The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bombing in Syria: Is R2P a justification of last resort? > Comments

Bombing in Syria: Is R2P a justification of last resort? : Comments

By Andrew Farran, published 7/9/2015

Two former Labor Foreign Ministers, Evans and Carr, have in effect stated that if breaches of sovereignty cannot be excused any other way there is always the 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) doctrine to fall back on.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
I should have been more clear in my previous post.

From the Global Center for R2P: "In the five years prior to the beginning of the Libya intervention in March 2011, the Security Council had passed only four resolutions that referenced R2P – two were thematic resolutions on the protection of civilians, the other two concerned crises in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur, Sudan. By contrast, in the four years following Resolution 1973, the Security Council passed 25 resolutions that directly referenced R2P. Five of these were thematic (including one on the prevention of genocide, passed during the twentieth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide), but others confronted the threat of mass atrocities in Cote d’Ivoire, Yemen, Mali, Sudan, South Sudan and Central African Republic. The Council authorized peacekeepers and/or imposed a range of practical measures to help prevent or halt atrocities."
Posted by Keith Porter, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 11:18:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the life of me I don't understand why nobody gets it.

Lets take some of todays news stories.

US moves to block Russian Military build up in Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/world/europe/us-moves-to-block-russian-military-buildup-in-syria.html?_r=0

Firstly why would America do that?
Why would they try to stop someone fighting ISIS?
Why would they attempt to block Russian supplies delivered to Syria and stop Russian planes flying over Bulgaria and Greece?

The only answer is that America supports ISIS's war against Assad as a first priority, and the second priority (the one they tell us) is that they are there to fight ISIS.

Ok, lets find another news article..

Israel wary of Russian military build-up in Syria
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israel-wary-of-Russian-military-build-up-in-Syria-415586

Amos Yadlin, an Israeli air force ex-general and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's former military intelligence chief, said Israel and Russia were unlikely to find themselves pitted against each other in Syria as they had different areas of interest.

"I don't think there is any reason for the sides to collide, as we are not fighting the same enemy. I assume that we will be very careful, and so will they," said Yadlin, now director of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies.

NOT FIGHTING THE SAME ENEMY??

Well we know Russia is supporting Syria against ISIS.
If you have Netanyahu's former military chief saying they are fighting a different enemy than ISIS, just which enemy are they fighting?

All its going to take is for Russian and US troops to accidentally fire on the other and we'll have WW3.

Sad part about this planet is that I'm sure there some who want exactly that.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 9 September 2015 1:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy