|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 05 2013 01:27 Klive5ive wrote:
I do agree with Obama. The world's credibility IS on the line.
189 UN states signed up to the anti-chemical weapons act and so many are sitting on their hands.
I'm not saying rush into action but there should be far more international concern and huge condemnation of this act and the international shaming of Assad and everyone associated with him.
I'm with you.
We condemn all use of chemical weapons.
But the U.S. used chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq in 2004. Evidence here, here, here, here, here, here.
Israeli also used white phosphorous in 2009 during “Operation Cast Lead” (and perhaps subsequently). Israel ratified Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) – which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So this was a war crime.
Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.
The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”
The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds. Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouraged Saddam’s use of chemical weapons.
Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems. See this, this, this and this.
University of California at Irvine professor of Middle Eastern history Mark LeVine writes:
Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.
As Dahr Jamail’s reporting for Al Jazeera has shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases – causing a “large-scale public health disaster” and the “highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied” – suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces.
And Israel has been accused of using depleted uranium in Syria.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. But it is hypocritical for the U.S., Britain and Israel to say that we should bomb Syria because the government allegedly used chemical weapons.
Wouldn't want you denied the pleasure of checking links.
Source
They were actual kind in forgetting Cluster munitions(Yemen, recently) and the Mark-77's. Who doesn't love the smell of Napalm.
I don't feel like use should be ignored, but I'm not holding my breath on the global reality check where both sides follow these rules from WW1 onwards barring use of certain types of killing methods. After day 2 of watching Kerry testify, I really not sure whether he is a muppet or not, but the flicking tongue has got to be driving those 'space lizards rule us' folks batty.
+ Show Spoiler +Welcome back Jon Stewart. I could have been the parade leader.
|
On September 05 2013 01:55 farvacola wrote:
The UN is just attempting to assert at least some modicum of legitimacy as an international body, and we all know how much that's really worth.
The UN is as legitimate as its participants allow it to be. If the US, China and Russia collectively keep undermining it, then it will of course be entirely powerless. The system desperately needs an update in the face of shifting powers in world politics. Its post-WW2 structure is increasingly outdated.
|
On September 05 2013 02:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 01:55 farvacola wrote:
The UN is just attempting to assert at least some modicum of legitimacy as an international body, and we all know how much that's really worth. The UN is as legitimate as its participants allow it to be. If the US, China and Russia collectively keep undermining it, then it will of course be entirely powerless. The system desperately needs an update in the face of shifting powers in world politics. Its post-WW2 structure is increasingly outdated.
When you say that the US, China, and Russia collectively undermine the UN, that gives off the impression that they are doing so in concert, when in reality this is not the case. And I'm not sue your first point works with your second, though I'm definitely inclined to agree with the latter. With how the UN security council is set up, legitimization via member participation is practically impossible; the lines, like you said, are drawn in a post-WW2 manner, and the divisions remain intact to this day. Revision is definitely in order.
|
On September 05 2013 01:18 Gladimor wrote:
The USA is all so excited to invade Syria only for its very efficient oil pipelines and its import/export harbor. The Obama Administration and its funders dont care about any Dictatorship or Syria's 23 million citizens. To them, it's the billions made from weapon investments and a Western company running those Middle Eastern Oil Pipelines. Just see what they did to Libya.
what oil pipelines? Syria isnt part of any oil pipeline system.
|
On September 05 2013 02:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 01:18 Gladimor wrote:
The USA is all so excited to invade Syria only for its very efficient oil pipelines and its import/export harbor. The Obama Administration and its funders dont care about any Dictatorship or Syria's 23 million citizens. To them, it's the billions made from weapon investments and a Western company running those Middle Eastern Oil Pipelines. Just see what they did to Libya. what oil pipelines? Syria isnt part of any oil pipeline system.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html
|
|
|
On September 05 2013 02:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On September 05 2013 01:55 farvacola wrote:
The UN is just attempting to assert at least some modicum of legitimacy as an international body, and we all know how much that's really worth. The UN is as legitimate as its participants allow it to be. If the US, China and Russia collectively keep undermining it, then it will of course be entirely powerless. The system desperately needs an update in the face of shifting powers in world politics. Its post-WW2 structure is increasingly outdated. When you say that the US, China, and Russia collectively undermine the UN, that gives off the impression that they are doing so in concert, when in reality this is not the case. And I'm not sue your first point works with your second, though I'm definitely inclined to agree with the latter. With how the UN security council is set up, legitimization via member participation is practically impossible; the lines, like you said, are drawn in a post-WW2 manner, and the divisions remain intact to this day. Revision is definitely in order.
Yeah, that's not what I meant. Each of the superpowers take their pet problem child and refuse to allow anybody near it. There's no effort to act in concert in undermining the UN, it just so happens that something particularly atrocious has to happen for the security council to agree on anything.
In some ways that's actually a good thing, because it means that when the UN acts, it acts with the will of the whole world. However, when fast action is needed, individual countries will act first and get UN approval afterwards, further subverting any legitimacy of the security council. In the case of Syria, it is obvious that by the time the UN might approve of any mission, the Syrian government will have hidden all of its weapons, making any actual mission 10x as costly in both money and deaths. On the other hand, with Russia (and China) demanding conclusive evidence it also prevents the US from waving their flimsy powerpoint presentation around and going all gung-ho with their bombs.
|
I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world.
|
On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world.
but what do Bild and Dailymail say.
We must know
|
On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world.
I don't know the truth, but it was a strong quote. He has his own credibility to consider and is a significant figure in this conflict.
|
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand.
|
On September 05 2013 03:20 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world. I don't know the truth, but it was a strong quote. He has his own credibility to consider and is a significant figure in this conflict.
