The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

Captain Kremmen said:
New King. Same as the Old King.
Click to expand...

Precisely. A little younger, maybe.

Another news story finds that the Syrians and rebels have been committing massacres - no shocker - and also contained this little gem of a point:

The allegations of chemical weapons use received have been "predominantly by government forces," said the commission, but it has not yet been able to determine whether they were used. The commission is expected to eventually weigh in on who bears responsibility, after a separate team of U.N. chemical inspectors reports on any evidence of the use of chemical weapons. That report will not apportion blame.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/probe-massacres-syria-regime-rebels-20221533
Click to expand...

Ah. There's that little flaw I was warning you all about earlier. As in: it shall not be diagnostic. The assignment of guilt will be left to those most familiar with it - the politicians, that is.
 
GeoffP said:
Ah. There's that little flaw I was warning you all about earlier. As in: it shall not be diagnostic. That will be left to the scum - the politicians, that is.
Click to expand...

In my view the UN is a great forum to get all the nations of the world together under one roof to try and cooperate in solving our mutual problems, and that's all it should truly be regarded for. Beyond that, when it's treated as nothing more than a political soapbox for various nations to push their own agendas, it's worthy of being ignored altogether. If "United Nations" weren't an oxymoron, the members wouldn't be sitting as independent states.
 
Ah true - but otherwise it would be an affront to sovereignty. Maybe the tree of world humanity needs to be watered with the blood of ineffective bureaucracies from time to time too.

It makes you wonder: are the dictators of the world in fact the ones who really understand how the world works, and just exploit it as best they can? We hate a world leader for that, but love a CEO for it. A scrubbed conscience makes for a happy mind.
 
GeoffP said:
Precisely. A little younger, maybe.

Another news story finds that the Syrians and rebels have been committing massacres - no shocker - and also contained this little gem of a point:



Ah. There's that little flaw I was warning you all about earlier. As in: it shall not be diagnostic. The assignment of guilt will be left to those most familiar with it - the politicians, that is.
Click to expand...

There's enough evidence to support the fact that Assad's regime was responsible. Now, he and his regime need to be tried for crimes against humanity.
If Assad is left in power after all of this, then to me, nothing was resolved.
 
Who will be tried? Who will decide?
Will George W. be tried for starting an illegal war in Iraq?
Or is it just for the little countries?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Who will be tried? Who will decide?
Will George W. be tried for starting an illegal war in Iraq?
Or is it just for the little countries?
Click to expand...

brb...let me get a chair for the straw man that you just brought into the room.

Why would you want to see Assad stay in power, knowing he committed crimes against humanity?
 
brb?

A legal system should have rules which everyone obeys.
Countries should not use international law to try people and then disobey it themselves when they wish.

Bring Assad to the court on the same day as Bush.
Let them both be tried.
Chain them together, ankle to ankle!
 
Captain Kremmen said:
brb?

A legal system should have rules which everyone obeys.
Countries should not use international law to try people and then disobey it themselves when they wish.

Bring Assad to the court on the same day as Bush.
Let them both be tried.
Chain them together, ankle to ankle!
Click to expand...

If there's grounds, why not.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-h...-if-bush-officials-should-be-tried-war-crimes

For now, Assad should not return to power and he and his regime should be tried for crimes against humanity.

edt: ''brb'' = be right back
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Source shows a completely biased presentation, but yes, that's the idea.
brb. brb.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I realized that when I read through it, sorry. But, yes that is the idea, and you are right.

lol @ brb...You don't ever use ''brb?'' Like in texting and such? lol
 
To Whom It May(or My Not) Concern.

Has or is The United States a current full signatory of the International Criminal Court?
 
wegs said:
Yeah, I realized that when I read through it, sorry. But, yes that is the idea, and you are right.

lol @ brb...You don't ever use ''brb?'' Like in texting and such? lol
Click to expand...

I thought it was my telephone ringing. Brb Brb.
 
The United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 by the Rome Statute to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.[1]
As of September 2012, 121 states are members of the court and 32 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[2] Other countries that have not signed or ratified the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[2] On May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, signed the Rome Statute but formally withdrew its intent of ratification.[2]
Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
 
The Answer, Specifically, Is No

The United States of America signed onto the ICC with reservations under President Bill Clinton. We have not ratified that signature to the treaty, and thus are not formally part of the ICC. While Clinton intended that our signature should give us leverage to help shape the court's standards and practices, it has been explicit since the Bush administration that we are not going to ratify the treaty.

We are officially out.

We are not part of the ICC, and while President Obama could easily be persuaded to sign us up, there is no way he's getting that through the Senate, so it ain't happening anytime soon.
 
So no "war"... for now. I baffles me why the "war"/strikes on libya happened with such political ease but to do the same in syria is proving to be impossible, what is the cause of this?
 
ElectricFetus said:
So no "war"... for now. I baffles me why the "war"/strikes on libya happened with such political ease but to do the same in syria is proving to be impossible, what is the cause of this?
Click to expand...

Were we dealing with the same players like Hezbollah, Iran and the Ruskies?
 
quinnsong said:
Were we dealing with the same players like Hezbollah, Iran and the Ruskies?
Click to expand...

I would think 2 out of 3 of those would motivate us to strike even more so, and the Russians can't stop us or would not be willing to end to the world by going to war against us on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top