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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can they stop the US/UK from attacking, no they cannot. But by denying the UN resolution they can make it politically worse for there "enemy's" and I expect them to keep that up for as long as they are able.
There already is a strong sentiment that the US is meddling in to many nations and without a resolution this will be another case of that
It would be far worse if US just intervenes before waiting for a resolution in the UN investigation.
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.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
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.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
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.
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.
There are numerous reports that both Labour and the Tories will be voting on Party lines. There may indeed be some 'rebel' voting going on, but I don't expect this to be widespread enough to effect the vote outcome. Milliband and Cameron are making points to each other during this process rather than trying to ascertain the will of the Parliament,
As for Cameron, him and Hague have been making lots of rhetoric about taking action over this CW usage. Considering that Cameron, as it stands, is very unlikely to win re-election as PM, I expect the UK to do something now, else Cameron will lose all credibility. The UK is not North Korea with respect to issuing warlike rhetoric which subsequently proves empty.
Same with Obama, him and Cameron may not really want to undertake military action, but they have been publicly banging on about hard consequences if Syria uses CW, and now it appears it has. So has their bluff been called, or do they need to take the action they have been threatening in order to maintain their credibility and that of their respective Nation's?
If the parents tell a kid not to act up or face the naughty step, and the kid then acts up, is it time for the naughty step? Does the parent lose any authority if they fail to issue their threatened punishment?
If there is evidence to point to Assad being behind this latest big CW attack, I do expect the US and the UK to take some military action. France are also speaking very strongly about taking action too. So they will be in on any intervention too.
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.
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.
Having a vote today would of been political suicide for Cameron, which is why it was postponed. I have been following the commons debate and opinion is overwhelmingly against military action in Syria and many conservative MPs say that they will vote against it. If we bomb Syria then expect Cameron to be ousted and a general election to occur soon.
As for public opinion, a times poll cited in the commons debate found that only 11% of the British people support any military action in Syria.
I guess we're watching a very different debate then because I see an even split in the commons.
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.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
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.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
The USA has been supporting the FSA since the beginning. They have called repeatedly for Assad to leave. If the biggest military power in the world says they are going to get involved if chemical weapons are used. Does that not give a huge incentive to the rebels to use chemical weapons?
I believe it does and I don't see the FSA or Syrian rebels as trustworthy enough to come to their side. Its a civil war, its a mess, even people 100 feet away don't know whats really going on. There is NO way we can be sure so quickly as to ascertain true guilt.
If the US does come in, it will create a huge incentive for more false flag chemical attacks because the response president will have been set. Dozens of rebels groups would love to suddenly have the US airforce on its side! Some might be willing to sacrifice some of there own people even.
As an American, I see this as a strategic blunder and dangerous precedent. I don't trust the intelligence based on recent history. Not that there has been any intelligence released, which is as usually with the US in cases of war.
Thats my opinion. I would love to feel differently about it.
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.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
Agreed, and personally I could give two shits about what is going on over there. There is no good solution and I have already sent my brother over to two separate countries in that region for 2 years and all we got was hate for that too. It is slightly heartless to think that way, but I have grown tired of trying to help while the rest of the world just criticizes from afar. Local powers should attempt to resolve the conflict, rather than the US and UK.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was used as the basis for the UN intervention in Libya. Of course Russia and China abstained from that vote.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in the Security Council's resolution 1674 passed in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council. The only two legal dispositions which legally authorize such use of force are articles 42 (a SC resolution) and 51 (legitimate defense).
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Yes anyone with veto power can stymie any vote.
This is how the US has prevented Palestinian participation in the UN for decades despite the US and Israel being the only countries that opposed it.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was used as the basis for the UN intervention in Libya. Of course Russia and China abstained from that vote.
On that note, Gaddafi called that one 2 years in advance lol.
The original on site translation cuts out frequently, this one doesn't.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Yes anyone with veto power can stymie any vote.
This is how the US has prevented Palestinian participation in the UN for decades despite the US and Israel being the only countries that opposed it.
What does that have to do with the use of Chemical weapons in Syria? I don't think the two are the same issue at all.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Yes anyone with veto power can stymie any vote.
This is how the US has prevented Palestinian participation in the UN for decades despite the US and Israel being the only countries that opposed it.
What does that have to do with the use of Chemical weapons in Syria? I don't think the two are the same issue at all.
Sorry, its just how I know the answer to your question and an example of how even one country with veto power can stop any vote.
EPT
.
