What is the purpose of the UN

[unbeliever]

We haven't had a third World war, which indicates it has been a success so far. The veto the five permanent members have, is widely thought to be one of the main reasons there hasn't been a third World war.

 

I think MAD is the reason we haven't had a third world war yet.

[Gamston]

I think MAD is the reason we haven't had a third world war yet.

A valid point. Thank you for the link.

[WestTinsley]

I thought exactly the same last night when i was watching Ban Ki-Moon on channel 4 news condemning Russia's bombing in Syria.

 

If there is a country in the world who doesn't care what anyone thinks about them, its Russia.

 

Russia only understands action but you cant mess with them. They do what they like and have all of Europes oil.

Russias aid to the Syrian Govt is a God send.

If it wasnt for Russia , the USA would have invaded and we'd have had another Vietnam war but in Syria ..and no one knows what the international repercussions would be..

As for bankimoon he's a U.S.lackey.

The western media misinformation on Syria is beyond anything before it. Channel4 and Panorama havetwice in recent weeks aired Nusra front propaganda film/documentaries.. from Aleppo. This is who Syrian govt and allies are fighting.. isis ikhwani and alqaida groups... and the West and Saudis,Gulf Statez,Turkey etc have been aiding them since the get go. With Money, Weaponry etc .It's a propaganda war on Syria..

The West should be Thanking Russia and the Syrian Govt.

[999tigger]

Russias aid to the Syrian Govt is a God send.

If it wasnt for Russia , the USA would have invaded and we'd have had another Vietnam war but in Syria ..and no one knows what the international repercussions would be..

As for bankimoon he's a U.S.lackey.

The western media misinformation on Syria is beyond anything before it. Channel4 and Panorama havetwice in recent weeks aired Nusra front propaganda film/documentaries.. from Aleppo. This is who Syrian govt and allies are fighting.. isis ikhwani and alqaida groups... and the West and Saudis,Gulf Statez,Turkey etc have been aiding them since the get go. With Money, Weaponry etc .It's a propaganda war on Syria..

The West should be Thanking Russia and the Syrian Govt.

 

Tell that to the 2m in Aleppo with no water.

US has zero interest in invading Syria. If they were interested theyd have done it years ago.

[WestTinsley]

Tell that to the 2m in Aleppo with no water.

US has zero interest in invading Syria. If they were interested theyd have done it years ago.

 

How do you know they have zero interest? They have been involved since before day 1.

They've been training the rebels, they send them weapons and they are over the skies bombing who they wish.. they had no intention to invade Libya or iraq I suppose..??

As for talk of water shortage, that you may find is down to the extremists/rebels.. they tried to flood the city in 2012 before they brought their revolution to Aleppo. Don't forget 70% of the city is in Govt control.Soon be all of it...like I said there is a propaganda war.

Edited September 30, 2016 by WestTinsley

[glennpickard]

Russia will fight to keep as much of Syria intact as it can and keep Assad in power. No one will thank them, they are looking after their own self interests.

But they need to get their priorities straight. Along side the west, they need to remove ISIS and its "Caliphate arms" from Syria first. If Turkey participates they will be eliminated sooner rather than later.

 

Then, there may, I repeat may, be a opening for the UN to maintain a cease fire.

 

Immediately afterwards, the west and Russia need to finalize what to do about the non ISIS rebels with ambitions to remove Assad. Most of the UN member countries would agree that Assad, with his bloodstained hands, has to go. Here is the tricky part, which again could end up at the UN.

To stop the carnage in/around Aleppo etc, much of which the Russians are responsible for trying to keep Assad in place, and to enable time for negotiations, the west and Russia need to bring the major non ISIS rebels forces to the table. To hammer out who will replace Assad, and when. Putin will want to try to control this outcome.

 

The UN, backed by a majority of the Security Council, should develop a new proposal for same. Russia will probably veto and the Chinese will, as always, act as if they are a third party with no interest in the outcome (Chinese self interest).

Nevertheless, if the US, UK and France agree, then I would consider this a basis with which to move forward.

So yes there could be a role for the UN in situations such as this, but for the most part it will be secondary.

The biggest question to be answered, is who or what might replace Assad ? Democracy ? A UN managed transition to democracy ?

[999tigger]

How do you know they have zero interest? They have been involved since before day 1.

They've been training the rebels, they send them weapons and they are over the skies bombing who they wish.. they had no intention to invade Libya or iraq I suppose..??

As for talk of water shortage, that you may find is down to the extremists/rebels.. they tried to flood the city in 2012 before they brought their revolution to Aleppo. Don't forget 70% of the city is in Govt control.Soon be all of it...like I said there is a propaganda war.

 

So where are the troops then? They would need a substantial land force and they are rather hard to hide. Where would be the point of entry?

 

What would they gain out of invading Syria? Lot of bodybags and a lot of debt. There is nothing there for them.

 

They wouldnt be sad if Assad fell, but thats a different matter from invading. If they were sending substantial weapons then you would notice becayse Assad wouldnt be barrel bombing the civilians as the helicopters would be being shot down.

 

Anyone with an air force can fly over Syria so that proves nothing. They arent actually bombing Assad otherwise he would have lost already. There has only been one mistaken incident. If The USA wanted to it could have wiped out Assads ground forces ages ago.

