It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2nd UNSC meeting ends with no progress

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

2nd UNSC meeting ends with no progress


www.presstv.ir

It's just breaking on Press tv that the second UNSC meeting has ended without progress, Russia calling attack on Syria a challenge to the UN Charter. Basically the door would be open for any leader to manipulate the UN articles to justify military intervention on the basis of humanitarian intervention.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I personally am divided about this issue as I have been to Jordan some 10 years ago as a visitor and met a relative of my boyfriend at the time who had been tortured, starved, and imprisoned for 20 years by the Syrian government simply for driving a couple in his taxi to the Jordanian/Syrian border. Make no mistake that Assad is brutal and capable of carrying out these chemical attacks but on the otherhand I do not trust the American government either and their claim to moral higher ground. I really think if western governments pulled their support for the rebels, allowed Assad temporary power to regain some control over Syria in exchange for stepping down and allowing free and fair elections, would be the only solution politically I see to solving this crisis. What say you ats to the latest news of further breakdown in UN talks?

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Here is a further link to the UN Charter chapter VII which sets out the powers of the SC to maintain peace.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
After the response to from Russia when UN Resolution 1973 was passed under Chapter 7 its not surprising that talks are going nowhere, Russia is not going to budge and the international community knows this but must at least try to go through the UN to appease their voters. That is why the UK parliament has been arguing all night, they are already paving the way for a no vote from the UN security council arguing that no resolution is required for military intervention.

The UN Security Council will probably not be able to pass a chapter 7 resolution on this one, but they will go attack Syria anyway so long as the UN Weapons inspectors confirm the use of chemical weapons.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
They haven't killed enough of the zombies yet to make the bombing an effective cover story. If even one of them gets out, the world will be pulled into hell.
Obviously.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I agree, it comes as no surprise that military intervention will be the chosen option and in a sense I see why. It's just what's next now? What are the repercussions going to be. It's almost surreal, that western governments have finally managed to make the case for entering into so-called limited strikes when most of us know there will be retaliation and thus further conflict.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Funny, I would like to point out I do not believe this will cause WW3. Howeve that for a conflict it does make country's go haywire.

I mean, country's are getting really divided over this matter. Almost pre-WW2.
Because basically we are talking about just Syria right?
... Nothing more right...

It seems to me that some people know this might be a box of Pandora.
edit on 29-8-2013 by Senduko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Senduko
 


Well even the whitehouse spokesperson has said lets not forget this is perhaps the most volatile region of the world with perhaps the most volatile country of that volatile region that we are dealing with here. How can one not conclude we are opening Pandora's box?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Senduko
 


Russian FM Lavrov has openly said on Monday that Russia will not go to war over Syria. Makes no sense, Russian power today is no match for US let alone NATO. Russian base in Syria is more symbolic and supply type and can barely host two ships of large size. I do not think an attack will result in any WW3.

However, it can surely turn into a regional NONSENSE and MESS. Syria attacking Israel, Jordon, Saudi etc. Iran comes to help Syria. Hizbulloh gets active in Lebanan. Russia might keep weapons supply intact and even upgrade in level and scale to both Syria and Iran. West says it does not like the Russian demeanor. Russia says it does no appreciate western attack on Syria. The mess will keep going on that way while Assad will somehow maintain power.

I think west should have pinprick strike or some non military measures that hurt Assad for using the chemical weapons. West should not intervene in civil war and not indirectly support it via its arab allies.

Rest is for cool head and moral minds to figure out. Assad should understand that 20 years after the fall of communism, the Socialist Dictatorship model has little place in normal human societies. He should conduct free and fair elections in 2014 and let the winner take to power. If he feels in danger, then pack up and go to Russia or Belarus or Cuba or whereever he is granted asylum.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Senduko
 



Rest is for cool head and moral minds to figure out. Assad should understand that 20 years after the fall of communism, the Socialist Dictatorship model has little place in normal human societies. He should conduct free and fair elections in 2014 and let the winner take to power. If he feels in danger, then pack up and go to Russia or Belarus or Cuba or whereever he is granted asylum.


Yes surely if support was withdrawn from the rebels, considering now we are not sure if it really was the rebels who used chemical weapons, morally speaking western governments SHOULD be weary of supporting them. They withdraw support directly or indirectly, in exchange for fair elections and no Assad. If Assad renigs then you have full military support to remove him. I see a regime change agenda happening not a limited strike. I think the push for this is apparent as with the George Galloway speech clearly points out. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


One other point, the UNSC used to have respect for each other, equal voices. It seems now it has become a bully match without any regard for other opinion or interpretation of the situation unfolding. It seems the UNSC is losing legitimacy but now is this also planned? Will we have coalitions of the willing from now on without any international law bullying anyone they choose and interpreting the law to justify it? Or shall we just scrap international law and let bombs rule?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


If the bombs fall then we are all in real trouble. Syria has always been one of the few countries that openly pursues a chemical weapons program at all and the realm of biotechnology has helped open a whole new world of potential to this country and every other involved in its research.

If we have known they were using chemical weapons for awhile then why is this attack the one that draws every nation running to Syria. If we know they are using chemical weapons at all then why are we waiting instead of attacking as a whole on the moral grounds alone?

Because we don't know what weapon they really used.

If Syria has been working on chemical weapons for as long as it has then it has recently moved into the area of bio-chemical weapons. Any industry that could make that move would, and with the support of nations like Iran, China and Russia who have a much greater ability to provide the technology and supplemental research for weapons like this through their own countries then it stands to reason that Syria would simply become the manufacturing hub.

There is an interesting loophole in the chemical weapons law that i have recently learned.

Riot control agents are not counted, this is to say that if any nation chooses to suppress rioters/protestors/terrorists etc then the normal rules that would apply to chemical weapons do not apply to those weapons used if they come in the form of drugs.

Think about that for a moment, drugs as weapons. Not in the subversive sense, but in the military/law enforcement sense. They have reached the technological skill level necessary to target your brain through the lungs with designer drugs, they can literally deliver an intense burst of amnesiacs and other pacifying drugs to calm down crowds 'peacefully.'

What would they to an enemy, a real hated foe or a group of terrorists?

Imagine a weapon that deals an intense blend of amnesiac/hallucinogen and amphetamine, a bio chemical weapon that makes you forget who you are, gives you unpredictable and powerful hallucinations and spikes your body with enough amphetamines to keep you awake and feeling the effects of the drug for days.

It would be enough to break your will, enough to break your mind, enough to kill the young and the old while driving every healthy adult completely mad.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Well if it were bio weapons being used why couldn't the UNSC come up with a new resolution concerning this? Why can't they inform the public these exist and Syria is making them? It will be interesting to hear the UN weapons inspector results regardless then as to what chemical weapons were used. Thank you for the new information I had not known about. I will have my eyes even more open now.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
UNSC? Are they sending in Master Chief and the HellJumpers?
sorry, I had too...



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


Would you want to admit that such weapons were being produced if you wanted to claim them?
The US, UK, EU etc wouldn't be able to openly admit that to its people without inciting full blown panic, even hinting that you were going to simply destroy it would not really help as there will always be the chance that you need them or that it will be uncovered.

If they exist who likely has more knowledge of them and easier access to them right now?
China, Russia and Iran all have close ties with Syria and the country relies on them for military strength so it would just be natural for the reverse to be true. One sells tanks, the other sells chemical weapons. No one ever went broke funding world powers and terrorist organizations with the weapons they need, especially if that weapon simply neutralizes the population and leaves the infrastructure in tact.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


Would you want to admit that such weapons were being produced if you wanted to claim them?
The US, UK, EU etc wouldn't be able to openly admit that to its people without inciting full blown panic, even hinting that you were going to simply destroy it would not really help as there will always be the chance that you need them or that it will be uncovered.

I don't know what's inciting more panic, US going it alone in a war or bio weapons being produced. At this stage I have a very queasy feeling in my stomach and that's without any drugs. I can feel the anxiety of the world worrying about this situation and it looks like no option is good. Again I can see the arguments on both sides of this debate and it makes more sense that there is more going on then the public are being told.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


Have you done a thread about this? If not I really think you should. More people should be aware.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The Security Council is the only place Russia has any real global power. So for Russia making this entire thing UN related is the only move they have. Despite the fact that Russia vetos over Syria caused 114 countiries to form a seprate group outside of the UN, Russia continues to defy international will over profits. Not unlike ehat the US does for Israel. Even the Chinese have walked away from Syria. Russia also continues into fighting against letting other nations like Brazil, India and Germany on the council because they fear it will diminish their position even more.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Again this highlights the UN's loss of legitimacy, the question is what do we replace it with to reflect an equitable balance of power that works when it is impossible to hold the UNSC accountable to international law? I think we need more accountable morally uncorrupted leaders.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Isn't America and other Countries better off with staying out of it and letting these people kill/weaken each other? Syria Government hates us but so do the rebels and to be honest I say let them wipe each other off the map. It seems like when we try and help the "little guy" in the middle east it blows back in our face later on down the road. Maybe I'm just being a cynical butthole but I feel like if we help out the rebels this could turn out just like when we helped Afghanistan against Russia.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join