Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 2455

Thread: Syrian Civil War Developments

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,507

    Syrian Civil War Developments

    Sabres are out now huh



    Britain is to push for a UN security council resolution condemning a crackdown on anti-government protesters in Syria.

    The foreign secretary, William Hague, told parliament that the security council had a "responsibility to speak out" and warned of new European Union sanctions unless demands were met.

    Hague said diplomats were circulating a draft resolution to secure the necessary support from the nine council members.

    He said the proposals would bring action taken against Syria in line with measures imposed on other countries in the region facing political upheaval. However, they fell short of the no-fly zone mandated against Libya under a resolution passed earlier this year that launched a Nato bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.

    "We must show the same resolve and purpose in supporting change and democratic development elsewhere in the region," Hague said.

    The draft calls on Syria's president Bashar al-Assad and his government to capitulate to the demands of pro-democracy protesters, free "prisoners of conscience", lift internet restrictions and co-operate with UN human rights officials. It does not detail or threaten any UN sanctions.

    "We are working to persuade other countries that the security council has a responsibility to speak out," he said. "President Assad is losing legitimacy and should reform or step aside."

    Hague said an EU arms embargo, asset freeze and visa ban on 13 officials imposed against Syria last month had proved successful, but tougher measures could follow.

    "We must show the same resolve and purpose in supporting change and democratic development elsewhere in the region, for example using the economic appeal of the EU to act as a magnet for positive change in the region.

    "Since my last statement our efforts to agree EU sanctions against President Assad and other individuals responsible for the violence and repression in Syria have been successful. We are exploring with our European partners the potential for further sanctions if the violence continues."

    Human rights groups claim that more than 1,000 people have been killed in more than three months of demonstrations in Syria.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  2. #2
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Still, it is an internal affair of Syria. No genocide or crimes against humanity taking place. I will believe Britain more seriously if it takes up the same charge against China or even any of the western powers.

  3. #3
    Contributor ace16807's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jan 08
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Still, it is an internal affair of Syria. No genocide or crimes against humanity taking place. I will believe Britain more seriously if it takes up the same charge against China or even any of the western powers.
    Except that de facto will never happen so it'd be silly to try? With the situation in Syria and Libya to a greater extent, there is a possibility, although remote, that China and Russia will simply abstain from voting. But there isn't even the slightest chance that a resolution condemning actions in a P5 nation/a very close ally of a P5 nation will even see much debate on the floor, so aside from using it as a bit of a futile PR move, it doesn't accomplish anything at all.

  4. #4
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by ace16807 View Post
    Except that de facto will never happen so it'd be silly to try? With the situation in Syria and Libya to a greater extent, there is a possibility, although remote, that China and Russia will simply abstain from voting. But there isn't even the slightest chance that a resolution condemning actions in a P5 nation/a very close ally of a P5 nation will even see much debate on the floor, so aside from using it as a bit of a futile PR move, it doesn't accomplish anything at all.
    Then by that standard, Britain shouldn't be doing it to others when no other countries can do against Britain.

  5. #5
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    I will believe Britain more seriously if it takes up the same charge against China or even any of the western powers.
    Cameron would reply...Just because you cannot do it everywhere doesn't mean you do not do so at all. In no way does it diminish recent actions.

    They've been consistent, where possible, so far.

    Syria will be a trickier nut to crack compared to Libya. Borders many important countries so any instability could have knock on compounding effects on neighbours.

    How to promote change in such an environment
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Jun 11, at 21:42.

  6. #6
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    The concern I have is that Britain has a long history of colonialism and imperialism so it is not exactly the right country to be interfering with other countries' affairs, especially when Britain used to rule Syria during the old days of the British Empire.

    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.

  7. #7
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    The concern I have is that Britain has a long history of colonialism and imperialism so it is not exactly the right country to be interfering with other countries' affairs, especially when Britain used to rule Syria during the old days of the British Empire.

    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.
    Britian is the red herring. Just sounding a clarion call.

    Your main opposition is to the concept of responsibility to protect. The idea that if a country does not take care of its ppl or attacks them that gives other countries a right to intervene.

    Britan won't be acting alone but in concert with others. You can blame Blair for successfully advocating the idea in 1999 but what will you do about the others that join in. All we can be sure of is a BRIC abstention along with Germany.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Jun 11, at 22:12.

  8. #8
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Britian is the red herring. Just sounding a clarion call.

    Your main opposition is to the concept of responsibility to protect. The idea that if a country does not take care of its ppl or attacks them that gives other countries a right to intervene.
    NO IT DOESN'T!!

