Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 73

Thread: Golan Heights move UN headquarters

  1. #16
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    If the UN was of no value to the US, they would tear down UN headquarters or turn it into another much needed prison!

    A primer on some of the reasons why, from an acceptable sanitized source.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...nited-nations/
    Last edited by montgomery; 31 Mar 19, at 18:16.

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    If the UN was of no value to the US, they would tear down UN headquarters or turn it into another much needed prison!

    A primer on some of the reasons why, from an acceptable sanitized source.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...nited-nations/
    It's a convient place where the big boys can talk amongst themselves but make no mistake, if the big boys don't put up the muscles, no one is going to do squat.

    CASES IN POINT

    - Rwanda even though Nigerian battalions were ready to intervene but demanded the UNSC said so. The UNSC never did.

    - Cambodia when Pol Pot was doing his genocide thing. No one cared

    - Golan Heights. No one is stopping Israel from applying their own laws in the area no matter what the pieces of paper says.

  3. #18
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    It's a convient place where the big boys can talk amongst themselves but make no mistake, if the big boys don't put up the muscles, no one is going to do squat.

    CASES IN POINT

    - Rwanda even though Nigerian battalions were ready to intervene but demanded the UNSC said so. The UNSC never did.

    - Cambodia when Pol Pot was doing his genocide thing. No one cared

    - Golan Heights. No one is stopping Israel from applying their own laws in the area no matter what the pieces of paper says.
    Your CASES IN POINT say absolutely nothing to my comments on the reason why the US isn't leaving the UN. If you have something to debate with me in a polite manner and on an even footing of privilege on this board then do so.

    So far, at best, you are telling me that the UN is of no use to the US. Or Nato? Or what?

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,368
    You obviously CANNOT read. It is A CONVIENT PLACE for the BIG BOYS TO TALK! The Americans, Chinese, British, French, Russians, etc can talk to each other in one place WITHOUT having to go from embassy to embassy and obviously both Rwanda and Cambodia references went right OVER YOUR HEAD.

    Rwanda was a Russian client. Cambodia was a Chinese client. Both stopped the UN from doing anything to their respective clients. SO GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE ABOUT THE US BEING THE BAD GUY.

  5. #20
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You obviously CANNOT read. It is A CONVIENT PLACE for the BIG BOYS TO TALK! The Americans, Chinese, British, French, Russians, etc can talk to each other in one place WITHOUT having to go from embassy to embassy and obviously both Rwanda and Cambodia references went right OVER YOUR HEAD.
    Nothing in that has gone over my head and I don't disagree on that now that you mention it. It could very well be a part of the reason why the US is finding the UN valuable to their military cause of aggression. And the reasons why they had to stomp on Trump's batshit crazy notion of leaving or disbanding, or what the hell ever he imagined.

    Rwanda was a Russian client. Cambodia was a Chinese client. Both stopped the UN from doing anything to their respective clients.
    Are you imagining that you're out in the field somewhere fighting a war? Or are your hemorroids just irritating you?

    SO GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE ABOUT THE US BEING THE BAD GUY.
    Look Colonel Huff, let's get something straight between us right now. I'm not here to take shit from you unless there's a point worth pursuing. And I'm finding that there is absolutely no attempts being made by you or any of the others to debate issues on a rational level. It's all about you and your friends being of the opinion that you can dictate your opinions to me and I'll have to be obliged to accept them.

    So let's try this: In order to make something worthwhile of this forum, we are going to have to set you out in some cow pasture on your rocking chair with a machine gun and a case of blank ammunition so you can blaze away at the stars as you howl at the moon.

    Now go tell mom if you can't play nice in this sandbox.

  6. #21
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    51
    UN needs reform, of course. Without UN the state of Israel wouldn't have existed. If Israel had a more UN-cooperative Prime Minister to follow the peaceful paths, we very likely would've had more secure region at all. So the governing administration in Washington is no more interested to guarantee the security of this region, after they started to step unilaterally in the opposite direction. They have lost the trust of Arab world and brought spiral increase of violence, as if deliberately are trampling on the evolve of powerful Palestinian authority who is to be held responsible for further escalations. As if from Washington are ready to gamble either the being of Israelis, just because of their no-1us-no-peace world strategy, and because it is far from their homeland. I don't know what the facts on UN personnel spas are, but it looks like some people in USA have overspaed, indeed. More reasons why United Nations have no future to look for there
    Last edited by m a x; 31 Mar 19, at 23:16.

  7. #22
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,176
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    It's all about you and your friends being of the opinion that you can dictate your opinions to me and I'll have to be obliged to accept them.
    Does not work like that over here. Everything is up for question. Its when the defenses come in that we find out how tenable a position is.

    You're just disagreeing. Not challenging. And then preaching.

