Syria and UN Security Council Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Virus said:
I recall that you condemned NATO and supported the totalitarian Gaddafi regime then as well.
Click to expand...

She also thinks no plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. And here she talks of "evidence".
 
Last edited:
Russia and China are aware of all of this, but their main drive is power politics by making a point of the multi-polar world order and their refusal to accept petty hazardous adventures by declining Washington and their pathetic satellites anymore, at least via a pro forma "international" body like the UN.
 
Last edited:
And how you think Islamic radicalism was invented by a British spy called Hempher.
 
Galloway's Disease. A support of any tyrant, no matter how sadistic and brutal, as long as they're against the West.
 
As I've been discussing elsewhere, China has a consistent policy of not interfering in "internal domestic affairs". Which essentially means that so long as a conflict remains internal (involving only the government and citizens of the country in question), then other countries should remain uninvolved. Part of this is for selfish reasons (because China doesn't want other countries interfering in it's internal issues); but part of it is an accurate reflection of deep cultural values that are based on Confucianism...that a government is truly sovereign, and other countries have no right to tell that government what to do, or how to behave. It is only when a country's actions represent a threat to other nations (and thus threatens or violates their own sovereignty) that other countries should get involved.

Thus, for example, China will vote against Iran (which is seen as representing a potential threat against other nations), but not against Syria.
 
There's also the thing of international law, Wolfman.

On the Munich Security Conference this weekend some of those issues were battled out, but the situation is not good even with the strong will of Ischinger to provide a neutral playground. As long as the inevitable Kissinger is perceived helpful in such endevours, progress is not made.
 
Childlike Empress said:
There's also the thing of international law, Wolfman.
Click to expand...
China does not acknowledge or support any international law that infringes on the sovereignty of any state to operate as they please within the confines of their own borders. Nor are they signatories to any such laws.

And it should be noted here, for the record, that while the U.S. tends to support enforcing such laws for other countries, it has consistently refused to have its own government be legally bound by any international law that they feel infringes on their own sovereignty.

The question was asked why China is acting this way. I answered the question. I'm not saying it is "good" or "right". Only that this is why they act in this manner.
 
Wolfman said:
China does not acknowledge or support any international law that infringes on the sovereignty of any state to operate as they please within the confines of their own borders. Nor are they signatories to any such laws.
Click to expand...


Nor does Russia. Or Brazil. Or most of the countries of the world outside of what is sold as the "international community" - US and its satellites. Russia and China have been the voice of reason in this UN decision, and you certainly don't have to be a fan of Bashir al-Assad to come to this conclusion.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Nor does Russia. Or Brazil. Or most of the countries of the world outside of what is sold as the "international community" - US and its satellites. Russia and China have been the voice of reason in this UN decision, and you certainly don't have to be a fan of Bashir al-Assad to come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Russia...arguably so. They aren't just vetoing UN measures, they are also taking active (even aggressive) steps to try to bring about a resolution, including using their good relations with the Syrian gov't to try to start negotiations between the different groups, and broker a peaceful resolution (although I'm very skeptical of their ability to do so).

China, on the other hand, isn't a "voice of reason". It's simply implementing its same, consistent policy of "It's not our business, we won't get involved." A policy they would continue regardless of what was being proposed.
 
All the players are aware of the situation (generally and specifically in regards to Syria). A multinational proposal for a win-win security framework was presented this weekend in Munich. I can't vouch for its measures by now, because I haven't studied it yet, but it's one in a long line of such proposals ignored by the declining US empire, and as such it is worth mentioning, given that you'll not hear about it on CNN.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
you certainly don't have to be a fan of Bashir al-Assad to come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be, but it helps.

You went beyond saying that that massacres are none of our business and claimed it wasn't happening.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom