Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| Doghouse_Reilly |
on Fri 6 May 11, 1:44 AM to the Informed_Debate group.
Is this:
| A Syrian human rights group has accused the government of carrying out "10 days of massacres" against protesters in the southern city of Deraa. The Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies (DCHRS) says snipers and anti-aircraft machine guns are being used to fire on unarmed civilians. Recent amateur video appears to show dozens of unarmed protesters being shot and bleeding to death on the streets. The government is trying to quell seven weeks of protests that began in Deraa. In cities across the country, protesters are calling for greater political rights and personal freedoms. Some are calling for the downfall of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. On Thursday, the US and Italy condemned the "brutal crackdown" by the Syrian government on its people. |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-1329...
By this point we're certainly looking at thousands of people having been killed. Slaughtered with heavy weapons and tanks for the crime of peacefully demonstrating against a tyrant.
Syria is what Libya would be now if it wasn't for NATO forces leveling the playing field. The question is, does Syria get a pass? Just how much brutality are Western nations and the UN prepared to turn a blind eye to?
At a guess, I would say probably as much as Syria can be bothered to dish out.
| 6 May 11, 8:11 AM Ian_2007 UK(N), 4 yrs |
This seems a bold leap, given what you've quoted.
Please either restrict yourself to claims which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence you post, or else post evidence which reasonably well supports the claim you're making. Otherwise you're just condemning yourself to taking part in yet another dialogue of the deaf And why do you say "Western nations and the UN"? Is this just laziness or are you suggesting that a coalition of the willing should act contrary to international law and without the consent of the Security Council? If so, perhaps you should make the suggestion explicit and list exactly what your legal arguments in support of such a breach are. Ultimately, no Security Council resolution will be forthcoming, because Russia wishes to express its anger over the mission creep in Libya. One might argue that if France and her NATO allies had not pissed Russia off over Libya, then Sergei Lavrov might be prepared to spend diplomatic capital putting pressure on Syria (a former client state, remember), but that's about all I can see worth debating here.... | ||
| 6 May 11, 11:04 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
I presume thousands have been killed because they'd already been said to have killed hundreds before the tanks rolled into the protest camp, and that was a royal wedding and a dead terrorist ago in the news cycle. Regarding international law, there's not really any such thing so it's not worth commenting on. We wanted Iraq, we took it. Russia wanted to splatter Georgia, they splattered it. In general though I think you're right, nothing can be done, the UN won't act because Russia and China are necrophiliacs or something and Syrians are going to die because of it. The main point I suppose is that NATO countries should look at Libya as the one case where they get to make a difference. By hook and crook (and largely because France wanted to show off their new fighter planes to India) they've got a mission in Libya to protect civilians (with a side order of change the regime). Having got this legitimate mission those countries need to commit to it and do it right, lest we end up with two Syrian situations instead of just one. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | ||
| 6 May 11, 11:11 AM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths |
Plus Syria's air defenses (Israel's few sorties to knock out their nascent nuclear bomb factory notwithstanding) are far in advance of what Libya had, and it would also seem like very little could be achieved with just an air campaign - even less so than we have seen in Libya. To 'deal' with Syria would require an invasion force that no-one is going to countenance. Unfortunately, the reality of the world is that there are some bad people doing bad things that we don't really have the power to stop. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop some of the bad people when we can - but you can't make an easy equivalent between the various bad people around the world. Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | ||
| 6 May 11, 11:40 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
It's a shitty situation all right. I think it is worth considering the scale of the slaughter in Syria though. I mean this is not just a case of just another tear on the face of the world's mother, the slaughter is rapidly moving onto a par with that in the Balkans. When four hundred people was the death toll some weeks ago, that was a big deal, but the slaughter has continued apace since then. Even if there is no military action taken, I would hope that dealings with this Syrian regime are over. This ought to plop pthem into the same dustbin as Somalia and North Korea. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. | ||