Nonsense, what credibility comes with a loud-mouthed President criticizing a FM? No-one will analyze this situation as significant because it's just another thing Putin says.
Furthemore, either the US declassifies covert sources (win) or new evidence makes the old claims forfeit (win). No risk.
Also, it's the same dude that just said that Rebels gassed civilians in March, for which there is much less evidence. One cannot have it both ways, to call people liars for accusing people without enough evidence and to accuse people without enough evidence. Unless you have no credibility already, and are making the most of your veto and arms sales...
This is a friendly reminder, Putin says whatever the hell he wants to say at the time. Most of the time it is rude and unseemly (check out his Russian transcripts). He has no problems with that. Considering that Obama just snubbed him by refusing to meet during G20, he's basically just lashing out at the guy he usually humiliates because he can (last time Putin met Kerry, he forced Kerry to wait for 3 hours). Source by the Daily Mail as requested (sorry no Bild)
|
On September 05 2013 01:55 farvacola wrote:
The UN is just attempting to assert at least some modicum of legitimacy as an international body, and we all know how much that's really worth.
The UN isn't an actor in this situation. The actors are the permanent members of the Security Council: in particular the US, Russia and China (since the UK and France are unlikely to exercise their veto on their own). If these three powers agree on something it's likely to happen.
An authorization to use force by the UN Security Council is a roundabout way for the major powers to give permission to each other to attack another country.
|
On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world.
No wonder he goes along well with Bashar. Both are personality cult freaks
|
On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand.
No it isn't
The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2.
Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately.
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
Lets not pretend that Obama and France are starting this war to save lifes , or to punish users of chemical weapons which is not proven from whom it's used (probably Saudi Arabia gave to the rebels is my opinion , because i don't think Assad is that dumb) . It's all about the oil people . On one side we have the intrest of Saudi Arabia , USA and Qatar and their allies on the other we have Syria who is an ally of Russia and Iran who wants for their oil pipe to past through Syria . China is also on Syria's side.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/08/201383111193558894.html
Syria is of geopolitical strategical importance . Any war there has nothing to do with terrorism or dictatorship , they are just the excuses to start the war . And any war fought in the middle east for that matter . Thats my opinion , and it probably won't change . I doubt Putin will stand much more USA millitary meddling with their allies in the Middle East , though i don't think that there will be a WW3 , i doubt that Russia will keep silent forever .
Terrorism while relevant has been an excuse to start stealing other countries's resources it's so blunt , that i am ashamed that world organization like UN and others allow it , but it's always been like this , history is made by wars ...
You can call this conspiracy theory or whatever , but it's my opinion and it won't change . Personally over the years i've comed to like Russia's foreign policy over the USA . I don't like how USA blatantly starts wars against the musslims for money while to the public being "the world's police force" and saving the innocent from the evil or the good from the bad . Muslims have suffered a lot now and i don't think it's just because of their religion .
|
On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world.
Putin lies like any politician in power , but his statement about Kerry is probably true. Just look at his facial expresions and tell me hes telling the truth about Syria.
|
On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand.
Well, given that the UN Security Council is one of the bodies entrusted with enforcing the Geneva Conventions, and additionally they are allowed to take action, including the use of armed force to maintain or restore peace, it seems the Security Council COULD pass a resolution that allows for bombing the shit out of Syria.
Of course, any actual UN-sanctioned plan must encompass some longer-term plan to actually restore peace, and will undoubtedly include a UN peacekeeping force with the necessary "boots on the ground", which absolutely nobody feels much for at the moment... so the UN will probably do nothing and the US will decide to blow shit up in a show of muscles.
What happens then is anyone's guess.
|
That Afghan UNOCAL pipeline get built yet?
People are still seriously falling for dumbshit conspiracy theories like "it's so an oil pipeline can get built!" ?
Again, whatever happened to that pipeline in Afghanistan that we wanted built and was the real reason we invaded there? You know, that pipeline that never ever got built... then the excuse was rare earth metals and other mineral resources... then those resources never got mined out... but now it's Syria, and this time guys, it is definitely for real forreal that the reason we didn't do jack for two and a half years but are now about to do something is we want to build an oil pipeline. Not doing anything for two and a half years was just the smokescreen.
"Pipeline politics" requires, at some point, pipelines to actually be built in these countries that we've invaded or attacked because we want to build and control a pipeline there. Just one. Just one single little pipeline, please.
What happened to those exclusive contracts Chevron and ExxonMobil were supposed to get in Iraq?
Actually you can still find idiots who believe that Afghanistan was invaded to build a pipeline (that 12 years later has not even been started)...
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/the-long-war-syria-is-at-the-crux-of-pipeline-geopolitics.html
And the Grauniad is of course always willing to publish useful idiots.
Also if you really believe Obama's garbage about how he didn't set a red line and the world's credibility is on the line not his, would you believe that bullshit if the situation was exactly the same except that a Republican was president? Tell me another one.
|
On September 05 2013 03:53 HeartOfTheSwarm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 03:10 Ghanburighan wrote:I don't think you'll get very far if you believe Putin quotes. Watching his addresses is only marginally less damaging to one's brain as listening to Zhirinovski. Just to put a source on this, check out other things he has claimed to have done: Putin, the greatest truth teller in the world. No wonder he goes along well with Bashar. Both are personality cult freaks
You are of course completely right, Putin is an ass, but his point on this matter is quite reasonable. If the US have hard evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, they should just present them in front of the UN, and Putin has stated in that case he would not blockade military action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
