While the world dithers …
“British intelligence had put the number of people killed in the attacks at more than 350. The U.S. report quadrupled the death toll to 1,429. Kerry said that more than 400 of them were children.”

see U.N. inspectors tote evidence out of Syria as Obama weighs options.

The world cannot afford to have monsters like Assad running free anywhere. It’s long past the time that the world should ramp up sanctions, with extreme prejudice. As far as I know France and USA are the only ones willing to do even limited punishments. Turkey wants to go much further. Turkey is right. The UN is way behind the curve thanks to Russia and China backing Assad. Shame on them.

No. Whether it’s one or thousands, the willingness of Assad to murder his own people in his own capital city shows he is a monster who must be stopped physically not just by words. Arm, train, equip and support the rebels. Bomb Assad into the Stone Age. Hunt him down and prosecute him as a criminal. Worrying about possible consequences instead of reality makes us complicit in the atrocities, makes us less than human just like Assad.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to 1429

  1. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson East Timor intervention was vetoed as well.

    How Australia got around the veto was that Australia were there to protect the vote. So the area had to be secure to allow the vote. Once we had a voted in government they could invite us to stay or tell us to leave. So removing China and Russia veto. The security council cannot veto elections. Or a genuine invite by validly voted in government to stay.

    –Assad has an airforce, anti-aircraft capability, nerve-agents–
    The reality here Assads air force would last a week under proper assault. It would be lucky to last 3 days. This comes from the iraq war invasion.

    Anti-air would last a little longer. In fact the most important part of doing what Australia does is securing the boarders. Cut off supply of new arms. This can be setting up voting booths around the boarder that has to be secure against thugs. No weapons inside 100 kms of a voting booth sounds perfect.

    Robert Pogson what Australia does is not a simple show of force. We only engage those who engage. Those that disarm and back down Australian forces don’t engage. Those who will not interfere with the vote for new government will not be harmed either.

    Serousily the USA is a idiot. The iraq war could have been done like East Timor. The prime reason to get a stable government appointed that will protect the people. Once you have a stable government you can then go into the stable armed force to protect the people from there own people.

    Robbert we can either let tons of blood shed happen. Or step in and allow the population to vote in their next government.

    Step in required declaring there existing army against the people. So requiring to be contained to allow free and fair voting. Of course the rebels will also have to be contained to allow free and fair voting.

    The neutral response is in the UN charter and no member of the security council can veto it. Also its not unilateral action. As there should be not violence against those handing voting boxes or around voting locations. If there is lethal force is permitted. This is the catch Australia is following UN charter with our near by islands.

    So yes USA can act using UN rules now. Just do some declared in the UN courts.

    Yes prove war crimes as was was proven in East Timor you are then allowed to force a vote in that country. If use of chemical weapons is true Syria has all the triggers for UN run elections. With independent observers from any member of the UN.

    Robert there is a response in the UN charter to this exact problem.

  2. Assad has an airforce, anti-aircraft capability, nerve-agents… and oiaohm thinks order can be imposed simply with a show of force. Nope. It will take an effort similar to Libya. It would have been much easier a couple of years ago when Assad was seeing desertions and the rebels were seizing territory. Now Assad has a bunch of mercenaries and upgrades from Russia and Iran. It will be a long bloody mess no matter how it goes. The UN will not get involved because Russia and China have a veto. UK and USA don’t seem to have much resolve so far. France and Turkey might be able to do the job but it would be much easier with an overwhelming force coming at Assad from all sides. Obama is talking only of responding to the use of chemical weapons, a strawman. The real issue is Assad and his bunch, a minority, ruling a majority without consent. No negotiation will fix that without a force majeur to back it up.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Australian action over time in the island now cause some interesting events. Case of a hated leader on a island near us instead of genocide class war the rebel force normally contacts Australia and asks for settlement to be talked about. Of course with request for Australia forces to be sent to take over police and mil temp until a new government to be voted in.

    Most case existing leader these days willing steps down on the proviso they can be voted back in. Yes the external Australian forces normally end up running the vote to prevent vote rigging.

    Long term effect of getting in early with peace keepers is that before a battle get out of hand it gets sorted because both sides know force of arms will bring third party interference resulting in neither side being able to win by force of arms.

  4. oiaohm says:

    –There is no peace to keep until one side beats the other or they agree to negotiate. —
    This is a lie. If Syria was an island in the pacific islands there would be no need for the population of Syria to be running to other countries. Peace keepers would already be there limiting the combat to stopping the combat.

    When Australia sent its first peace keepers to east temor and other islands near us we don’t wait for some agreement. If we did the islands would be burnt to the ground. Remember Australia moved in East Temor without UN approval. Once we had documented breaches of the rules of war. Engaging citizens is a trigger. Australia will engage in areas we can logistically handle.

    Our peace keeper orders are simple engage anyone who fires or has a weapon. Yes carrier a gun on public places becomes a possible death sentence. The fact the peace keepers are there preventing either side for fighting is why negation happens between both sides. Yes you have foot soldiers the UN force has attack helicopters who are going to shoot you for using your weapons it comes a good idea not to shot anyone.

    Really robert do police wait until criminals have stop fighting to engage them.

    Most cases in island conflicts near Australia neither side wins the war. Both sides lose the war to Australia. Australia does not stay on the islands any longer than what it takes to stabilise the place. Yes we don’t built any bases or anything else that is ours.

    This is the problem Australia responses that work in these messes is the exact other way to provide more arms. It is strip and collect the arms and prevent more arms from going in.

    If you wait for one side to win or lose the general population of the islands will in most cases been completely genocide. Historically before Australia become peace keeper force in the pacific islands there were regular island to island genocides.

    Has Australia stopped the hate between some of the island. No we have not. Have we stopped them from being game to go to war. Yes we have. Australian forces will only engage combatants. Where genocide forces will kill women and children and cause population to become refuges. In this island disputes both sides are genocide forces. There is no side to support.

    There have been other neutral responses over time. There is are two countries in the EU where Australian police go every year to patrol the boarder between both countries. Neither country has in fact agreed to peace. UN drew a line on the map and declared a no mans land. Until both sides come to agreement no one bar UN forces are allowed inside the no mans land.

    So there are UN solutions that don’t require agreement from either side. Yes cutting Syria in two is a possible option without agreement from either side. We have the air superiority We can draw the line away from cities and populated areas. This way negation becomes a way to remove UN meddling.

    Australia takes the point of view that the right to bare arms requires you not to kill civilian population.

  5. oiaohm wrote, “What is required is proper peace keeping. No bias response. If the response is bias the conflict will keep on going.”

    There is no peace to keep until one side beats the other or they agree to negotiate. I don’t see any way that can happen. Do you want 60+ years of trouble as in Palestine? That’s what leaving it up to the UN and its peace-keepers will do.

  6. Sandman says:

    It’s not that easy..

    The war has become a proxy war. Where Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting each other. Russia have geopolitical interest in Syria. They do not want Saudi Arabia to get that influence as that could mean a gas pipeline to Europe which would hurt Russia economically. Non of the rebels support USA.

    Saudi Arabia have backed US with a lot of money and loans.. that kind of support could go away if US does not help. US need to do something or else they would seem weak.

    This at a time when US are in economical troubles and can’t take much more burden.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Robert Arm, train, equip and support the rebels. That is Afghanistan solution cold war.

    Train equip and support the rebels does not work. Section of the rebels for eating human harts as so on need to be terminated.

    Train a proper defence force neutral to both sides may work.

    What is required is proper peace keeping. No bias response. If the response is bias the conflict will keep on going.

Leave a Reply