Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Syrian Civil War Developments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    A. You do not decide what Canada does.
    Bloody hell I don't. I can tell Canadians how stupid this Crusade is and it's not our business. Hence, why we're not going after Assad.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    B. You have little idea of how much I have or have not bled.
    You're not going to bleed for an Assad crusade.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    At present I am heavily pregnant so not welcome at the front on active service.
    Good. Now imagine anyone tearing that baby away from you on somebody else's crusade.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    On the more general level unless you act against war crimes where they happen do not be surprised when they occur in your home countries. Dictators and murderers only stop when stopped. Allowing them to be seen to 'win' will only inspire others to act in the same criminal manner.
    Their house, their rules. My house, my rules. Live with it.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 06 Apr 18,, 04:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    A. You do not decide what Canada does.
    B. You have little idea of how much I have or have not bled. At present I am heavily pregnant so not welcome at the front on active service.

    On the more general level unless you act against war crimes where they happen do not be surprised when they occur in your home countries. Dictators and murderers only stop when stopped. Allowing them to be seen to 'win' will only inspire others to act in the same criminal manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    I am detained by other business,
    I am not going to send my Canadians on your Crusade, especially one that you have no interest to bleed for.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Trump missiled an empty airport and said look at how tough I am. The next day it was operational again.
    Fortunately, the AARs give a much more accurate assesement than your ill informed opinion.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    That Trumps opinion matters should concern us all.
    He struck Assad and 300 Russian mercs are dead.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    May as well give up the idea of international law then. Dog eat dog shall be the law. I prefer to hope different.
    International Law says I don't have to go after Assad if I don't want to. And hope is not a method.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 06 Apr 18,, 03:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I don't see you grabbing an AK47 to go arrest Assad.
    I am detained by other business,

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Trump cruise missile Assad's ass and he's satisfied and his opinion is the only one that matters.
    Trump missiled an empty airport and said look at how tough I am. The next day it was operational again. That Trumps opinion matters should concern us all.

    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    No one is going to arrest Assad.
    May as well give up the idea of international law then. Dog eat dog shall be the law. I prefer to hope different.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    We all are or it happens again - maybe worse. That the guilty are seen to be punished matters. It has a deterrent effect. There is a UNSC meeting ongoing regarding the Skripal - Salisbury attack as I write.
    Arguably the two biggest criticisms of the UN as an organization are the veto power of permanent security council members, and it's total reliance on members to enforce resolutions rather than possessing an organic security force. It makes the UN reliant on moral rather than hard power.

    There has never been much of an appetite for nation states to cede power to a higher sovereign entity and therefore the UN has no army. After all, if the UN had a standing army it would essentially be a form of world government in which an totalitarian state would possess veto power over key decision making. That would immediately make it unacceptable to the West.

    Thus you're back to convincing individual states that it's in their best interests bear the costs of dragging Assad to the Hague.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 05 Apr 18,, 22:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    We all are or it happens again - maybe worse.
    I don't see you grabbing an AK47 to go arrest Assad.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    That the guilty are seen to be punished matters.
    Trump cruise missile Assad's ass and he's satisfied and his opinion is the only one that matters.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    It has a deterrent effect.
    No one is going to arrest Assad.

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    There is a UNSC meeting ongoing regarding the Skripal - Salisbury attack as I write.
    So what? Russia has a veto as does China.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    We all are or it happens again - maybe worse. That the guilty are seen to be punished matters. It has a deterrent effect. There is a UNSC meeting ongoing regarding the Skripal - Salisbury attack as I write.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    The Assad regime is already charged. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/10...s#.WFGWadLNzIU
    That Assad is guilty is without a doubt. That is NOT the question. The question is WHO IS OBLIGATED to bring Assad and gang to the Haig?