| 6 May 11, 12:08 PM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths |
You say that thought - but we still have an Ambassador to North Korea. Somalia is a different case - it's a failed state with no functioning government. As ever, nations don't have friends, they have interests. Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | ||
| 6 May 11, 4:18 PM Cassius UK, 3 yrs |
States that do not conform to the UN Charter,e.g.democracy etc., should be ejected from the UN until they do conform. In that way, the UN could take action against non-member states without breaching its charter. It is surely right for the democracies to liberate those living under fascist regimes...erm,that is what it was founded to do during the last Anti-Fascist World War. At present,the UN is simply a forum for those who happen to be in control of countries,an inter-governmental talking shop. A pity it has evolved that way. Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother. | ||
| 7 May 11, 2:39 AM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
The import of the UN was bringing all the states that had the capacity to make the world go pop to the same table. Kicking China out would not really be a terribly good idea. The problem here is an ideology that we should go around sorting out other countries. Before we start 'sorting them out' we should really decide if we want to trade with them - we wind up supporting a lot of regimes in the world with trade/government aid because of the cheap goods, oil, or because Mr Dictator is our friend. That behaviour should stop before you get to guns and blaming the UN IMO.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||
| 8 May 11, 8:30 AM Cassius UK, 3 yrs |
Of course to kick PRC out would be silly,for reasons of force majeure. Ditto Oil States. Realpolitik. There is a genuine dilemma,though; the UN was founded BY democracies to OPPOSE fascism and LIBERATE the oppressed. It has become diluted and the reason it is unable to hold to its charter is that the majority of states are probably fascist, i.e. undemocratic,even in the limited sense that we are here. No,I do not blame the UN,it is just that sadly it is now not as it was founded.A good step would be to modify so that only democracies are eligible for places on the Security Council. Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother. Edited 8 May 11, 8:31 AM by Cassius | ||
| 8 May 11, 9:12 AM DominantMind UK(N), 15 mths |
My Bold Er... you seem to have this habit of running off to the internet and finding seemingly sounding important big words, and then using them in sentences without knowing what they mean. Force majeure is a legal term that denotes a contract is no longer valid should forces beyond the control of one or both parties make the contract unenforceable (e.g. a war). How that relates to PRC's membership of the UN is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll use some other long word to explain it to me. Btw - go read the UN Charter - you won't find any mention of the word 'democracy'. The general idea was that it would be better to talk about stuff rather than invade/blow up/bomb stuff/people - not to promote one form of government over any other form of government. The USSR (a founding member of the UN) was a Communist state at the founding of the UN. Anyway - have fun turning to random pages of the dictionary, I wait for the next installment with bated breath. Tall, Dark and Handsome are all words... ad libitum | ||
| 8 May 11, 1:39 PM Cassius UK, 3 yrs |
"Force Majeure" is defined also in my dictionary as "irresistible compulsion,coercion diplomatically recognised as irresistible". My take was a not-so-subtle slant on that. Your meaning is indeed also quoted.(Concise Oxford Dictionary 1964 p.475)Due to PRC's population and uprising economic world dominance it would be unwise to ignore it - it appears to be an irresistible force in so many ways,including for example its economic colonisation of East Africa.It is indeed not a democracy in the Western sense,as the USSR was not at the foundation of the UN.It was irresistibly necessary for all countries in the anti-fascist coalition to be united,for diplomatic purposes.As I said,Realpolitik.I took my line from the generality of the UN's origin,in that the countries to be liberated from the fascists,including themselves,had been previously mostly democracies. For diplomatic (USSR)reasons,the word "democracy" could not be included in the original charter(although the system of soviets was originally a kind of democracy,with elected committes electing representatives from themselves to higher committees and so on upwards).UN pacts of various kinds since the 1940s,which are developments of the historic document,have made it clear that democracy is desirable. I have neither the time nor interest to trawl through them all to give citations,but I am sure somebody has. I confine myself to contributing to this conversation,without remarking(as I could) on a person's supposed motives or(as here) their spelling. I would consider it to be bad manners. Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother. Edited 8 May 11, 1:45 PM by Cassius |