    It is not unusual to find things you hold dear get turned upside, challenged and ripped up. If this makes you examine your bases more then good. If your bases are good you will be able to defend yourself but you're up against people with more experience so many times they get the benefit of the doubt. That is until facts on the ground change and then we are learning new things on a constant basis.

    If you stick through all of this you will learn new things. This board has been going since 2003. There have been many people with your views drop in here with similar results.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 01 Apr 19, at 00:30.

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Nothing in that has gone over my head and I don't disagree on that now that you mention it. It could very well be a part of the reason why the US is finding the UN valuable to their military cause of aggression.
    And you're still persisting in this line? You are proving your own stupidity beyond hope. NO ONE IS FINDING THE UN VALUABLE TO THEIR MILITARY AGGRESSION! Trump did not asked the UNSC for permission when be bombed Syrain CW assets. Nor did Putin asked the UNSC to prop up Assad.

    THE ONLY THING THE UN IS GOOD FOR IS A PLACE FOR THE BIG BOYS TO TALK AND TO CALM THINGS DOWN! It is BY NO MEANS AN AUTHORIZATIONJ FOR WAR! Canada DID NOT ASKED THE UN for permission to fight in Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan. and Somalia. Hell, we didn't even goto the UN to allow CF personnel on Officer Exchange to fight in Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And the reasons why they had to stomp on Trump's batshit crazy notion of leaving or disbanding, or what the hell ever he imagined.
    The US pays a lion share of the UN budget. They don't get a lion share back. Trump is asking just what the hell is the US paying for? At least know the arguement before you jump on him.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Are you imagining that you're out in the field somewhere fighting a war? Or are your hemorroids just irritating you?
    I imagine nothing and I like chewing on chew toys. You are a chew toy.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Look Colonel Huff, let's get something straight between us right now. I'm not here to take shit from you unless there's a point worth pursuing.
    And we're NOT here for your preaching. You said straight out there are no men of honour in the FBI/DOJ/SCOTUS. Those are out right insults to the men of honour in those organizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And I'm finding that there is absolutely no attempts being made by you or any of the others to debate issues on a rational level. It's all about you and your friends being of the opinion that you can dictate your opinions to me and I'll have to be obliged to accept them.
    You're the one who cannot accept the facts. I point out straight to you that China and Russia has clearly used the UNSC to protect their own murdering genocidic clients and you want to pretend it is only the US who went on wars of aggression. Boo fucking hoo when no one takes your preaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    So let's try this: In order to make something worthwhile of this forum, we are going to have to set you out in some cow pasture on your rocking chair with a machine gun and a case of blank ammunition so you can blaze away at the stars as you howl at the moon.

    Now go tell mom if you can't play nice in this sandbox.
    Yeah, I ain't playing nice with your mom ... and it ain't in the sandbox. Yes. there's howling.

  9. #24
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Does not work like that over here. Everything is up for question. Its when the defenses come in that we find out how tenable a position is.

    You're just disagreeing. Not challenging. And then preaching.

    It is not unusual to find things you hold dear get turned upside, challenged and ripped up. If this makes you examine your bases more then good. If your bases are good you will be able to defend yourself but you're up against people with more experience so many times they get the benefit of the doubt. That is until facts on the ground change and then we are learning new things on a constant basis.

    If you stick through all of this you will learn new things. This board has been going since 2003. There have been many people with your views drop in here with similar results.
    I will only suggest that you treat me with the same sort of respect you expect from others. Profanity and insulting behaviour isn't an appropriate response to the opinions of others.

    Yes, I do think I'll learn something on this board.

  10. #25
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    .
    Trump did not asked the UNSC for permission when be bombed Syrain CW assets.[/quote]

    Trump/the US didn't bomb Syria's CW assets.

    Let's take one issue at a time and stop the rudeness and insulting behaviour on the part of both of us. This will likely be my last attempt at rational and legitimate debate with you. The topic you've introduced above has the potential to be debated until hell freezes over if you care to do so.

    You're the one who cannot accept the facts. I point out straight to you that China and Russia has clearly used the UNSC to protect their own murdering genocidic clients and you want to pretend it is only the US who went on wars of aggression. Boo fucking hoo when no one takes your preaching.
    That's another topic I feel completely capable of debating some time, but let's take it one at a time.

  11. #26
    New Member
    Join Date
    02 Apr 19
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    11
    This is useless move, just give little of "status", does not change anything in real life !

  12. #27
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by MessiahMaitreya View Post
    This is useless move, just give little of "status", does not change anything in real life !
    Can you clarify your meaning? This thread's title was a bit of a mystery to begin with so I'll take this opportunity to express my theory on the issue raised by WABS on Syria's chemical weapons.
    -----------------------------------------

    Obama presented his red line speech on Syria's use of chem/bio weapons. Subsequently following that speech, Obama, Putin, and Assad came to an agreement on following through with the destruction and elimination of Syria's chem/bio weapons. And it's my opinion that it was done. There are conflicting opinions on whether or not the US stated that it was done and also conflicting opinions on whether or not it was done successfully. (more on that later)

    If the deal was completed successfully then the value to all parties would then obviously be that the same pretense of WMD's that was used to justify the Iraq war, could not apply to a future US/Nato war in Syria. I will suggest here that it may have been a huge tactical error on Obama's part, however this is very much up for questioning. Was it a tactical error on Obama's part or did Obama plan his red line speech in order to set the stage for that which would naturally follow? I will suggest the latter.

    By delaying the war that we now know was planned years earlier by the US when Wesley Clarke talked publicly on the PNAC plan, we can imagine that the delay allowed, and even justified Russia's move to increase it's presence in Syria. And by so doing has changed the course of history.

    Had the US rushed to war, and had Obama insisted on backing the plan for war on Syria, it is my conclusion that Russia's move into Syria would have been preempted. And Syria would have fallen to the US/Nato with some justification in the hearts and minds of the international community. The justiication of course being Assad's supposed stockpile and use of chem/bio weapons.

    Russia has now firmly established it's foothold in the ME with Syria and the course of history has been changed forever. And if current events are any indication, along with the voice of the EU on the Iran nuclear deal, Iran will also fall into the hands of Russia/Putin.

    And so, this mainly in reply to WABS' suggestion that Trump bombed Syria's CW assets. I'm suggesting that there were no CW assets in Syria to bomb. Or at least the case can be made that the international community didn't buy into the US/Nato story of CW's being bombed. But then that debate would be beside the main point and stalemated forever.

    Opinions?

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Trump/the US didn't bomb Syria's CW assets.
    Of course he did. The delivery base was hit. Trace chemicals found. And Trump hit the production factory which was "front" as a pesticide company. If you can make pesticides, you can make bio-chems which is precisely why they're viewed as the poor man's nukes. There is practically no way to prevent that capability and it's banning is based on the volunatary obserance of the CWC and the BWC.

    Yeah, the Russians got rid of the old stock. Assad just made new ones.

  14. #29
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Of course he did. The delivery base was hit. Trace chemicals found.
    I disagree. There is at least as much contrary evidence being found that there was no use of chemical weapons at the site of the US bombing.

    And Trump hit the production factory which was "front" as a pesticide company. If you can make pesticides, you can make bio-chems which is precisely why they're viewed as the poor man's nukes.[/quote]

    Yes, CW's can be termed as the poor man's nukes or WMD's which is a more popular term. In my opinion they are neither and haven't been used to any great effect in modern warfare. Iraq's use of CW's being a possible exception, which has been hotly debated by Stephen Pelletiere. My main point being on your suggestion being that it's essential in any demonization of the enemy to place some significant weapon in his hands. Iraq was the exampe of that effort, which was later proven to be false.

    There is practically no way to prevent that capability and it's banning is based on the volunatary obserance of the CWC and the BWC.
    I would agree. But there is every reason to believe that Assad would be very pleased to have the conditions imposed on him, and have every reason to comply and recieve the US blessing on the deal being completed. The use of chem/bio weapons is firmly condemned by all countries, even though there is always the possibility of the condemnation bein only words to that effect. And of course the ability to avoid the condemnation far outweighs the value of using chem/bio weapons in any way that can be proven beyond any doubt.

    Assad would have been walking into an obvious trap if he resorted to the use of chem/bio weapons. They are as you suggest, the poor man's weapon and are much more likely to be used by terrorist/freedom fighter entities, as opposed to being used by any state.

    Thank you for your comments. But I'm more interested in your views on whether Obama knew that his red line speech would be so devastating for his country's future plans in the ME. or he unwittingly and stupidly walked into the trap that was being set by Putin/Assad?

    I think, because it's what I like to think, that Obama was complicit in the plan. And that being because Obama was always opposed to his country's future wars. Wisely or ignorantly on Obama's part, is to be up for questioning.

    Yeah, the Russians got rid of the old stock. Assad just made new ones.[/QUOTE]

  15. #30
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Question: Was there any point in time where the US proclaimed the mission to eliminate Assad's CW's had been successfully completed?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria?
    By Ironduke in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 05 Feb 09,, 09:29
  2. IDF prepares for Syrian attack on Golan
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04 May 07,, 21:20
  3. U.N. Chief Returns to Headquarters, Where Battles Await Him
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06 Feb 07,, 17:41
  4. Trump: Let Me Rebuild U.N. Headquarters
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Jul 05,, 19:27

Tags for this Thread

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
  •