Soldato
One has to wonder what the point of a security council is when one side constantly veto's every vote.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Pretty sure people have been wondering that since the 50's
Soldato
i'l keep this simple and im not saying that in a disrespectful way to you but i dont think we should go to war based on a hunch
If you're reduced to the position of sitting there, claiming that all of the information, pictures, reports, hallmarks - the fact that this isn't the first time, the fact that the regime in question has the weapons, capabilities and motives to do exactly what seems to have been done, amounts to nothing more than a hunch...?
That seems like pretty shaky ground to be on, I'd also say as more information comes out of the region that your position will continue to look worse and worse until the point where it's untenable.
Soldato
ok lay down your evidence then.
lets see it
lets see it
It's a bit more than a hunch though, don't forget the attacks in 2014 (chlorine) and 2015 (sarin) that were investigated by the OPCW and UN report in 2016 which beyond doubt blamed Assad's forces for using chemical weapons, subsequently they signed the agreement banning there use and gave up the stock pile under a russian backed agreement. Since then they have very likely been used again in 2017 (though without independent investigation and proof of their blame).
Ideally he should be put on trial for war crimes, but considering he is winning the war, thats not likely going to happen. There has to be some kind of punishment for the use of chemical weapons, else there prohibition is worthless, and there use could become normalised. If only the US etc and Russia could find a way forward for an investigation to prove thre use and which side is responsible, but that isn't going to happen.
The Russian government should take a step back and allow an inpartial independent UN investigation on the lines of the US proposal at the UN SC. I don't see what their problem with that is, as they said Russian military inspections have found no evidence of any chemical weapons use. If that is true then why block the US Proposal? after all, it seems the most obvious thing to do. Unless of course the reports of there use are true.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
Even if all of that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don't see why this is our problem. Let someone else waste lives and money on behalf of Israel.
The US proposal seeks to turn the police (OPCW) into judge and jury as well. The Russian proposal IS for an impartial independent investigation, which reports back on the facts it finds to the UN security council, like police in a courtroom to a jury/judge. And then the UN assigns blame. The Swedes understood this, and the Russian proposal was very similar to one the Swedes drafted, but the US rejected it.
Last edited:
There are videos of people filling hospitals suffering what appear to be severe respiratory symptoms, burns and injury consistent with a chemical attack, on the front page of every major news outlet pretty much, do you really need me to get you the links ?
What's your opinion of the videos? do you think they're legit?
But what if somebody else won't? do we just sit back on our island and never intervene ever?
Honestly - I can understand that viewpoint, but it doesn't sit well with me, because in theory we have the ability to make a difference and potentially make the world better, sitting back and letting things like genocide go unanswered - doesn't seem reasonable, in the final analysis 10 years down the line - inaction and weakness could bite us.
If you intend on killing a lot of people, or even to do nothing for that matter, you need to be 100% certain that you are taking the right course.
I've seen nothing from either side of the argument that offers any form of certainty. All we've got is accusations, name-calling and threats - these are the muppets we have put in control of the big red buttons - it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic, like a bad movie script.
Trump saying 'the missiles are coming' is outrageous in my mind, it's like the human cost of such words/actions is meaningless to these psychopaths.
The only thing I think we can be anywhere near sure of is that certain parties seem to be itching for a fight.
I've seen nothing from either side of the argument that offers any form of certainty. All we've got is accusations, name-calling and threats - these are the muppets we have put in control of the big red buttons - it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic, like a bad movie script.
Trump saying 'the missiles are coming' is outrageous in my mind, it's like the human cost of such words/actions is meaningless to these psychopaths.
The only thing I think we can be anywhere near sure of is that certain parties seem to be itching for a fight.
Soldato
On the contrary, western actions have the capacity to bite right now. Forget 10 years time. I equally don't get this 'we must strike at any cost' approach. Violence never solves anything. It only leads to escalation.
Lol, no, it's actually quite simple:
How it would work under the original plan that Russia vetoed: The OPCW do the investigation, the OPCW determine if chemical weapons were used and who used them, the OPCW announce their findings and blame is apportioned to the guilty party (AKA the way it's supposed to happen).
How it would work under Russia's alternate plan which didn't get enough support: The OPCW do the investigation, the OPCW determine if chemical weapons were used and who used them then hand their findings to the UN, the UN then decides from the evidence who the guilty party is, and Russia vetoes the UN blaming anyone if they don't like the answer.
And that is why Russia derailed the whole thing.
Yes, but in a court room, the allies of the possible purpitrators do not have a veto so, it isn't independent and inpartial. It would be like having friends of the defendent in the jury
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
When it comes to the ME I think non-intervention is the lesser of 2 evils. Just look how Iraq, Afganistan and Libya turned out. Our millitary should be used to insulate us from this stuff, not exacerbate it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,649
Are you really this naive ? to actually believe in this fairy tale that our leaders motives are altruistic ?
How is our world any better now after all our meddling and leaving nothing but a trail of destruction ? Where we assure avoidance of a conflict on a global scale by mutually assured destruction..... pretty ****** up vision of utopia if you ask me
As opposed to having friends of the prosecutor which has already assigned blame before the investigation.
You're not thinking things through and seeing how everything is being turned on its head - "Assad and Russia and Iran are guilty of a chemical attack that no doubt took place. There's never been faked videos by the White Helmets, nor have real chemical attacks been perpetrated by the Jihadis who paraded child hostages around Ghouta in steel cages. Now here's how we want to investigate."
Oh yes, so impartial.
Lol, so blind to the games being played.
Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, it's not a case that everyone else are sheep following the official story, maybe they're actually just looking at things without bias and forming the most logical/rational conclusions. Or that maybe ignoring all the facts and credible/reputable sources and choosing to get your news from random Facebook groups (the comment about fake videos by the white helmets gave it away) doesn't actually make you "woken" it just insultes you from the bigger picture?
Scary thought I'm sure
Has it ever dawned on you that actually not everyone else is sheepishly following the official story?
Actually they are the most irrational and illogical accusations spouted by those with the agenda to destabilize Syria and get rid of Assad and regurgitated by biased people such as yourself. The list including using chemical weapons on a day the OPCW arrived to investigate another alleged chemical incident, and Assad using chemical weapons whenever there's talk of the US pulling out of Syria.
Wrong assumption again. I don't hang out in Facebook. That you've either never researched the videos by the White Helmets or seen the obvious fakery in some of them, speaks volumes though. The worst thing about them isn't even the fakery, it's when they've literally MURDERED babies on camera by plunging needles through their hearts in a manner confirmed by doctors to be what killed them. But go ahead and cheer on their air force.
doesn't actually make you "woken" it just makes you ignorant?
Scary thought I'm sure
To quote Peter Ford, the ex-UK ambassador to Syria, who also doesn't need to get news from random Facebook groups: "I try not to leave my brains at the door." I suggest you do the same.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,649
Hmmm a lot of the mainstream media got their information from the Syrian observatory for human rights
Who are based in Coventry and run by a clothes shop owner....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights
How about not believing either side ? Surely that's the most logical/rational because the truth is way too clouded with propaganda to actually form an unbiased opinion for either side
The reality is we simply do not know WTF is happening over there unless one of us happens to know somebody close who's actually living through it all who hasn't taken a side
To put things in perspective I have 2 Ukrainian friends one is from Lviv free from the civil war who is very pro West and anti Russian, the other is from near Donetsk in the heart of the civil war who is pro Russian, I can ask them both the same question on things happening over there and get very different answers