 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Now I'm not saying we want to go to war in Syria, I'm not. But if the UN Security Council can't pass a motion condemning an unelected despot who murders his own people by the hundred what is it for?
The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said the Homs bloodshed was a crime against humanity and "those who block the adoption of such a resolution are taking a grave historical responsibility".But the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, criticised the UN resolution, saying it made too few demands of anti-government armed groups, and could prejudge the outcome of a dialogue among political forces in the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/04/assad-obama-resign-un-resolution
And the next time we actually do want to take action, that would be deemed illegal unless we have the approval of the Chinese Communist Party or the Russian politburo?
So much for international solidarity.
"So much for international solidarity."
This has never existed.
Every other country on the council voted yes......Azerbaijan, India, SA, ****stan, Togo.......
The UN P5 are the 'winners' of WWII and it's about time that the Security Council was reformed. It's credibility has been seriously damaged. However, the Russians do raise some good points - better the devil you know... I doubt that the US and UK would have been so keen to depose Saddam Hussein if they knew that it would degenerate into a 8 year civil war, which has yet to end. The Syrian Regime is undoubtedly in the wrong and needs to go asap. But who will replace them? I suspect that many liberal Egyptians who deposed Mubarak didn't want their revolution to be hijacked by The Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. Many may even secretly want the old dictator back... Similarly, many Libyans are not entirely enamoured with the new power elite which has replaced Gaddafi. Reports of torture and other human rights abuses make sober reading.
BBC news:
Proposed Russian amendments to the text were described as "unacceptable" by the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.
The US has vested interests in the removal of the Assad Regime. As Shia they have close relationships with Iran. Furthermore, the Syrians are key backers of Hizbollah in southern Lebanon - Israel's nemesis. The fall of Assad will seriously threaten Tehran who already believes that the US is trying to encircle it. Destabilising Syria may be part of the US's geopolitical strategy to weaken Iran. The poor Syrian people may simply be pawns..
Straw manery. Didn't take long for America to take the blame.
The purpose of the UN isn't to be great, it's just to be better than what we'd have with no UN. If it can be made better, then that'd be good but instead of looking at its failures consider the alternatives.
I certainly don't want Syria to implode into powerless vacuum that will suck in extremist groups from the entire region. Understanding the regional geopolitics helps people to place what they see and hear in the media into context.
The purpose of the UN is to, '...end the scourge of war.'. Against this performance criteria it has failed - 20 million people have been killed in wars since its creation. It remains a tool for the P5 to pursue their own agendas. Reform is impossible unless the P5 vote themselves out of power.
It has had much better success with its various agencies like the WHO, UNICEF, UNDP etc
mcboo - Member
Straw manery. Didn't take long for America to take the blame.
I like this new civil STW 🙂
So good of you to preface your argument with an explanation of its structure.
Edit: tbh, "Straw Man" occurs during an argument. I don't believe that's happened.
Though the US never fails to wield the veto whenever someone warns to criticise Israel.......the whole thing is a waste of time.
The US has vested interests in the removal of the Assad Regime.
I believe this to be true too. However, its also obvious that Russia has a vested interest in the opposite. Assad is an ally, they have a base there, they sell them weapons.
It is no surprise that Russia and the USA can not agree here. It is wrong to paint any of them as pro-Syrian people, their strategic agendas are more concerned with the regime than the people.
However, it is also not surprising that the US rejection of Russian ammendments to the resolution are not being mentioned on the mainstream news (BBC 10 o'clock) as I speak.
more propaganda to sell the Invasion of YET ANOTHER country.
.
The US has vested interests in the removal of the Assad Regime.
What is the vested interest? At best I can only see strategic ones.
It might be time to realise that the US doesn't control everything in the world and can't be blamed for everything.
The Russian amendments to the resolution were never going to be anything more than an attempt to spike it. There was zero chance that a text that was agreeable to both sides would be found when they have polar opposite positions.
It might be time to realise that the US doesn't control everything in the world and can't be blamed for everything.
Actually the United States controls surprisingly little. Even in countries in which it has massively interfered in such as Iraq and Afghanistan, the US can hardly be described as being in control. It can however be largely blamed for much of the problems which occur in both countries.
Every single policy decision which the United States takes with regards to the Middle East is based on what best serves 'vital US interests'. It would never take a position which it perceived would harm vested/strategic US interests. And on that basis it supports or opposes governments in the Middle East.
Konabunny,
Actually, you're right.
"Vested interest" was the wrong term here, if you're considering the technical/legal definition. However, its secondary definition may be similar to the strategic ones you mention:
vested interest n.
...3. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.
... a strong personal concern in a state of affairs, system, etc., usually resulting in private gain
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16896783 ]i'm sorry[/url] you don't have a leg to [url= http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html ]stand on[/url].
United States vetoes of UN resolutions critical of Israel isn't that much of an issue Klunk, other than highlighting US hypocrisy of course.
There are plenty of UN resolutions passed which Israel simply chooses to ignore, something that it can do with complete impunity.
Israel has violated 28 legally binding UN Security Council resolutions. And it has also violated almost 100 nonbinding resolutions of the UN General Assembly.
So you see whether or not the US vetoes UN resolutions critical of Israel is purely academic - the US guarantees that Israel is never forced to comply with international law.
and if Russia and China abstain, they would guarantee Syrian non compliance in the same manner.
You think if Russia and China hadn't abstain Syria would have complied ?
There was zero chance of that happening. The resolution required the Syrian government to withdraw the army from all Syrian cities, in effect handing those cities to armed opposition groups. The Syrian government would never have done that. For all the song and dance the US is creating I can't see that the success or failure of the resolution would have made much difference to the situation.
Furthermore the resolution was in breach of the UN Charter with regards to noninterference of the internal politics of member states. The resolution required Syria to introduce a "plural political system". Member states are free to have a "plural political system" or a one party state. Can anyone seriously expect China to demand that another UN member state introduce a plural political system ? And why would countries such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait be exempt from such demands ?
[i]You think if Russia and China hadn't abstain Syria would have complied ?[/i]
errr no, how on earth did you reach that conclusion ?
Its the Cold war being played out by proxy.
In the meantime we are running out of oil.
Your comment really. It appeared to be saying that Russian and Chinese abstention guaranteed Syrian noncompliance.
Of course judging by your reaction I'll take it that I misunderstood your comment/you didn't mean that.
Klunk - Member
i'm sorry you don't have a leg to stand on.POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
Who, and what, are you refering to?
And do you have a point to make yourself?
[i]Who, and what, are you refering to?[/i]
US Double standards and hypocrisy.
[i]And do you have a point to make yourself? [/i]
US Double standards and hypocrisy.
agreed