    Britan won't be acting alone but in concert with others. You can blame Blair for successfully advocating the idea in 1999 but what will you do about the others that join in. All we can be sure of is a BRIC abstention along with Germany.
    I really don't care what other nations think of but the premise is that the affairs of that country is its own. It did not sign away its sovereignity. The judges and jury of another country are not qualified to sit and judge the actions that transpired in another country. We, or in my case, did not subordinate ourselve to the will of another country by consent.

    If anyone in India would advocate another country to get involved in the affairs of India such as, for example, the riots in Gujurat supposing that the GoI turned a blind eye and did nothing, I would immediately get in front of that person and tell that person to take it back or be tried for treason no matter how his intentions was for the good or well meant.

    Otherwise, you open the door to constant interference in the internal affairs of a country by other and outside foreign powers, effectively turning that county into a banana republic. For instance, in Pakistan, you got US involved in the decision on who to appoint as the leader of the country. Musharraf went when US withdrew its support and backed Zardari. Or in the case of Egypt, you got outside powers determining the fate of who gets to rule the country.

    I don't want that to happen to India. Only Indians can determine who gets to be the leader of India. USA, Britain or any other power gets NOOOO SAY whatsoever regardless of the political or geopolitical climate in that region. I would view anyone who would endeavor any outside foreign power involved in the domestic affairs with great hostility and unforgiveness and a view that that person is of the highest traitor to India and its people.

  9. #9
    In Memoriam Military Professional dave lukins's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jan 07
    Location
    cheshire uk
    Posts
    11,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?

  10. #10
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,507
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?
    Dont forget the ozzies , oops we sent em there didnt we , same as the America's , ah well never mind Pilgryms , anyway i reckon the Belgians have some grovellin to do , budwieser and sprouts crap


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  11. #11
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?
    Dave I guess we need to wait our turn, since you've just about gotten around to the Irish for now.

  12. #12
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by dave lukins View Post
    To that end should the Americans apologize to the Indians? Should the Chinese for Tibet? Why should todays people apologize for our forefathers? How far back in History do we need to go back before people stop saying sorry for others?
    To be frank I found BM's rationale to be ludicrous & arbitrary, just smacks of colonial hangover syndrome. chip on your shoulder nonsense.

    Britain isn't acting unilaterally today but is building a global consensus unlike the days of yore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And yet, we continued to target his HQ and HQ is defined as wherever he gave orders.
    The term they use is command & control centre. Those can be targetted.

    But which ones ? is the question.

    Gaddafi isn't in charge of operations so he would not normally be in a C & C centre. He would be in a bunker somewhere, does that make him fair game ?

    I'm not sure, there seems to be some leeway here in how C & C is interpreted.

    We keep hearing demands from MP's to place the attorney general's legal advice in the public library of the commons but to date it has yet to appear.

  13. #13
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    The concern I have is that Britain has a long history of colonialism and imperialism so it is not exactly the right country to be interfering with other countries' affairs, especially when Britain used to rule Syria during the old days of the British Empire.
    Name a country that is?
    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.
    Britain is a Democratic state. Governments of Democratic states are fluid, as are the people that live and die electing them. Juxtaposing transgressions committed on law as it exists today for acts committed before most of our grandfathers were a twinkle in their fathers eye and continuing to hold those states culpable in the present is morally illogical...
    Ego Numquam

  14. #14
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    17 May 10
    Location
    India
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    Name a country that is?


    Britain is a Democratic state. Governments of Democratic states are fluid, as are the people that live and die electing them. Juxtaposing transgressions committed on law as it exists today for acts committed before most of our grandfathers were a twinkle in their fathers eye and continuing to hold those states culpable in the present is morally illogical...
    Not it is not. People don't really change all that much in a few hundred years. Its called the collective unconscious by Jung. Symbolic at best it may be, illogical not.

  15. #15
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    The concern I have is that Britain has a long history of colonialism and imperialism so it is not exactly the right country to be interfering with other countries' affairs, especially when Britain used to rule Syria during the old days of the British Empire.

    I question Britain's right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs on questions of morality and humanity when it has consistently failed to acknowledge or even apologize for its actions during the British Empire when it committed atrocities and actions that would be adequetly described as crimes against humanity today.
    Agreed


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Uzbekistan, and other developments in Central Asia
    By cyppok in forum Central and South Asia
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01 Aug 13,, 12:31
  2. Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23 Jun 08,, 06:49
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09 Oct 07,, 17:58
  4. Iran And Possible Developments
    By Gazi in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26 Feb 06,, 16:02
  5. Syrian and Islamist?
    By tarek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Jan 05,, 01:46

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •