|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc...
North Korea vetoes
North Korea vetoes
North Korea vetoes
At that point might as well let triple-stamp no quitsies be the only hard counter to a veto on a resolution.
|
On September 05 2013 06:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Powerful in which regard? Russia's economy as well as their non nuclear military power has been surpassed by at least a dozen other countries by now. And their are a lot of states that are en par with France and the UK.
And how can you not possibly know that India,Pakistan,Israel and North Korea are also nuclear powers?
The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2 Name these states. You can't because they don't exist. It's obvious you're an ignoramus when you reply to "nuclear monopoly powers" with "don't you know India Pakistan Israel and North Korea have nukes?!" No duh they do, but they aren't nuclear monopoly powers, that is a specific term meaning a specific group of countries which you're obviously unaware of. The reason 4 of those 5 nations were given veto power (given to them by themselves) is they're the nuclear monopoly powers, sorry. They didn't just put themselves on the USNC because they won the war. They were looking to the future.
The concept of "Nuclear monopoly powers" was created more than 20 years after the UN was established, by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), as a means to freeze nuclear power.
The 5 veto powers were created because of their overall geopolitical importance AND because they were on the winning side. Germany and Japan, even in tatters, had great geopolitical importance but weren't on the winning side. Greece and Mexico (two random examples) were on the winning side but didn't have great geopolitical importance.
Being a nuclear-armed country, while still being a relevant concept, has to be relativized. Despite not having the bomb itself, Germany and Japan have the nuclear technology to do so (within a reasonable deadline of an year or two), as do a few other countries (though with longer deadlines).
|
On September 05 2013 06:59 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc... North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes At that point might as well let triple-stamp no quitsies be the only hard counter to a veto on a resolution.
Oh yea forgot about North Korea lol. But i was thinking about countries like Israel or India, Pakistan still seem to be a very unstable shithole but if you don't give them the membership you can't give it to India either lol
And since Israel at the Security Council would make all the arabs mad, well might as well forgot about it too.
Oh well whatever, was just an idea, after the next big war maybe (if that ever happen).
|
What's the big uproar about chemical weapons about when supposedly the good guys have been employing white phosphrous in recent times. All I can see is one is stricken from CW because of BS reasoning and ulterior motives.
|
On September 05 2013 06:36 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote: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. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2 Exactly and because the US and the UK felt bad about the French, who didn't fully oppose Germany after 1940 (not that they had the choice lol). The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. On September 05 2013 06:16 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote: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. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created. Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members. Maybe its because the US likes have 2 extra votes all the time. The Security Council doesn't work like that lol. Having the French with a veto right was more like an hassle for the US. At least until 2007. To be fair India and Pakistan got their nuclear weapons against the wishes of the major powers. Rewarding that with a permanent seat in the SC might set a bad precedent. Still the UK and France are regional powers that will be soon eclipsed by high population countries like India and Brazil. That needs to be reflected in the security council as well or they might find different ways to defend their interests.
EDIT: rather than just saying that DEB was wrong, this post states what I think more eloquently than I did before editing.
|
A quick reminder to all of your thinking the UNSC permanent members are permanent because they have nukes: the UNSC was established in 1946, Russia/Soviet Union tested its first nuke in 1949. France, and the UK later. China, especially, didn't successfully test nukes before after the Cuban missile crisis.
On other news, does the new Senate Brief open for anyone else?
|
On September 05 2013 06:59 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc... North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes At that point might as well let triple-stamp no quitsies be the only hard counter to a veto on a resolution.
Really just the whole veto power needs to be reworked or scrapped, it makes the UN pretty 5 country centric and ineffectual.
On September 05 2013 14:37 Ghanburighan wrote:A quick reminder to all of your thinking the UNSC permanent members are permanent because they have nukes: the UNSC was established in 1946, Russia/Soviet Union tested its first nuke in 1949. France, and the UK later. China, especially, didn't successfully test nukes before after the Cuban missile crisis. On other news, does the new Senate Brief open for anyone else?
Interesting but expected, removes the possibility of ground forces, limits itself to strikes against military assets. Basically bombing targets for the rebels ie Libya.
I find it interesting it still includes the idea of evening the battlefield in order to bring Assad and the Rebels to the table to negotiate. Ionno about you but has any civil war ended like that?