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    The Assad regime is already charged. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/10...s#.WFGWadLNzIU

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    For a person who spouts to have Foreign Service experience, you know damned where that nowhere in the CWC are nations obligated to enforce the CWC. They can choose to enforce it but no nation is obligated to enforce it. That's the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/custo.../v1_rul_rule74


    Article I. General Obligations

    1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

    (a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;

    (b) To use chemical weapons;

    (c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;

    (d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

    2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

    3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

    4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.

    5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

    Syria is a signatory: https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapon...l-obligations/
    Last edited by snapper; 05 Apr 18,, 19:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    To leave the murderous Assad regime in power is contrary to every international or moral law. The lot of them belong at the court in the Hague and to allow them to continue in power encourages other would be mass murderers.
    There is no international law nor moral law that obligates any country to bring the Assad regime to the Hague.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    To leave the murderous Assad regime in power is contrary to every international or moral law. The lot of them belong at the court in the Hague and to allow them to continue in power encourages other would be mass murderers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironduke
    replied
    Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43648968

    Trumplomacy: Can US quit Syria 'very soon'? It's complicated

    The US is not a main player in Syria's crowded battlefields, but it is an important one.

    American forces and their local allies control a large and strategically important area in the eastern part of the country in which they have mostly, but not entirely, defeated the Islamic State (IS) group.

    The White House has now said the US military will complete its mission to eliminate IS remnants, but says that shouldn't take long.

    That's as far as it's gone to clarify matters since US President Donald Trump seemed to be rewriting Syria policy on the fly by declaring the US would exit "like, very soon".

    Despite the success of the anti-IS campaign, ending it won't be as rapid as Trump would like. Remaining IS fighters have proven tenacious.

    Crucially, America's key local partners, the Kurds, have abandoned the battle against the Islamic State terror group to help their brethren in another part of Syria under attack by another US ally, Turkey.

    It's complicated. Ground operations against IS were put on hold last month.

    But even if there comes a moment called "Victory", the Pentagon fears that a complete withdrawal of US troops would leave a dangerous void.

    It would in effect cede US-controlled territory to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its Russian backers, betraying America's Syrian allies and neutralising its efforts to influence a post-war order that takes into account Washington's interests and those of its regional allies.

    It would disrupt the administration's strategy to help stabilise the devastated battle zones in order to prevent an IS comeback - by providing basic services so that people can return to their homes. The Pentagon and the Department of State are in lock-step on this approach.

    And it would allow Iran to expand its already considerable influence in Syria and the region, facilitating Tehran's efforts to establish an overland supply route through Iraq and Syria to its allies in Beirut, the powerful Hezbollah movement.

    This is of great concern to Israel, which fears an Iranian military presence on its borders, and to Saudi Arabia, Iran's biggest regional rival.

    The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has called the American troop presence in Syria the last bulwark against Iran's regional expansion. Israel has publicly held its council, but can't be expected to for long.

    Foreign policy hawks in Washington who've applauded Trump's assault on the Iran nuclear deal haven't minced words: "Trump cannot have a serious Iran strategy if he allows Tehran to win in Syria," Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of Foundation for Defence of Democracies, told the Wall Street Journal.

    Trump may have good reasons for wanting to pull out of a messy Mideast war, aside from the fact that he promised to.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveDaPirate
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Kurds are more valuable to us than Turkey. We need to start pulling our assets including nukes out of Turkey.
    What?

    What value do the Kurds have in the long term? They occupy a little landlocked rump state and helped fight a low order threat like ISIS. They have certainly been helpful in the near term, but while a mutually beneficial arrangement existed when there were jihadists with dreams of grandeur to fight what can they bring to a real conflict with a great or even middle power? They don't have a professional military, no developed industry or infrastructure to speak of, and without any ports to bring in heavy equipment the West isn't really in a position to build them up into a state capable of defending themselves either.

    Turkey's location alone makes it extremely valuable as an ally and it's sizable military is no slouch either. It's perfectly situated to influence a conflict with either Russia or Iran. It's far more important to keep Turkey as a real member of the alliance than to play around in Iraq or Syria the way we have been for the last 30 years.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X