Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 88

On August 30 2013 02:03 Derez wrote:
I think Assad should have been bombed a long time ago on humanitarian grounds. Over 100k killed by a dictator that won't give up on ruling a country where half the population doesn't accept it. Whatever the alternative is, it has to be better than this for the long term development of Syria. Bomb him, force peace talks and enforce a peaceful settlement, either heavy federalization or split it up entirely.

On August 30 2013 02:20 Pandemona wrote:
See, pissing off Russia is bad. If they choose to "defend" the "innocent" Syrian leader we have a mini world war on our hands with SO MANY CASUALTIES, rather than just waiting. If you just wait a little longer and pressurise the silly UN to actually make a descion then we will get this sorted out as peacfully as possible. At this rate we are going to see a REALLY bad war break out

At the moment the only plus sign is that stupid North Korea aren't involved nor are China.

On August 30 2013 02:42 Ghanburighan wrote:



Wow, that's the worst piece of "analysis" of the situation I've read. Russia has shown no inclination to put their own neck on the line. They have said that they will veto any action, but they also condemned the use of CW. China is equally committed as Russia, as they have also promised to veto any UNSC action.

Because of this, there is no point in waiting for the UN. They will merely stall and eventually veto, as they promised to do. Furthermore, the UN team in Syria has no ability to determine culpability, so all they can verify is that CW were used. Which they did. No further input will occur.

Also North Korea is involved, a ship with weapons headed to assist Assad was seized only a few days ago.

While it's possible to have the US be pulled into the Syrian conflict, where they will fight regional troops such as Hizbollah (and only if the situation escalates like Iraq did), there is not a single informed individual warning against a world war.

On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote:
Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.

On August 30 2013 03:17 revel8 wrote:
Waiting for the UN to intervene is pointless. It is not going to happen unless Russia and China remove their support of Assad. They will just veto any attempt to pass a UN Resolution. Assad would have to use CW on the Kremlin to cause such a reversal.

Interesting that the UK Parliament is having a debate and vote on this issue. Of course the outcome of the vote is only about gauging the appetite for intervention amongst the MPs, but as the Whip will be used, it won't even do that. This means that the MPs will vote on Party lines, rather than as individuals. Not that the vote matters in any practical sense anyway, the British Prime Minister still retains the Royal Prerogative. Cameron has the legal power to take the UK to war without requiring Parliamentary assent.

On August 30 2013 03:35 Plansix wrote:

They will just call for further investigation and hold off a full vote. They have the ability to do so and have not shown any reason to back off their support of the regime. I expect nothing but stalling from both China and Russia.

On August 30 2013 03:37 Godwrath wrote:

The use of chemical weapons legitimize any action against Assad. No matter what China and Russia vote. And stalling at this point, is what we need before rushing into conclussions of evidence which has yet to be presented.

On August 30 2013 03:37 Godwrath wrote:

The use of chemical weapons legitimize any action against Assad. No matter what China and Russia vote. And stalling at this point, is what we need before rushing into conclussions of evidence which has yet to be presented.

On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote:
Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.

On August 30 2013 03:40 Plansix wrote:

The rules of the UN allow them to stall out a vote on the security counsel for whatever reason they want. That means even if supporting evidence is found that shows 100% that Assad is responsible, they can still prevent a vote from ever taking place. That is why people keep saying the UN is useless on this issue, because China and Russia can just delay any vote by the security counsel endlessly. I will be very surprised if they let it come to a vote, ever.

On August 30 2013 03:35 bardtown wrote:


To ignore the commons decision on this issue would be political suicide. I like to think MPs have the self respect to not simply vote on party lines on issues this important.

On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote:
Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.

On August 30 2013 03:48 Godwrath wrote:

I do know that, but at this point is about PR. US is willing to bypass the UN already and we do know that, so there is nothing Russia or China can do by voting no anyways if the UN finds evidence, which is my point.