals.
It's no mistake that ISIS was Wahhabi extremism at it's worst, not that it was the desire of the west to create such an unfortunate group of people, but it indirectly did it nonetheless.