Syria Accepts dismantling of human killers

[Guest Warlord6664]

How about that, Russians defended against possible american corporate invasion from the west by nullifying our position and justification to attack Assad.

+1 My bro can stay safe and sound in Hawaii once again. No american involvement is all good on my books=]

We should so go back to the 1800s and close ourselfs like hermit crabs and be self sustaining=p

 

what are your thoughts my fellow clan mates!

[Guest RET.TSgt.Warlord=US=]

Why I do agree we should be more self-sustaining and rely less on foreign trade, its bad for business. I never personally agreed with POTUS trying to step in, especially in the Middle East where we're particularly unliked. I tip my hat off to Pres. Vladimir Putin for educating POTUS on international laws, and for dealing with Syria in a more mature fashion. I didn't understand why we would first;

 

Arm Syrian Rebels who are ran by our enemy 'Al Qaeda',

Fight alongside our enemy 'Al Qaeda',

Punish Syrians for bombing their own people.

[Guest RhinoTech]

http://clanunknownsoldiers.com/barracks/showthread.php?23473-Worth-watching&p=139024#post139024

 

That is the General's opinion to a similar post. My view on political posts is just below.

[Guest Warlord6664]

As the saying goes..

your enemys enemy is your friend...

[Guest Sagilevy]

but what if your enemy is the enemy of your enemy?

[Guest RhinoTech]

but what if your enemy is the enemy of your enemy?

 

Then you are in the profitable position because you can choose whom to support.

[Guest CI3arrage]

I am all for non-intervention. It would be a bad idea to intervene in Syria because it would seriously cause problems in international law. The reason is 2 fold, firstly because the UN Charter forbids 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' One would need UN backing before they could intervene and this requires that the Security Council determine that their is a threat to international peace, then make sanctions. Should this route prove unsuccessful in deterring the threat, breach of the peace etc then the Security Council can take such measures as necessary to extinguish the threat to restore peace. The common theme throughout this first fold is that, one cannot intervene in domestic matters (as per Article 2(4) which i have quoted), there has to be a international element to Syria's actions. Because there is not, there can be no intervention under the UN Charter. You may think, what about the Iraq invasion earlier this century, where was the international threat? Well that was a complex legal argument that derived itself from an old Security Council resolution left over from the original Gulf War. It was a pretty savvy and skilled argument. However, there isn't one here regarding Syria.

 

Secondly, there also exists customary international law (CIL). This is determined by what states do and say, otherwise known as precedent. There does exist humanitarian intervention and one could intervene under this, especially because of the chemical weapons attack. However, this leaves open a very tricky situation because previous intervention for humanitarian reasons have been because of massive fatalities that are simply not met in Syria. No one intervened in the Rwandan genocide, a perfect example of a situation that requires a humanitarian intervention. Up to a million people were killed in a matter of months, Syria has been going on for some time with a nominal death toll in comparison. A humanitarian intervention for such 'small' numbers would be setting a precedent that if a chemical weapon or a similar casualty number was reached in another country then one could intervene for humanitarian reasons, regardless of the UN Charter, under CIL. Now the big issue i have is with this is it creates a really dangerous situation and i am going to use a real example out of the current tensions between the US and Iran. The precedent set in Syria could mean that the US would just need to start a sneaky beaky uprising in Iran which causes the government to retaliate. Should a similar number of up-risers be killed compared to Syria or a small chemical weapon be smuggled in and deployed, that would mean under CIL the US could intervene under humanitarian reasons and the Iranian threat would be no more. My fears are that the current system of humanitarian intervention under CIL could be and would be abused by political entities with ulterior motives other than for humanitarian reasons, it would make a mockery of the UN, its charter and international law and we would go back to a more unstable world because of it. If you wish, take out US and Iran and enter any country you wish as international law applies to all countries. I just used that as a real world example people could relate too.

[Guest Warlord6664]

Someone give this Seaman a damn Cookie!

Well said.

 

And by what you just said it clearly supports the motivves that US truely has, is to enter and keep a strong presense in the area.

If humanitarian issues were truely important then..why only send a few special forces to africa when there is a genocide occuring? The obvious reason is 1) dictators are always favored by US govt, as dictators can be bribed in multiple manners, and 2) africa has nothing economic to offer currently (although this can be refuted by the chinese govt, as they are in a strong investment position in africa for the future)

 

ps. what if your enemy is thed enemy of your enemy, your basically in a gamble, the one who decides to gang up 1st wins against the odd number guy.

[Guest RET.Capt.RUSHER16=US=]

If there really is a threat to look closely at the way things are developing. I think I'm in wait and exhaust every resource to avoid. Now if it becomes a threat were you doing civilian life and peace affects other without thinking agree to take control and keep the peace.

 

There are many things and items that have been added and other countries that are supporting Syria but there are things we do not see fronts that are behind only know what they see and what is decided. Being tuned the news change at any time.