The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Is it raining in Edmonton right now Goober?? It's pouring cats and dogs here in Calgary.
Lost my DirecTV satellite signal it's coming down so hard. :-(
(just trying to stay "informed")
Apparently, Boomer and Goober, the following summarizes differences between Edmonton and Calgary.
In Calgary, it rains cats and dogs. In Edmonton,it rains dogs and cats.
He yearns for empire. He despairs that empire was passed from Britain to the US.
We in the rest of the world despair of empire.
In Calgary, it rains cats and dogs. In Edmonton,it rains dogs and cats.
He yearns for empire. He despairs that empire was passed from Britain to the US.
We in the rest of the world despair of empire.
Well one way or the other there will be War in Syria. How it is addressed is well up in the air.
Seeing as the Saudi's are paying Egypt's bills, they and the Egyptian Military should be front and center in any UN authorized attack.
Time for War in their opinion,then they should get blooded first.
They can both travel thru Jordan to Syria.
Paying just the bills is BS.
Saudis to Push General Assembly Vote on Syria Intervention | Turtle Bay
There are precedents for the U.N. General Assembly in authorizing the use of force in the face of Security Council paralysis. In November 1950, the United States, fearing Russian diplomatic obstruction during the Korean War, obtained a mandate from the U.N. General Assembly that granted the U.N. body a role in bypassing the U.N. Security Council. That measure, known at the Uniting for Peace resolution, states that "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The General Assembly would later invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution to send a U.N. peacekeeping mission to the Sinai.
More recently, the United States, Britain, and France have grown reluctant to support a similar role for the U.N. General Assembly, preferring that all decisions on the use of force remain subject to Security Council approval.
Seeing as the Saudi's are paying Egypt's bills, they and the Egyptian Military should be front and center in any UN authorized attack.
Time for War in their opinion,then they should get blooded first.
They can both travel thru Jordan to Syria.
Paying just the bills is BS.
Saudis to Push General Assembly Vote on Syria Intervention | Turtle Bay
There are precedents for the U.N. General Assembly in authorizing the use of force in the face of Security Council paralysis. In November 1950, the United States, fearing Russian diplomatic obstruction during the Korean War, obtained a mandate from the U.N. General Assembly that granted the U.N. body a role in bypassing the U.N. Security Council. That measure, known at the Uniting for Peace resolution, states that "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security." The General Assembly would later invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution to send a U.N. peacekeeping mission to the Sinai.
More recently, the United States, Britain, and France have grown reluctant to support a similar role for the U.N. General Assembly, preferring that all decisions on the use of force remain subject to Security Council approval.
Hypothetical #2
Suppose Saudi Arabia, a US ally, were about to be attacked by Russia. Would the US intervene? What force would the US use?
Suppose Saudi Arabia, a US ally, were about to be attacked by Russia. Would the US intervene? What force would the US use?
Saudis run the Suez. What is stopping Russia and it's cabal from taking it? It's not the first time it's been coveted. I've explained to you what China's intent is and what the true prize is for their dynasty. They offered us the chance to deal with it and now they've offered Russia the same deal to finish off what the US and any ally takers aren't capable of finishing.
There is only one route to the dark prize left and it's through Egypt.
The parts of NATO that aren't supplied by Gazprom.
I guess the burning question here is "Should chemical warfare be allowed or not"! So far it's clear that it is!
The chemicals that have just been confirmed.
My guess would be the upper echelons of the Syrian Gov't.
All is fair in love and war....especially in war.
Think of it this way....I'm twice your size and a professional boxer. I want to beat the crap out of you outside the bar. Now are you going to try to fist-fight with me according to boxing rules and take a severe beating or do you quickly kick me in the nuts and kick me some more when I'm down.
I'm thinking any sane person goes with the latter option because the only rule in a street-fight is don't lose.
Yeah, but by that time it was a lost cause. After the Greenville Treaty and the Battle of Tippecanoe, Tecumseh knew it was over. He just fought the War of 1812 in the vanishingly small hope the British would be slightly better to deal with than the Americans.
After reading through this thread I can clearly see who buys into the media propaganda and who can think for themselves.
Perhaps the old T.V. commercial says it well......................"You can pay me now or you can pay me later"! -
So which conspiracy theory does one believe?