As far as chemical weapons being used as a false flag operation; occam's razor what is more probable given previous reports of chemical weapon usage by the Assad regime, that rebels obtained chemical weapons then set it on itself in hopes it would create international uproar? Or Assad continuing to use them as previous efforts to investigate claims have been stalled and stopped effectively.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
You know what every thread about politics on the net needs? An automated betting system. Anyone of the conspiracy theory crafters willing to put their money where their mouth is? I am betting any amount that the Syrian engagement will bottom line stay below the Libyan one: Meaning limited air strikes, probably not even a no flight zone, no invasion, no occupation, no boots on the ground but a few CIA resources to spot targets and (maybe) train rebels. And no freaking pipeline being built anywhere in Syria.
Man I wish there was an intrade.com full of forum warriors. You could make so much money just by using common sense.
|
Making bets on political events is something I would not ever do. But against the people in this thread, maybe...
|
Assad is having people, voluntarily camp the possible air strike places. do you seriously think US/Israel would bomb them?.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On September 05 2013 17:23 xM(Z wrote:
Assad is having people, voluntarily camp the possible air strike places. do you seriously think US/Israel would bomb them?.
Do be honest, I don't think anyone will mind a few collateral casualties as long as they are not caught on camera.
However, Assad simply can't protect all his military with human shields anyway. The primary targets will be military airports, which they can't have people camping on.
Besides, I doubt the human shield thing is more than propaganda. He will present people voluntarily camping next to an AA-site on TV, and broadcast that over and over again. But there is no way they will actually let civilians into all the important military sites.
|
On September 05 2013 07:13 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:59 BioNova wrote:On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc... North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes At that point might as well let triple-stamp no quitsies be the only hard counter to a veto on a resolution. Oh yea forgot about North Korea lol. But i was thinking about countries like Israel or India, Pakistan still seem to be a very unstable shithole but if you don't give them the membership you can't give it to India either lol And since Israel at the Security Council would make all the arabs mad, well might as well forgot about it too. Oh well whatever, was just an idea, after the next big war maybe (if that ever happen).
Israel denies having nuclear weapons.
Obviously it has them, but not officially.
|
On September 05 2013 16:58 zatic wrote:
You know what every thread about politics on the net needs? An automated betting system. Anyone of the conspiracy theory crafters willing to put their money where their mouth is? I am betting any amount that the Syrian engagement will bottom line stay below the Libyan one: Meaning limited air strikes, probably not even a no flight zone, no invasion, no occupation, no boots on the ground but a few CIA resources to spot targets and (maybe) train rebels. And no freaking pipeline being built anywhere in Syria.
Man I wish there was an intrade.com full of forum warriors. You could make so much money just by using common sense.
I would have got a shitload of salty dollars on Iraq 2003 war, but i wouldn't bet anything on this, it just seems a total mess with a lot of misinformation around.
about the bombardments , either it turns the battle or produce an stalmate, second is preferable but highly unlilely
|
Is everyone in the US phoning their local congressmen and telling them to vote no? The fate of the world is at stake here, world war 3 is a very real possibility.
|
No it's not, don't be silly. Lots of things are at stake here, but WW3 isn't one of them.
|
On September 05 2013 19:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The fate of the world is at stake here, world war 3 is a very real possibility.
This isn't a Hollywood movie. Quit being such a drama queen.
What gave you the idea that there is even the slightest chance of WW3 happening...?
|
Russian Federation16 Posts
On September 05 2013 20:02 sgtnoobkilla wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 19:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The fate of the world is at stake here, world war 3 is a very real possibility. This isn't a Hollywood movie. Quit being such a drama queen. What gave you the idea that there is even the slightest chance of WW3 happening...?
If the U.S. attack on Syria without UN approval, then Russia will fulfill its part of the contract. The troops of al-Assad was not found sarin in service, so the U.S. does not have the authority to attack Syria.
|
On September 05 2013 17:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 07:13 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:59 BioNova wrote:On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc... North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes North Korea vetoes At that point might as well let triple-stamp no quitsies be the only hard counter to a veto on a resolution. Oh yea forgot about North Korea lol. But i was thinking about countries like Israel or India, Pakistan still seem to be a very unstable shithole but if you don't give them the membership you can't give it to India either lol And since Israel at the Security Council would make all the arabs mad, well might as well forgot about it too. Oh well whatever, was just an idea, after the next big war maybe (if that ever happen). Israel denies having nuclear weapons. Obviously it has them, but not officially.
They dont deny it, they make no statements about it either way. Sort of like Belgium, Netherlands, turkey, italy etc make no official statement about the presence of US nuclear weapons in their countries. But it is nevertheless known and confirmed by ex-officials.
|
|
|
I'm still amazed by how we can keep track of wars via videos like this. Our children might take it for granted, but I'm still not used to it.
About the execution: I have no empathy towards the ones who stand on the side responsible for the chemical attacks. If they are so eager to serve the ones who ordered such a thing, then it's just natural that they eat the bullets for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