 

They had every intention to invade Iraq and that was rather more noticeable as it was announced. Its not the sort of thing you hide.

 

I hadnt realised they invaded Libya? When did this happen?

 

Yes I forgot silly old me the civilians are barrel bombing themselves and destroying their own water supply.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2016 at 21:55 ----------

 

Russia will fight to keep as much of Syria intact as it can and keep Assad in power. No one will thank them, they are looking after their own self interests.

But they need to get their priorities straight. Along side the west, they need to remove ISIS and its "Caliphate arms" from Syria first. If Turkey participates they will be eliminated sooner rather than later.

 

Then, there may, I repeat may, be a opening for the UN to maintain a cease fire.

 

Immediately afterwards, the west and Russia need to finalize what to do about the non ISIS rebels with ambitions to remove Assad. Most of the UN member countries would agree that Assad, with his bloodstained hands, has to go. Here is the tricky part, which again could end up at the UN.

To stop the carnage in/around Aleppo etc, much of which the Russians are responsible for trying to keep Assad in place, and to enable time for negotiations, the west and Russia need to bring the major non ISIS rebels forces to the table. To hammer out who will replace Assad, and when. Putin will want to try to control this outcome.

 

The UN, backed by a majority of the Security Council, should develop a new proposal for same. Russia will probably veto and the Chinese will, as always, act as if they are a third party with no interest in the outcome (Chinese self interest).

Nevertheless, if the US, UK and France agree, then I would consider this a basis with which to move forward.

So yes there could be a role for the UN in situations such as this, but for the most part it will be secondary.

The biggest question to be answered, is who or what might replace Assad ? Democracy ? A UN managed transition to democracy ?

 

Its a matter of politics though. the West dont want Assad for bombing his own people, but Russia and Iran want to keep him as a chance to oppose the west and to keep an ally. Stalemate.

 

He is always part of the equation and there is no moving past that, hence it will continue for as long as Russia and Iran want it to. the UN wont get involved its too dangerous and theres no political will or money.

[WestTinsley]

Russia will fight to keep as much of Syria intact as it can and keep Assad in power. No one will thank them, they are looking after their own self interests.

But they need to get their priorities straight. Along side the west, they need to remove ISIS and its "Caliphate arms" from Syria first. If Turkey participates they will be eliminated sooner rather than later.

 

Then, there may, I repeat may, be a opening for the UN to maintain a cease fire.

 

Immediately afterwards, the west and Russia need to finalize what to do about the non ISIS rebels with ambitions to remove Assad. Most of the UN member countries would agree that Assad, with his bloodstained hands, has to go. Here is the tricky part, which again could end up at the UN.

To stop the carnage in/around Aleppo etc, much of which the Russians are responsible for trying to keep Assad in place, and to enable time for negotiations, the west and Russia need to bring the major non ISIS rebels forces to the table. To hammer out who will replace Assad, and when. Putin will want to try to control this outcome.

 

The UN, backed by a majority of the Security Council, should develop a new proposal for same. Russia will probably veto and the Chinese will, as always, act as if they are a third party with no interest in the outcome (Chinese self interest).

Nevertheless, if the US, UK and France agree, then I would consider this a basis with which to move forward.

So yes there could be a role for the UN in situations such as this, but for the most part it will be secondary.

The biggest question to be answered, is who or what might replace Assad ? Democracy ? A UN managed transition to democracy ?

you obviously don't know what is happening in Syria..if you get your info from bbc c4 or the like then you'll not know much.

I noticed you said isis and non isis rebels... all the non isis rebels are just as bad as isis ... 3 or 4 groups are directly aligned with al qaida and the others are salafist ideologically.. [btw there is thousands of non syrian Jihadists in Syria]

the west are hated in the Arab world.. if you realised 99 pc of the problems are through them you'd realise anything they want or tell you is for their self interest isreali interests and oil...

the Syrian army and Russia China etc are against the jihadist groups. the nato states and especially their allies turkey and the gcc are the main suppliers of arms to the Jihadists..

everything you've wished for the west to do they already have been doing .. like I said too much misinformation

Edited September 30, 2016 by WestTinsley

[glennpickard]

I get my information mostly on line, including the BBC, CNN, MSNBC and a few other news stations. Most of them report news that is similar, but with a few differing opinions from people offering comments. Unless you are Syrian, Iraqi or Kurdish, with recent time spent in same, you have to rely on the internet and TV/Radio news outlets.

 

I don't go to pro ISIS sites because they are not reporting anything accurately, they are all propaganda. You will say that the western outlets are too, but at least they mostly take the same position relative to the removal of ISIS, Assad, and Russia's reasons for direct intervention. Even if 99% of the Arab world hates the west as you say, most know that we are much the better of two evils compared to ISIS !

 

I would like to see much more information from news outlets as to what various NATO allies are doing to remove the ISIS threat, such as the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Holland etc. Also forecasts on what the post ISIS landscape might be like in Syria and Iraq etc.

What other news options do you recommend ?

[WestTinsley]

I speak Arabic so I see the crazy gulf media that controls the narrative and other less commercial or pro govts view media

..in the age of Internet, mainstream media is not the be all and end all..

 

a great english language resource was

http://english.al-akhbar.com

 

 

another great news site and critic of news

http://www.angryarab.blogspot.com

Edited October 4, 2016 by WestTinsley