Russia Condemns Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn Syrian Violence
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37077770]Yes it is totally irrelevant what happened in the past and the fact that the US had its share of supporting barbaric, civilian torturing terrorist groups that's not important at all! What's important is calling Russia and China out on it because they're a bunch of evil commies who hate democracy and we're so much better than that.[/QUOTE]No, its important because its actually going on right this fucking second. Don't pull the stupid "Ohh you're just blaming them because Communism." I'm a socialist, that doesn't matter to me. Especially since they aren't even fucking Communist. And what they did in the past doesn't matter now. It isn't happening right now, its over and done with, it can't be changed. And focusing on it won't make anything better. What they may do is the future is just blind speculation and has nothing to do with anything. The only thing to bother with at this time is this incident because its going on right now. [QUOTE]I'm not denying that Russia is a massive cunt here and is obviously doing all of this to continue selling arms. But dont pretend like NATO are all about saving lives when it's clear that they only get involved when they know they'll get something out of it. Be it political sway, siding with Western-friendly revolutionaries, or the infamous "oil" allegation, which I frankly dont believe is true anymore. The former still stands, however.[/QUOTE]By that argument, then they can never help anyone simply because they'll just be doing it to get support. Its not impossible for them to actually give a damn. [QUOTE]I could name a dozen African conflicts that involved hundreds being slaughtered by the day, just because they had opposing political beliefs (or lack thereof). You know why NATO hasn't intervened in any of them, even when they easily could? Because there's nothing to profit from. The cost outweighed the rewards. That's all politics are about these days, especially when it comes to superpowers.[/QUOTE]Its more to do with the fact that these places aren't seeing an actual revolution against a totalitarian regime. Or the sides fighting each other are carrying out horrors on the citizens and there is no effective body to take hold afterwards to keep things in control unless they plan to actively occupy the country which surely wouldn't be a good idea.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37073659]I personally Condemn Russia Condemnation of the Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn the Violence in Syria.
The UN needs to be told that they're doing a bad job sometimes and its obvious Russia's Condemnation of the Letter by U.N. Condemning the U.N's Failure To Condemn the Violence in Syria is only done purely because they don't want the violence to end ([B]so they can keep selling arms[/B]).[/QUOTE]
I kinda ( not in a serious way ) understand there pain, because they made 100 million AK's that don't have much buyers now-a-days.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;37075938]Russia's "difference" is getting thousands killed just because they want to maintain relations.[/QUOTE]
Right, the US is so much better for support Saudi Arabia, one of the worse dictatorship (oh sorry, Monarchy) in the world.
I'm legitimately confused at who's mad at who right now.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37076166] The west wants to support the armed resistance only because it means the loss of one of Russia's allies.[/QUOTE]
And perhaps more importantly the fall of a Assad would mean the fall of one of Iran's allies, diminishing Iranian influence in the region.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37077692]Like with Libya, right? Or no, was that just about oil in that one? Perhaps they want to support the resistance because the Syrian government is a tyrannical regime slaughtering thousands of innocents? What the U.S. might do or has done in the past is irrelevant at this time because what matters is what is happening right now. And right now, Russia and China are willfully and knowingly blocking support for the Syrian people, prolonging the conflict and resulting in many more innocent deaths.[/QUOTE]
Libya was largely about oil. I mean, there are armed resistances and brutal dictatorships in many other countries in Africa, but you don't see NATO interference mostly because they don't have a large oil infrastructure.
Then there was that whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, where the USA tried to oust Castro in Cuba because Cuba didn't want to play ball with the USA.
There is also Chile, where we imposed a brutal regime on the Chilean people because the alternative was socialist.
Why can't you see that the USA doesn't give a shit about the Syrian people? The Syrians could create a new dictatorship many times more brutal than Assad, but the USA would support them if it meant Russia and Iran didn't have an ally.
The USA is pulling all of our strings, they show us the bloodshed and act as if they are a fucking white knight coming to save the day. In reality, they are not much different than the Russians.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37081577][B]Libya was largely about oil.[/B] I mean, there are armed resistances and brutal dictatorships in many other countries in Africa, but you don't see NATO interference mostly because they don't have a large oil infrastructure.
[/QUOTE]
Bull-fucking horseshit.
The Libyan civil war had a lot of media attention at the time. Most of the other conflicts in Africa do not. That's why people cared for Libya but not anyone else.
NATO interfered because of the UN resolution, and they only provided air support, and when the war was over, they pulled out. Do you think that NATO would have actually removed their presence after the war if it had been about the oil?
[editline]4th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37081577]
Then there was that whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, where the USA tried to oust Castro in Cuba because Cuba didn't want to play ball with the USA.
There is also Chile, where we imposed a brutal regime on the Chilean people because the alternative was socialist.
[/QUOTE]
That was shit that happened in the cold war and is not relevant with the current American foreign policy.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;37081693]Bull-fucking horseshit.
The Libyan civil war had a lot of media attention at the time. Most of the other conflicts in Africa do not. That's why people cared for Libya but not anyone else.
NATO interfered because of the UN resolution, and they only provided air support, and when the war was over, they pulled out. Do you think that NATO would have actually removed their presence after the war if it had been about the oil?[/QUOTE]
And why do you think that it was a major media event? Why do you think anybody cared about Libya? Oil. Oil. Oil. You forget many European countries get a lot of oil from Libya. Italy was even initially against interference because they were scared a new regime wouldn't be as generous with their oil deals.
Ultimately, NATO saw a huge advantage in helping the rebels, or possibly saw that the rebels would ultimately overcome and decided to expedite the process.
They didn't give a shit about the Libyan people. They only care about oil, political influence, or pseudo-slave labor. If a country does not provide one or more of those three, they do not get meaningful help from the civilized world.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37081742]And why do you think that it was a major media event? Why do you think anybody cared about Libya? Oil. Oil. Oil. You forget many European countries get a lot of oil from Libya. Italy was even initially against interference because they were scared a new regime wouldn't be as generous with their oil deals.
Ultimately, NATO saw a huge advantage in helping the rebels, or possibly saw that the rebels would ultimately overcome and decided to expedite the process.
They didn't give a shit about the Libyan people. They only care about oil, political influence, or pseudo-slave labor. If a country does not provide one or more of those three, they do not get meaningful help from the civilized world.[/QUOTE]
Libya was completely left to its own business after Gadaffi was overthrown and killed.
Unless you can provide me a non-biased source telling me that a foreign country is trying to steal Libya's oil, I won't believe for a second that the intervention was all about the oil.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;37081856]Libya was completely left to its own business after Gadaffi was overthrown and killed.
Unless you can provide me a non-biased source telling me that a foreign country is trying to steal Libya's oil, I won't believe for a second that the intervention was all about the oil.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[quote]Eni, with BP of Britain, Total of France, Repsol YPF of Spain and OMV of Austria, were all big producers in Libya before the fighting broke out, and they stand to gain the most once the conflict ends.[/quote]
[quote]“We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,” Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as saying. “But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.”
Russia, China and Brazil did not back strong sanctions on the Qaddafi regime, and they generally supported a negotiated end to the uprising. All three countries have large oil companies that are seeking deals in Africa. [/quote]
[quote]Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with. Some experts say that given a free hand, oil companies could find considerably more oil in Libya than they were able to locate under the restrictions placed by the Qaddafi government. [/quote]
[url]http://www.maltastar.com/dart/20120724-watch-pn-wants-cheap-libyan-oil-to-reduce-bills[/url]
[quote]In meetings with Libyan officials the Maltese government has been saying that Malta played an important part during and after the Libyan revolution to topple Gaddafi and deserves to be rewarded.[/quote]
>publicly denounce russia
[URL]http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/09/07/Italys-ENI-leads-race-for-Libya-oil-deals/UPI-79261315414305/[/URL]
[quote]Italy's top oil company has signed a deal with Libya's rebel government to take the lead in a race by international oil companies to secure access to the country's oil and natural gas reserves and contracts worth billions of dollars.
[/quote]
[quote]Libyan officials reported at a "Friends of Libya" gathering Friday in Paris that at least five foreign oil and gas companies are back in the country to work on restoring the energy industry while the NTC consults with the United Nations and others on stabilizing the country.
[/quote]
[editline]4th August 2012[/editline]
To say that this wasn't about oil is naive.
I really don't know about the oil/currency/whatever conspiracy arguments. They all sound like batshit bullshit, but I do kind of feel like there must be [i]something[/i] going on behind the scenes. Here's why
In Libya, within just two weeks of the start of fighting David Cameron was the first Western official to [url=http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-statement-on-libya/]propose intervention[/url], and he was quickly backed up by other NATO countries. Great, I thought, they really give a shit
At the end of the war, the new government [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15459473]asked NATO to stay for three more months[/url] to help secure order, but NATO ended the mission as soon as Gaddafi was dead
Oh well whatever, I thought. Maybe they want to use their forces to go and help out Syria instead? But then they [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17278802]repeatedly[/url] [url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/11/201111103948699103.html]denied[/url] that intervention would work, and said they would never do it. In fact it's only now that chemical weapons threats are being thrown around that [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18973997]intervention seems possible[/url].
I don't know what the real reason for intervention in Libya was. It [i]almost[/i] fits that Western governments used the crisis as an excuse to take out a long-time enemy, but Gaddafi stopped funding terrorism after 9/11, while Assad to this very day is an enemy of Israel, an ally of Iran and a supporter of the insurgency in Iraq, who you'd think America in particular would be very keen to remove.
The oil argument definitely doesn't do it for me; [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production]Norway produces more oil than Libya[/url], Syria produces oil as well, and America must have learned something after the allegedly oil-driven invasion of Iraq [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg]did jackshit to lower oil prices[/url] in the long term. There is this other argument about Gaddafi wanting to drop the US Dollar and introduce an African-wide currency or something, but it's one of the most tinfoil hat-esque conspiracy theories I've ever heard. I think there must have been something in it for the West, but I don't know what.
Condemnception
[QUOTE=smurfy;37082066]
I don't know what the real reason for intervention in Libya was. It [i]almost[/i] fits that Western governments used the crisis as an excuse to take out a long-time enemy, but Gaddafi stopped funding terrorism after 9/11, while Assad to this very day is an enemy of Israel, an ally of Iran and a supporter of the insurgency in Iraq, who you'd think America in particular would be very keen to remove.[/quote]
Qadafi was an unreliable oil partner. Prices were never consistent under his regime. A more friendly or submissive regime would likely bring more profits to the big oil companies.
[quote]The oil argument definitely doesn't do it for me; [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production]Norway produces more oil than Libya[/url],[/quote]
Libya still has the largest reserves in Africa, and the fifth largest in the world. They are an incredibly profitable investment.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya[/url]
[quote]and America must have learned something after the allegedly oil-driven invasion of Iraq [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg]did jackshit to lower oil prices[/url] in the long term. There is this other argument about Gaddafi wanting to drop the US Dollar and introduce an African-wide currency or something, but it's one of the most tinfoil hat-esque conspiracy theories I've ever heard. I think there must have been something in it for the West, but I don't know what.[/QUOTE]
You forget that the Libyan intervention was inherently different than the invasion of Iraq. This wasn't an invasion, this was supporting a group of rebels who promised to look generously upon their supporters once the country becomes stabilized.
And it seems to have worked far better than the invasion of Iraq.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37081577]Libya was largely about oil. I mean, there are armed resistances and brutal dictatorships in many other countries in Africa, but you don't see NATO interference mostly because [B]they don't have a large oil infrastructure.[/B][/QUOTE]
Do some research before you talk out of your ass.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil[/URL]
Syria has a large oil infrastructure. In addition:
[QUOTE]Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why other nations aren't getting involved but I know why the US can't.
1. Presence of Russian navy, and naval base in Tartus.
2. Proof of Iranian/Hezbollah involvement. Attempts to intervene could bring retribution against Israel.
3. The conflict is sectarian, which means the US could unintentionally assist in ethnic cleansing were the US to intervene.
4. Syria possesses WMDs.
5. Incredibly large stockpile of SAMs, including MANPADS. And, unlike Libya, Syria still has loyal soldiers to use them.
6. Evidence of AQ operatives in country. This would not halt a US intervention, but would cause the US to hesitate or conduct a very limited intervention.
Russia hasn't done anything except send "counterterrorism" marines to Tartus.
they sent additional navy ships to Tartus on "exercises"
and sent military helicopters to Syria.
Russia continues to fulfill military contracts, despite world wide protest.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37082284]Do some research before you talk out of your ass.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil"]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil[/URL]
Syria has a large oil infrastructure. In addition:
[/QUOTE]
Syria is not in Africa.
[editline]4th August 2012[/editline]
Also, the USA wants to involve itself in Syria, but is limited.
I think the point of what I said sort of went over your head.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37082293]Syria is not in Africa.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter. You were insinuating NATO would target nations with brutal dictatorships only if they had a large oil infrastructure. Syria definitely qualifies, and in fact is an appetizing target for your "wars for oil" theory.
[QUOTE]Also, the USA wants to involve itself in Syria, but is limited.[/QUOTE]
Yes USA is very limitedly involved, way short of intervention.
I listed reasons why the US could not intervene, and thus spare the people further civil war.
These reasons oppose your limited, nihilistic, and frankly simply erroneous view that the US does not care about the people, as the only thing that would save the people, an intervention, is actually an implausible action at this stage.
[QUOTE]I think the point of what I said sort of went over your head.[/QUOTE]
And I think you're not thinking. Are we finished with this?
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37082721]Doesn't matter. You were insinuating NATO would target nations with brutal dictatorships only if they had a large oil infrastructure. Syria definitely qualifies, and in fact is an appetizing target for your "wars for oil" theory.
Yes USA is very limitedly involved, way short of intervention.
I listed reasons why the US could not intervene, and thus spare the people further civil war.
These reasons oppose your limited, nihilistic, and frankly simply erroneous view that the US does not care about the people, as the only thing that would save the people, an intervention, is actually an implausible action at this stage.
And I think you're not thinking. Are we finished with this?[/QUOTE]
I still think you aren't getting my point dude. Try re-reading my post. What you are saying doesn't make any sense in context of a rebuttal towards my point.
I'm saying that the USA isn't going to help some country that provides no political or economic incentive. It has nothing to do with stopping bloodshed, and everything to do with exploiting weaker countries in a bid for more power. If Assad played ball with the USA, then these atrocities would go mostly ignored by the USA, with Russia and China wanting to intervene.
[editline]4th August 2012[/editline]
A proper rebuttal would be showing me where the USA or NATO has participated in a meaningful way to a conflict that did not directly benefit them in some way.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37082777]If Assad played ball with the USA, then these atrocities would go mostly ignored by the USA, with Russia and China wanting to intervene.[/QUOTE]
That's cold war mentality, and you are clearly ignorant of modern American foreign policy.
And even the examples you give are all cold war events:
[QUOTE]Then there was that whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, where the USA tried to oust Castro in Cuba because Cuba didn't want to play ball with the USA.
There is also Chile, where we imposed a brutal regime on the Chilean people because the alternative was socialist. [/QUOTE]
In addition Russia and China would never intervene in anything because Russia is non-interventionist.
Originally, I was responding mainly to this:
[QUOTE]Why can't you see that the USA doesn't give a shit about the Syrian people? [/QUOTE]
An intervention is the fastest, easiest war to end the bloodshed. As in Libya, an intervention would require US participation because of Syria's formidable SAM defenses. I already explained why the US cannot take part atm.
I was also responding to you first statement
[QUOTE]Libya was largely about oil.[/QUOTE]
Which you then followed with this bullshit
[QUOTE] I mean, there are armed resistances and brutal dictatorships in many other countries in Africa, but you don't see NATO interference mostly because they don't have a large oil infrastructure.[/QUOTE]
Which actually even in the confines of only African nations is disprovable, an example just off the top of my head would be Sudan, which has a brutal regime, armed conflict, and a large oil infrastructure. But apply this to Syria, you know, the actual country in question, then according to your "NATO wants oil" thing, NATO would be all over Syria.
[QUOTE]I'm saying that the USA isn't going to help some country that provides no political or economic incentive.[/QUOTE]
Somalia, Uganda, Yugoslavia, etc.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37083280]That's cold war mentality, and you are clearly ignorant of modern American foreign policy.
And even the examples you give are all cold war events:[/QUOTE]
Ok, non-cold war examples.
Libya
Kosovo
Bosnia
Iraq
Iran
Israel
[quote]An intervention is the fastest, easiest war to end the bloodshed. As in Libya, an intervention would require US participation because of Syria's formidable SAM defenses. I already explained why the US cannot take part atm. [/quote]
An intervention is also the easiest way to knock out a Russian and Iranian ally in the region. This isn't done to end bloodshed, just leverage power.
[quote]Which actually even in the confines of only African nations is disprovable, an example just off the top of my head would be Sudan, which has a brutal regime, armed conflict, and a large oil infrastructure. But apply this to Syria, you know, the actual country in question, then according to your "NATO wants oil" thing, NATO would be all over Syria.[/quote]
They fucking are! They are being blocked by Russia and China. The USA is fucking itching to get into Syria right now.
[quote]Somalia, Uganda, Yugoslavia, etc.[/quote]
Meaningful aid. Somalia was given token aid. So when are we going to stabilize Somalia?
I won't get into everything in Yugoslavia, but you might want to take this into account regarding the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Criticism_of_the_campaign[/URL]
[quote]Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton and the leading U.S. negotiator during the war, later denied that "the plight of the Kosovar Albanians" was the driving force behind the campaign, claiming the real reason to be "Yugoslavia's resistance to... [the] political and economic reform" that had been driving forward the liberalisation and deregulation of markets throughout the region.[/quote]
And Bosnian Aid:
[URL="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/%7Ejwestern/ps62/bosnia.htm"]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ps62/bosnia.htm[/URL]
[quote]Despite these egregious human rights violations, for three-and-a-half years U.S. policy remained largely unresponsive and ineffective to the war in Bosnia. Driven principally by domestic politics and entrenched Cold War-era conceptions of geostrategic interests, the United States only occasionally deterred abuses and in fact awkwardly, albeit unintentionally, contributed to them. The foundation of American policy beginning in the earliest stages of the disintegration process of Yugoslavia and later during the war in Bosnia was that this region was not a vital interest to the United States. Consequently, senior U.S. policymakers – in both the Bush and Clinton Administrations – did not significantly commit U.S. diplomatic or military resources to prevent or stop the human rights abuses until three-and-a-half years into the war.[1]
In mid-1995 following Serb massacres of civilians in U.N. designated safe areas of Srebrenica and Zepa, senior U.S. officials concluded that the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Bosnia threatened the fundamental credibility of the United Nations and NATO and, consequently, threatened core American interests in these institutions. In short, with the perception of NATO credibility at stake, three-and-a-half years into the brutal war, the persistent human rights and humanitarian violations in Bosnia evolved from subordinate foreign policy concerns into central geostrategic interest for American foreign policy. In August 1995 President Clinton committed extensive American diplomatic and military leadership to end the war. [/quote]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37083608]Ok, non-cold war examples.
Libya - [B]Already argued against this. The intervention in Libya was necessary and I still don't believe it was about oil. It was also not a US intervention, it was an intervention authorized by the UN security council, and was carried out by NATO members and other volunteering countries such as the UAE and Sweden.[/B]
Kosovo - [B]Also a NATO intervention and not a US intervention, although with questionable legitimacy.[/B]
Bosnia - [b]NATO intervention. Legitimate due to genocide[/b]
Iraq - [b]Part of George Bush's bullshit foreign policy. This was probably about the oil, yes, but Bush isn't president of the United States anymore, so it doesn't reflect the current American foreign policy.[/b]
Iran - [b]There haven't been any American military actions in Iran yet.[/b]
Israel - [b]The US is still kissing Israel's ass, thanks to the Republicans[/b]
[/QUOTE]
i double dog condemn russia
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37083608]Ok, non-cold war examples.[/QUOTE]
Libya- Multinational including non-NATO nations and Russia voted for the UN resolution.
Kosovo-Humanitarian, Serbian war crimes.
Bosnia-Humanitarian, as evidenced by Serbian war crimes.
According to Human Rights Watch "the vast majority of the violations over the past year (January 1998 – April 1999) are attributable to Yugoslav Police or the Yugoslav Army".
I noticed you quoted Strobe Talbott, who also said [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/talbott.html"]this[/URL]
[QUOTE]Well, there were several issues. One, of course, was was the bombing going to work? Was the military campaign going to accomplish its objective? And its objective was very clear and relatively simple, and that is that Milosevic and the Serb forces had to get out of Kosovo and let the international community come in and re-establish an environment which the refugees could come home and these people could live safe and relatively normal lives. [/QUOTE]
The quote you cite is in fact [URL="http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/Chomsky-Norris.htm"]taken out of context[/URL] from Talbott's book which he wrote with John Norris. Talbott is particularly upset about this, as Noam Chompsky has done the same thing you just did.
Iraq-Once again stepping on your own toes, now Russian-Iraq relations are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Russia_relations"]better than ever before[/URL]. Not hostile, which according to you, they should be following a NATO intervention.
Iran and Israel-No NATO, or even US interventions.
[QUOTE]An intervention is also the easiest way to knock out a Russian and Iranian ally in the region. This isn't done to end bloodshed, just leverage power. [/QUOTE]
Saying an intervention doesn't end bloodshed is like saying an umbrella doesn't keep you dry.
Also Iraq wildly disproves this, they aren't behaving any thing like a US cold war ally, which, supposedly is what you would expect them to be like after a NATO intervention.
[QUOTE]They fucking are! They are being blocked by Russia and China. The USA is fucking itching to get into Syria right now.[/QUOTE]
NATO isn't in Syria right now, they don't always need UN approval to go in. If their goal was to oppose Russia/China they would go in anyways despite whatever Russia says or votes. They want to go in, but not for the reasons you think.
[QUOTE]Meaningful aid. Somalia was given token aid.[/QUOTE]
Somalia has been given far from token aid, and I think the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Restore_Hope"]18 US army rangers who died in Mogadishu would attest to that[/URL]. Again you are ignorant, we are still assisting Somalia [URL="http://eastafrica.usaid.gov/en/countries/somalia"]to this day[/URL].
[QUOTE]So when are we going to stabilize Somalia?[/QUOTE]
Thats a red herring if I ever saw one.
[QUOTE]And Bosnian Aid:
[URL="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/%7Ejwestern/ps62/bosnia.htm"]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jwestern/ps62/bosnia.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]
Actually, the author of that paper, Jon Western, worked for the state department where he collected evidence of war crimes. His paper concludes: [QUOTE]Gross and systematic violations of human rights transformed the debate on Bosnia. Future administrations that categorically reject responses to massive human rights violations may well find themselves faced with persistent and intensifying criticism. This is even more likely as Congress, the media, and the NGO communities gain greater technological resources to collect, analyze and report information on human rights abuses in previously remote areas of the world. Given this likelihood, it will most certainly be financially and politically cheaper to address the issues early on.[/QUOTE]
In other words, when we see massive systemic violations of human rights, the US is better off doing something sooner than later. So it makes sense the US wants to intervene in Syria right away.
I actually read through the entire paper, which I doubt you did, and came across some interesting things that you evidently "edited":
[QUOTE] In support of these provisions, the United States led an international Implementation Force (IFOR) to carry out and administer the Dayton Accords.
Today, five years after the end of the war, the human rights record has substantially improved. IFOR -- which became the Stabilization Force (SFOR) in December 1996 -- has largely stabilized the security environment throughout the country. In each successive year since the war, political killings, ethnic violence, and police torture have declined dramatically. Still, despite its rhetoric to the contrary, the United States and SFOR have consistently refrained from participating in full implementation of the Dayton human rights provisions and critical human rights issues remain unresolved.[/QUOTE]
In reference to that last sentence, this paper is outdated with its most recent source dating to 2000. The country has improved even further in years since and is up for NATO membership.
Oh hey, if we threatened to intervene sooner, all this may have never taken place:
[QUOTE]Ambassador Zimmerman has concluded that Milosevic might have been deterred had Baker issued threats of an American or NATO military response to Serb attacks in Slovenia or Croatia.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe we should threaten to intervene in Syria, [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-weapons-own-goal"]OH WAIT.[/URL]
Hey look, the US's participation was humanitarian driven not economic or driven by Russia/China rivalry. All domestic political pressure was also generated by the humanitarian crisis.
[QUOTE]Even though public opinion never supported direct American engagement in Bosnia, the persistence of gross violations of human rights coupled with protracted critical media attention and Congressional and NGO criticism compelled President Clinton to fundamentally shift course on Bosnia. [B]The final catalyst for American action came in the wake of the massacres at Srebrenica when American policymakers concluded that Bosnia was in America’s interests.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Both Administrations initially didn't want to intervene.
[QUOTE]
For example, while both Bush and Clinton hoped the war and the human rights abuses would end, both presidents were principally concerned with avoiding American military intervention in Bosnia. Consequently, both administrations exerted considerable political effort to contain the pressure for military intervention.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because they harbored the cold war mentality that you yourself have right now, i.e. (America would only get involved for economic/geostrategic reasons.) But we intervened anyway, in direct contrast of this mentality.
[QUOTE]More broadly, the case of Bosnia demonstrates how unchecked human rights and humanitarian abuses can evolve from insignificant American foreign policy concerns into significant geostrategic imperatives. Despite adequate early warning signs on the likelihood of violence in the Balkans, the Bush Administration dismissed the potential problems as being outside of American interests. The United States only belated attempted to forestall the disintegration of the federation. Throughout three-and-a-half years of war, the Bush and Clinton Administrations continued to premise their policy toward Bosnia on traditional Cold War conceptions of American interests: Bosnia was not in America’s geostrategic or economic interests – it was a “simple humanitarian crisis.” [/QUOTE]
Enter modern American foreign policy.......
Oh please, the US is kissing Israel's ass regardless of who the president is. Why else would Obama increase the military aid given to Israel?
(In reply to Unknowndude)
[editline]5th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37084536]Libya- Multinational including non-NATO nations and Russia voted for the UN resolution.
Kosovo-Humanitarian, Serbian war crimes.
Bosnia-Humanitarian, as evidenced by Serbian war crimes.
According to Human Rights Watch "the vast majority of the violations over the past year (January 1998 – April 1999) are attributable to Yugoslav Police or the Yugoslav Army".
I noticed you quoted Strobe Talbott, who also said [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/interviews/talbott.html"]this[/URL]
The quote you cite is in fact [URL="http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/Chomsky-Norris.htm"]taken out of context[/URL] from Talbott's book which he wrote with John Norris. Talbott is particularly upset about this, as Noam Chompsky has done the same thing you just did.
Iraq-Once again stepping on your own toes, now Russian-Iraq relations are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–Russia_relations"]better than ever before[/URL]. Not hostile, which according to you, they should be following a NATO intervention.
Iran and Israel-No NATO, or even US interventions.
Saying an intervention doesn't end bloodshed is like saying an umbrella doesn't keep you dry.
Also Iraq wildly disproves this, they aren't behaving any thing like a US cold war ally, which, supposedly is what you would expect them to be like after a NATO intervention.
NATO isn't in Syria right now, they don't always need UN approval to go in. If their goal was to oppose Russia/China they would go in anyways despite whatever Russia says or votes. They want to go in, but not for the reasons you think.
Somalia has been given far from token aid, and I think the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Restore_Hope"]18 US army rangers who died in Mogadishu would attest to that[/URL]. Again you are ignorant, we are still assisting Somalia [URL="http://eastafrica.usaid.gov/en/countries/somalia"]to this day[/URL].
Thats a red herring if I ever saw one.
Actually, the author of that paper, Jon Western, worked for the state department where he collected evidence of war crimes. His paper concludes:
In other words, when we see massive systemic violations of human rights, the US is better off doing something sooner than later. So it makes sense the US wants to intervene in Syria right away.
I actually read through the entire paper, which I doubt you did, and came across some interesting things that you evidently "edited":
In reference to that last sentence, this paper is outdated with its most recent source dating to 2000. The country has improved even further in years since and is up for NATO membership.
Oh hey, if we threatened to intervene sooner, all this may have never taken place:
Maybe we should threaten to intervene in Syria, [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-weapons-own-goal"]OH WAIT.[/URL]
Hey look, the US's participation was humanitarian driven not economic or driven by Russia/China rivalry. All domestic political pressure was also generated by the humanitarian crisis.
Both Administrations initially didn't want to intervene.
Why? Because they harbored the cold war mentality that you yourself have right now, i.e. (America would only get involved for economic/geostrategic reasons.) But we intervened anyway, in direct contrast of this mentality.
Enter modern American foreign policy.......[/QUOTE]
If the US cares so deeply about human rights then why was nothing done about Liberia, Rwanda, Sudan, sanctions against Iraq, Palestine. Or how about their support of a coup against Chavez and Jean Bertrand Aristide? Or how about the continued economic embargo against Cuba? I'll admit the US has done things for humanitarian reasons albeit without doing it properly and without minimising civilian deaths, however, to say that the US truly cares about human rights is pathetic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
