Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

All they have to do is veto it. The veto of the P5 can not be appealed nor does the vetoing country have to justify their veto.

One more reason I don't like the P5 veto rule. But let's be honest, the original nuclear powers would never have agreed to the UN unless they could veto the UNSC.

Very true and one of the main reasons the UN lacks credibility in the eyes of such a large portion of the world.

[Tchocky]

As I see it that was the whole point of the UNSC. If the big 5 have veto power then they're less likely to go to major war - which was the main reason for the UN in the first place.

As it stands the UNSC isn't exactly well equipped for these kind of small regional, quasi-major beefs.

[soopaman2]

To be fair, most of the UN vetoed the US going into Iraq the second time.

Didn't stop us. We did it, and no one put up any sanctions or embargoes on us. (not calling it right, just saying)

The UN is neutered, in theory it stops war, but I think Mutually assured Destruction does a better job than the UN ever has, in awhile.

[nikimcbee]

Paging Hans Blix, Paging Hans Blix. You are needed at the front desk.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Very true and one of the main reasons the UN lacks credibility in the eyes of such a large portion of the world.

I would separate the UNSC from the UNGA. The UN does a lot of good work, quietly and effectively around the world. The UNSC.... well not so much.

But the UNSC came into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised. Unfortunately, the UNSC is probably the best form of organization that could be reasonably expected to work under the circumstances.

All members of the UNSC are equal... just that five of them are a little more equal than the others.

Personally, I have no problem with the P5. It is the P5 veto rule that I object to.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I would separate the UNSC from the UNGA. The UN does a lot of good work, quietly and effectively around the world. The UNSC.... well not so much.

But the UNSC came into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised. Unfortunately, the UNSC is probably the best form of organization that could be reasonably expected to work under the circumstances.

All members of the UNSC are equal... just that five of them are a little more equal than the others.

Personally, I have no problem with the P5. It is the P5 veto rule that I object to.

Well in the current climate your probably right but personally I'd be in favour of a majority vote system.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Well in the current climate your probably right but personally I'd be in favour of a majority vote system.

Oh I agree. UNSC resolutions should be based on a majority vote. But do you think the US, UK and the rest of the P5 would ever agree to that?

All the P5 countries used their veto powers. Just some of them a little more often


Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council between 1946 and 2007 - Wikipedia

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

With Chapter VII in the equation an eventual military strike may be legitimized.

What, the Russians - accepting a strike on Syria? Why do you think did they fight that hard to prevent any binding formulation in the joint declaration with the US that military force would be used if Syria does not comply?

The Russians fot what they wanted: no force will be used. Obama got what he needed: he can still claim and act as if military force legimtiated by the UN still is an option.

I say that option is off the table, forever. Both Putin and Obama got what they wanted. But Putin's profit will outlast Obama'S by a huge margin.

Some chemicals weapons will get moved, presented, shown around, destroyed. Sooner or later. While the grass is growing over the story and headlines shift to new prey.

Some.

As alibis.

[Skybird]

Great news:

General Selim Idris, supreme commander of the rebel forces, at least some of them as I understand it, gets quoted in German media with statements he made on saturday in Istanbul that Assad has started to move chemical wepaons to Iraq and - Lebanon

Fan-tas-tic news. Right where we want them: in the realms and within reach of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

If true and being confirmed, then military strikes on the convoys and placements in Lebanon must be seen as a necessity - and a series of real major punches it must be. Chemical weapons in Lebanon and within Hezbollah's realm are a total no-no.

Right this is the reason why the new must be confirmed indeed, to make sure it is not just a lie by the rebels to draw the West into the mess nevertheless.

The Israelis must be in hyper-rotation mode now.

Chemical ammo dumps in Hezbollah's own garden.Fan-tas-tic.

[Tchocky]

With military action momentarily off the table, is anyone surprised that the rebels say weapons are being moved?

Not saying that he's definitely lying or anything. But how does he know, from Istanbul, that his foes are moving weapons?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

With military action momentarily off the table, is anyone surprised that the rebels say weapons are being moved?

Not saying that he's definitely lying or anything. But how does he know, from Istanbul, that his foes are moving weapons?

Maybe because his fighters and observers are in Syria, and him self only on visit in Istanbul...?

But you are right, and I said the same like yoiui before: The news must be confirmed, and the rebels have an interest to make that claim (do I have a deja vu right now, or what...).

But if it would be true, then the implications are most unpleasant and the consequences must be determined, free of delay and really shattering. No matter what the UN or Russians say or want.

I think the Israelis in that case will take the military initiative anyway, no matter what, forcing the US to either follow, growling or not - or fold cards and lose any remaining credibility that still is not destroyed in the region already.

[Skybird]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/wo...ion/index.html

Chemical ammo dumps in Hezbollah's own garden.Fan-tas-tic.

I did read somewhere that them having chemical weapons is really no different than them having machetes.
Anyway if you feel that it is vital that the dictatorship is kept in power you can't complain if the dictatorship keeps supporting the groups it has always supported while in power.

Hmm.

Say my next door neighbor kills his wife and kids by opening the gas lines.
Am I allowed to blow up his house now seeing as he gassed them?

[Mr Quatro]

Here's a NY Times article from roughly 23 years ago ... sound familiar?

Just change the names ... by the way didn't Russia tell Sadam to attack Kuwait adding that no one would stop him. Sounds like something they would do to me in Syria too.

By the way Russia and the USA are the two biggest hoarders of chemical weapons with Syria only being number three.


http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/03/wo...k-in-gulf.html

CONFRONTATION IN THE GULF; Top Soviet General Tells U.S. Not to Attack in Gulf

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: October 03, 1990
The head of the Soviet military said yesterday that the economic sanctions against Iraq were working and that no force should be used in the Persian Gulf unless it was approved by the United Nations.
The remarks by the Soviet general, Mikhail A. Moiseyev, Chief of the Soviet General Staff, were the most explicit comments made so far by a Soviet official on the need to have United Nations approval for the use of force by the United States and other nations that have opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

The Soviet general's comments - in an unusual joint interview with Gen. Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - signaled a basic disagreement with Washington about the circumstances under which military force could be used in the Persian Gulf.

''We cannot view the resolution of any crisis like this by means of using arms,'' said General Moiseyev, who is on a tour of the United States as a guest of General Powell. But General Powell pointedly said President Bush had not ruled out any options.

</H1>