Jump to content

Helpless majority of one: when will the PREDICTABLE be obvious to all?


Recommended Posts

Again, I'd suggest you go and find out what a war crime is.

 

If Obama authorises attacks (without proof) it's a de facto declaration of war. If the attacks have no clear military benefit, no clear civilian benefit and results in destruction of civilian infrastructure, civilian suffering, civilian displacement, civilian injuries and deaths then he is directly responsible. No doubt about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama authorises attacks (without proof) it's a de facto declaration of war. If the attacks have no clear military benefit, no clear civilian benefit and results in destruction of civilian infrastructure, civilian suffering, civilian displacement, civilian injuries and deaths then he is directly responsible. No doubt about it.

 

Well he says he's got proof, as do the French. If they haven't got proof are you happy for both sides to slaughter another 100,000 by conventional means? I'm fine with that btw. Failing that, lets say there is another chemical incident and we have absolute concrete proof of assad authorising his top man to fire it personally and take a video to put on YouTube followed by a confession he has used chemical weapons. Why would a few hundred deaths killed one way outweigh thousands in conventional warfare (and include summery be headings and other war crimes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he says he's got proof, as do the French. If they haven't got proof are you happy for both sides to slaughter another 100,000 by conventional means? I'm fine with that btw. Failing that, lets say there is another chemical incident and we have absolute concrete proof of assad authorising his top man to fire it personally and take a video to put on YouTube followed by a confession he has used chemical weapons. Why would a few hundred deaths killed one way outweigh thousands in conventional warfare (and include summery be headings and other war crimes).

 

There is also evidence of rebels using chemical weapons.

 

Unfortunately it's an internal war in Syria and until the UN steps in nothing is going to stop it. If Obama steps in it will inflame the situation, potentially causing many more deaths.

 

The best thing that the Russians and Americans can do is stop supplying weapons, and to use the UN to get peace keeping troops on the ground, no fly zones implemented etc... Obama doesn't want that it seems. He wants war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also evidence of rebels using chemical weapons.

 

Unfortunately it's an internal war in Syria and until the UN steps in nothing is going to stop it. If Obama steps in it will inflame the situation, potentially causing many more deaths.

 

The best thing that the Russians and Americans can do is stop supplying weapons, and to use the UN to get peace keeping troops on the ground, no fly zones implemented etc... Obama doesn't want that it seems. He wants war.

 

What do you expect the UN to do, if they do step in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peace keeping. What else?

 

I'm not being obtuse here, I'm really not. They did a bit of that in Bosnia and it didn't really work until NATO waded in with airstrikes if memory serves. Short of parking up a few armoured personnel carriers and trying to create a few safe areas this will be hard to stop considering how well armed both sides are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has Britain and America got against the Assad government ?

I appreciate it is a simple question and I am not referring to the chemical weapons.

 

None democratic human rights abusing dictatorship... Other than that, nothing.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 20:04 ----------

 

If Obama authorises attacks (without proof) it's a de facto declaration of war. If the attacks have no clear military benefit, no clear civilian benefit and results in destruction of civilian infrastructure, civilian suffering, civilian displacement, civilian injuries and deaths then he is directly responsible. No doubt about it.

 

One state declaring war on another is not a war crime, clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being obtuse here, I'm really not. They did a bit of that in Bosnia and it didn't really work until NATO waded in with airstrikes if memory serves. Short of parking up a few armoured personnel carriers and trying to create a few safe areas this will be hard to stop considering how well armed both sides are.

 

It has to be attempted. The scandal is that it had rumbled on this long without any will for the UN to get involved.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 20:08 ----------

 

None democratic human rights abusing dictatorship... Other than that, nothing.

 

---------- Post added 07-09-2013 at 20:04 ----------

 

 

One state declaring war on another is not a war crime, clearly.

 

It's what happens after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.