Syria

[Pat494]

I hope the UN will be given more powers in the future. Like control over the world's military forces. Control over safeguarding the planets resources etc.

In fact TOTAL CONTROL........ let the politicians control minor matters like sewage, roads etc. until they are replaced by Civil Servants.

 

[Purple Brain]

I hope the UN will be given more powers in the future. Like control over world's military forces.

I presume that was a joke following on from mine? Decisive military action and victory was never won by committee.

Cameron, Obama and Hollande have played a clever game with a public show of outrage and intent for action and then deliberately complicated matters by making unnecessary - from a constitutional perspective - deliberations through their respective legislatures.

None of them want yet another war, especially with Syria which is an order of magnitude tougher than anything faced in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but neither do they want to be seen to be doing nothing.

Cameron's deliberate fudging of the point of the UK parliament debate and vote was a political masterpiece. The outcome he wanted was assured.

 

[0007]

I hope the UN will be given more powers in the future. Like control over world's military forces. Control over safeguarding the planets resources etc.

In fact TOTAL CONTROL........ let the politicians control minor matters like sewage, roads etc. until they are replaced by Civil Servants.

Bit like the EEC then?

 

[Pat494]

I presume that was a joke following on from mine? Decisive military action and victory was never won by committee.

No no no

Cameron, Obama and Hollande have played a clever game with a public show of outrage and intent for action and then deliberately complicated matters by making unnecessary - from a constitutional perspective - deliberations through their respective legislatures.

Going through their respective legislatures is imo is a very necessary brake on aggressive politicians, gambling with their country's futures for their own selfish political gain. As the longest serving member of Parliament said yesterday Syria could invite the Russians in legally and the US may well bomb parts of another sovereign country illegally..

None of them want yet another war, especially with Syria which is an order of magnitude tougher than anything faced in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, but neither do they want to be seen to be doing nothing.

Cameron's deliberate fudging of the point of the UK parliament debate and vote was a political masterpiece. The outcome he wanted was assured.

:smart:

 

[Purple Brain]

Going through their respective legislatures is imo is a very necessary brake on aggressive politicians, gambling their county's futures for their own selfish political gain.

There are at least 2 million living Syrians who would agree with you as would around 100,000 dead ones. But here's nobody doing that for them.

For clarity, I don't have a position on the topic. I don't know anywhere near enough to comment intelligently. I do know that it is unlikely any military response from the West/UN will make any difference to Assad or Syria and could possibly lead to negative ramifications for all, especially the West, in due course.

I don't have a solution. But neither do Hollande, Obama, Cameron or Ban Ki-moon.

 

[Pat494]

There are at least 2 million living Syrians who would agree with you as would around 100,000 dead ones. But here's nobody doing that for them.

For clarity, I don't have a position on the topic. I don't know anywhere near enough to comment intelligently. I do know that it is unlikely any military response from the West/UN will make any difference to Assad or Syria and could possibly lead to negative ramifications for all, especially the West, in due course.

I don't have a solution. But neither do Hollande, Obama, Cameron or Ban Ki-moon.

Good points PB
I support less wars rather than more, Blair started about 7.
So on that proposition let's have committees in control NOT maverick single politicians as at present. The Putin v. Obama confrontation in itself could lead to many deaths of others.

 

[Purple Brain]

There is an extremely humorous piece in this week's Economist regarding Egyptian conspiracy theorists view of events. I'll post up a scan of the article if I can get permission from t2w staff to do so.

t2w staff: request to post scan of article from The Economist?

 

[Purple Brain]

BBC Reports: "Thursday's meeting of G20 nations is likely to sign an agreement to fight tax avoidance by multinationals, but the Syrian crisis will also be in focus.".

Glad they got the important stuff on the table first.

 

[Pat494]

I don't have a solution. But neither do Hollande, Obama, Cameron or Ban Ki-moon.

It's surely obvious, isn't it ?
Ban weapon sales around the world. Scrap 10% of stockpiles and 10% of military spending per year.
And just who can do that ? Only the UN - that's who.

 

[Purple Brain]

It's surely obvious, isn't it ?
Ban weapon sales around the world. Scrap 10% of stockpiles and 10% of military spending per year.
And just who can do that ? Only the UN - that's who.

Do you have any idea what a global ban on weapon sales would do to global GDP, and specifically the UK's?

The UK is already working hard on your 3rd suggestion.

The UN? Seriously, it has never fulfilled its remit. It never could. It has no power, no teeth. It is an administrative entity which by its presence actually hinders the aims it purports to achieve. If it didn't exist, there would likely be more appropriate, timely, local and measured responses to global friction and quite possibly far less escalation than has been the case over the last 68 years since its creation.

As with all bureaucratic control is removes individual responsibility and weakens the will to respond even when it is clear a response was/is necessary.

 

[Pat494]

Do you have any idea what a global ban on weapon sales would do to global GDP, and specifically the UK's?

The UK is already working hard on your 3rd suggestion.

The UN? Seriously, it has never fulfilled its remit. It never could. It has no power, no teeth. It is an administrative entity which by its presence actually hinders the aims it purports to achieve. If it didn't exist, there would likely be more appropriate, timely, local and measured responses to global friction and quite possibly far less escalation than has been the case over the last 68 years since its creation.

As with all bureaucratic control is removes individual responsibility and weakens the will to respond even when it is clear a response was/is necessary.

If the UN controlled the big military machines it would have teeth aplenty. Just needs the right guys/committee to control the UN.

 

[Pat494]

I look forward to see what Congress is going to decide next week.

To bomb or not to bomb that is the question !

Will the US continue its policy of winning friends and influencing people by bombing them or not. If I had just been bombed I could probably answer that question - supposing the bombs missed that is.

 

[Shakone]

If the UN controlled the big military machines it would have teeth aplenty. Just needs the right guys/committee to control the UN.

That sounds worrying. I really hope you would not like to see that.

 

[Pat494]

That sounds worrying. I really hope you would not like to see that.

Worrying ?
Please explain.

 

[Shakone]

Worrying ?
Please explain.

It sounds suspiciously like you're suggesting one giant superstate called the UN which has all the military power.

 

[0007]

Isn't the "UN" an oxymoron anyway?

 

[Pat494]

I look forward to see what Congress is going to decide next week.

To bomb or not to bomb that is the question !

Will the US continue its policy of winning friends and influencing people by bombing them or not. If I had just been bombed I could probably answer that question - supposing the bombs missed that is.

My guess is there will be a fudge.
For instance what looks like guns ( actually made out of wood and paper ) will be totally destroyed and so everybody is happy.

 

[Pat494]

It sounds suspiciously like you're suggesting one giant superstate called the UN which has all the military power.

Surely better than 2 or more states jockeying for power and starting WW3 ?
If the US and Russian boats exchange fire in the Eastern Med- what then ? A lot more serious than a minor state having a civil war ? Let the do-gooders flock there if they insist, for all the good they will actually accomplish will be negligeable.

 

[Splitlink]

Whether the US bombs, or doesn't, there will be always someone to disagree with what they do. Better to stay out of it and let the UN get on with it. It sounds heartless, I know, but getting involved, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan, is a thankless and useless task.

The chemical weapons ban, concerning gas, is history, anyway, Terrorists will get around to using it and there is little that can be done to stop them. With so many illegals coming into Europe and the US, how are the authorities going to stop what they bring in?

 

[new_trader]

That sounds worrying. I really hope you would not like to see that.

We would then need The United Federation of Planets to control the UN.