News Stories

[Ithekro]

And so....will nothing happen?

Russia, China reject UN move to rebuke Syrian president

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rian-president


Of course that begs the question...is there another side to the story that make it make sense why Russia and China would veto action while the 13 other members voted for it?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Of course that begs the question...is there another side to the story that make it make sense why Russia and China would veto action while the 13 other members voted for it?

Money, dear boy.
Syria is one of Russia's largest costumers when it comes to arms trade.

[Ledgem]

The UN is damned no matter what it does. If it moved too quickly to interfere, then people would say that it is a fascist organization that is all too quick to meddle in other countries and impose their culture, values, and political institutions. It's not a perfect organization, but it serves an important purpose (as DonQuigleone pointed out).

[Xellos-_^]

you could replace the UN with a facebook page and it would work just as well. it might even be better as the world can see who "friending" with who.

Oh, i'm interested, so far vetoes only showed that it's used for the sake of these countries, not for the world's sake.

it has always been that way. countries like people look out only for themselves.

[Aquillion]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Money, dear boy.
Syria is one of Russia's largest costumers when it comes to arms trade.

Additionally, both Russia and China have internal reasons to want to support the idea that changing leadership is always bad and dangerous -- witness China's terrified reaction to the Arab Spring (they mostly ignored it in their media, and portrayed it as a dangerous, violent, regrettable uprising when they touched on it) and to the events in Libya (again, China's government media portrayed it as this horrible thing.) China teaches stability, stability, stability, because that means that the people who are in charge get to stay in charge (and in both Russia and China, it serves as a justification to resist calls for more democratic government.)

They do not want to risk the consciousness of Syria's people spreading to their own countries. Therefore, they say that the idea of other nations interceding in Syria is bad because they very, very, much want to avoid supporting the idea that rulers can be called to account, either by external forces or by their own people.

When Obama says a regime that "massacres its people does not deserve to govern", what do you expect China to think?

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Additionally, both Russia and China have internal reasons to want to support the idea that changing leadership is always bad and dangerous -- witness China's terrified reaction to the Arab Spring (they mostly ignored it in their media, and portrayed it as a dangerous, violent, regrettable uprising when they touched on it) and to the events in Libya (again, China's government media portrayed it as this horrible thing.) China teaches stability, stability, stability, because that means that the people who are in charge get to stay in charge (and in both Russia and China, it serves as a justification to resist calls for more democratic government.)

They do not want to risk the consciousness of Syria's people spreading to their own countries. Therefore, they say that the idea of other nations interceding in Syria is bad because they very, very, much want to avoid supporting the idea that rulers can be called to account, either by external forces or by their own people.

When Obama says a regime that "massacres its people does not deserve to govern", what do you expect China to think?

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly has cost much much more innocent civilian lives than 6/4. Maybe Obama should step down first for all the civilians killed in those drone attacks first, and return the Nobel peace prize while he is at it.

As for Arab spring, probably you have not been paying any attention to Egypt recently? I bet they are doing very good now, right? Do you even remember what Clinton said before Egypt went beyond the boiling point? Why is the US still supporting Kings a.k.a dictators in the Mideast?

[konart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And so....will nothing happen?

Russia, China reject UN move to rebuke Syrian president

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...rian-president


Of course that begs the question...is there another side to the story that make it make sense why Russia and China would veto action while the 13 other members voted for it?

Because Russia and China are not interested in it. Destabilization there can easily result in destabilization in the whole region. Nobody gives a shit about syrians and Assad in particular

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

As for Arab spring, probably you have not been paying any attention to Egypt recently? I bet they are doing very good now, right? Do you even remember what Clinton said before Egypt went beyond the boiling point? Why is the US still supporting Kings a.k.a dictators in the Mideast?

Dude, it has nothing to do with kings, dictators or U.S support or lack thereof.
last week, in Egypt, around 80 people were killed in a riot over a fucking game of soccer.
sometimes, nations just snap.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Dude, it has nothing to do with kings, dictators or U.S support or lack thereof.
last week, in Egypt, around 80 people were killed in a riot over a fucking game of soccer.
sometimes, nations just snap.

And some are claiming that that particular event isn't as clear cut as most make it out to be. I've seen some saying it might have some sort of political basis behind it and the soccer game was just an excuse.

[andyjay729]

Less than an hour before I'm now writing this post, there was a 5.4 earthquake off the coast of Canada's Vancouver Island.

This doesn't seem like such a big deal on its own (though it is a bit larger than most earthquakes), but people across the Pacific Rim should be concerned about the local earthquake fault, the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Forget California, this is the place where they say North America is most vulnerable to a quake on the scale of the Tohoku disaster, since it's a subduction fault as opposed to the strike-slip San Andreas Fault. For instance, there were no records kept of the 1700 Cascadia quake since the local Indians didn't have written language, but we know from Japanese records that it generated a tsunami there.

Fortunately, earthquakes above 8 only tend to occur about once a year, and of course it hasn't been a whole year since Tohoku yet. But then that occurred not long after the one-year anniversary of the 2010 Chile quake...

I'm no geologist, but I think we should keep close eyes on the Pacific Northwest this year...and any year that there isn't a major earthquake.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Dextro

And some are claiming that that particular event isn't as clear cut as most make it out to be. I've seen some saying it might have some sort of political basis behind it and the soccer game was just an excuse.

some seek to find complex explanations for events.
I follow Occam's razor, and believe that the simpler explanation is the true one.
a people, who have spent decades being oppressed by a dictatorial and VERY control centered regime, suddenly and violently break out of the pen they've been locked in for so long, and still haven't gotten it out of their system yet.
its human nature to swing from one extreme to the next before finding a middle ground.

[Ithekro]

Sporting events seem to cause these sorts of things to happen for some reason all over the planet. Be in Brazil, Egypt, France, Canada, anywhere. Sometimes we have riots whether the Oakland Raiders win or lose.

[solomon]

Frankly I don't know and many people don't know what happened.

I do have some questions though. That infamous police force that supported the regime.....where is it and what are they doing now?

I can't really give any advice to the protestors. But many analysts have made this point.

As dirty as the Army seems, a lot of Joe Q Egypt (i.e. NOT the ones out protesting) will start to reluctantly back the Armed Forces in some way or another in order to gain a semblance of control.

Egypt is not just Tahrir Square you know, that was shown in the elections.

Here's an example of division of viewpoints on the revolution;

http://www.time.com/time/video/playe...105488,00.html

I really hope they get their act together in teh next 10-20 years or so, it's a great country, people and culture, they deserve a good government and civil democracy. It could be a beacon for the rest of the Middle East.

[solomon]

Go to college free in exchange for portion of your salary later.....hmm

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/02...st-of-college/

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

My logic is perfectly reasonable, you're just not paying attention.
the idea of "cancel the vetoes" doesn't work because the U.N is, in and of itself, too f@#ked up to work properly.
removing them RIGHT NOW, is to do more harm then good.
the solution isn't to do away with the vetoes, but to do away with the U.N, and replace it with an organization whose very structure would negate most of the stupidity that make vetoes so necessary today.

for starters, set some standards as to which countries do and don't get a vote.
for example, you're country gets a vote in the general assembly provided that:
1)If you're Nominal GDP per capita is at least 5,000 $
2)your country is ranked at least 0.65 on the human development scale.
3)your country is ranked at least a 3 on the freedom scale by groups like freedom house.
and other such standards.
if a country doesn't rise up to those standards, it's granted an observer status, but isn't allowed to vote on resolution.
if you're a ruler of a country and you want your country to have a say in world events, elevate it to a position where its opinion is actually worth listening to.

once the replacement U.N is actually made to look like an organization that can be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, THEN we can talk about whether or not the vetoes are needed.

Which is the problem with Syria right now. Russia and China didn't veto military action in Libya but they are now for Syria.

Whether or not Russia and China would have veto power in this new system you've suggested is what would make the dfference in this situation. So let me just clarify one thing just to make sure: Are you actually talking abut Syria here?

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Shocking events in Syria, or perhaps not so much shocking given Assad has been ruthlessly killing his own people for almost a year now. Still the figures are horrific...totally horrific.

Even more scary is that this is the madman some Western countries tried to get Israel to give away the Golan to for "peace".

How is that more scary than government massacring it's own people?

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Dude, it has nothing to do with kings, dictators or U.S support or lack thereof.
last week, in Egypt, around 80 people were killed in a riot over a fucking game of soccer.
sometimes, nations just snap.

"It has nothing to do with dictators."

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

some seek to find complex explanations for events.
I follow Occam's razor, and believe that the simpler explanation is the true one.
a people, who have spent decades being oppressed by a dictatorial and VERY control centered regime, suddenly and violently break out of the pen they've been locked in for so long, and still haven't gotten it out of their system yet.
its human nature to swing from one extreme to the next before finding a middle ground.

"It has everything to do with dictators"

...

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Sporting events seem to cause these sorts of things to happen for some reason all over the planet. Be in Brazil, Egypt, France, Canada, anywhere. Sometimes we have riots whether the Oakland Raiders win or lose.

Although I am more inclined to believe there was something political going on there, it's not actually that farfecthed that a football riot could cause this if there were no police or authorities around. (To be honest though I have no idea what actually happened.)

[solomon]

Isn't this just due to Russia and China having big time economic investments in Syria and don't want that disrupted.

Chinese are understandable.

However, I don't really remember a large opposition by Russia against Libyian action.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

Less than an hour before I'm now writing this post, there was a 5.4 earthquake off the coast of Canada's Vancouver Island.

This doesn't seem like such a big deal on its own (though it is a bit larger than most earthquakes), but people across the Pacific Rim should be concerned about the local earthquake fault, the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Forget California, this is the place where they say North America is most vulnerable to a quake on the scale of the Tohoku disaster, since it's a subduction fault as opposed to the strike-slip San Andreas Fault. For instance, there were no records kept of the 1700 Cascadia quake since the local Indians didn't have written language, but we know from Japanese records that it generated a tsunami there.

Fortunately, earthquakes above 8 only tend to occur about once a year, and of course it hasn't been a whole year since Tohoku yet. But then that occurred not long after the one-year anniversary of the 2010 Chile quake...

I'm no geologist, but I think we should keep close eyes on the Pacific Northwest this year...and any year that there isn't a major earthquake.

heh, I think most of us up here have been informed for quite a while now (earthquake supplies, drills, etc) but I suppose there's always a few (newbies, idiots, stoned, etc)

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Haak

How is that more scary than government massacring it's own people?

It's scary to think that it would have allowed for more (mostly Golani Druze) people to be massacred?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Haak

Although I am more inclined to believe there was something political going on there, it's not actually that farfecthed that a football riot could cause this if there were no police or authorities around. (To be honest though I have no idea what actually happened.)

What I heard was that the police was around (which is normal at a soccer game), but didn't act to suppress the riot (which is less so). No idea if that's true, no idea if it's part of some kind of conspiracy.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by solomon

Isn't this just due to Russia and China having big time economic investments in Syria and don't want that disrupted.

Chinese are understandable.

However, I don't really remember a large opposition by Russia against Libyian action.

The Chinese and Russian also voiced their concerns about foreign intervention in Libya but because Libya had oil and this oil were the interests of Britain and France who also had veto powers they managed to persuade both nations to not use their veto. The Russian and Chinese still were a bit undecided but once the US gave conditional support for France and Britain then it was enough for them not to use their veto but had Libya not had any oil then I am sure Russia and China would have vetoed action against Libya intervention.

It should also be noted that as a result of the Libya revolution 60m barrels of oil had to be released from the strategic reserve so it was in everyone's best interest to stop that civil war pronto... If it had dragged on and on it could have had bigger impacts on the oil trade and general global economy... The price of oil at the time was about $120 a barrel which is more than enough to induce a recession. The last thing the western world needed...