Syria air strikes

[Shrimpers are Magic]

You assume he is dead then?

No, he's running a dodgy mobile phone repair shop down Walthamstow High Street.

 

[RHB]

Conspiracy theorists, Lol. Oh dear mrsblue.

Hollywood made a film of the Yanks topping him, it must be true.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The problem is that it is true. You didn't mention Chapter 7 until after the vote, which smacks of trying to wriggle your way out of it.

And let's be honest here, it doesn't matter one iota if there's a chapter 7 resolution or not. A terrorist isn't going to cancel an attack because the resolution included Chapter 7. He's hardly going to think along the lines of "I was going to bomb the **** out of London but the the UN have passed a unanimous resolution, which doesn't include Chapter 7, so I'm still going ahead", or "I was going to bomb the **** out of London but the the UN have passed a unanimous resolution including Chapter 7, so I guess I'm going to have to abort".

In which case, because you now say you would back air strikes with a Chapter 7 resolution, as far as a terrorist is concerned, you're just as culpable as anyone else.

:liar: Got any evidence for this repeatedly untrue claim of yours?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Nope you just confused me more. Are you now saying that you would be happy for a ground troops in Syria as long as it is UN sanctioned. If so should they be US, British or UN ?

Hopefully they would comprise those of all nations who signed up to a chapter 7 UN resolution including troops from Syria's Arab neighbours in the region.

 

[londonblue]

:liar: Got any evidence for this repeatedly untrue claim of yours?

Show me evidence where you did say you wanted a Chapter 7 resolution?

I notice you ignored the rest of the post.

 

[rigsby]

Hopefully they would comprise those of all nations who signed up to a chapter 7 UN resolution including troops from Syria's Arab neighbours in the region.

Would you deploy this UN army in Syria. If so who would they be fighting from the list of six I posted earlier. Just ISIS or any others like Assad's troops

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

:liar: Got any evidence for this repeatedly untrue claim of yours?

:facepalm: How exactly are you expecting him to prove that you didn't say something?

 

[Benfleet A1]

Show me evidence where you did say you wanted a Chapter 7 resolution?

I notice you ignored the rest of the post.

You sound surprised.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

There is NO way the UN will have involvement in Syria that is more than talks. No multi national armed force could be put together under a UN mandate. Resolutions are paper deals and worthless.
To think otherwise is dreaming.
Would the US allow anyone to command their troops? Would we? (other then a US general).

 

[londonblue]

:facepalm: How exactly are you expecting him to prove that you didn't say something?

Actually I can:

Unlike you *** I'm not an interventionist, though I'm no pacifist,either.

I was impressed by Ken Livingstone on QT last night, who argued the case for ground troops from nations such as China,Russia and India as well as Western countries etc, under the auspices of the UN.That makes sense to me.

Absolutely not.I recognise that IS needs to be destroyed but believe this can only be done via the UN route.

Neither of those mention Chapter 7.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

UN mandate for Syria?

Thought this was an interesting discussion.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...date-syria-awkward-question-league-of-nations

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Actually I can:





Neither of those mention Chapter 7.

Quite obviously,the implication with both of the quotes (especially KL's QT comments, which calls for Chinese troops) is that a chapter 7 UN resolution would be necessary.I have never had any doubt in my own mind that that would be the only basis I personally would be able to support British involvement in Syria.

 

[Bielzibubz]

I've told you (and others)before now that I don't do hypotheticals.

:hilarious: Typical cop out from our leftie friend. And apart from that you do do hypotheticals (that's not actually a word but never mind) all the time. You don't know that air strikes will cause more deaths on the streets of Britain and Europe. Therefore that's an assumption and purely hypothetical. You don't know that air strikes on their own wont't work. Therefore that is an assumption and purely hypothetical. You assume that repeating the mistakes of the past will have the same outcome this time around. Again, that's an assumption and purely hypothetical.

Now, would you like to answer the hypothetical question I posed or would you like to side step it again and instead fine a Gaurdian link to a story that has no reference to the question being asked.

 

[Bielzibubz]

Quite obviously,the implication with both of the quotes (especially KL's QT comments, which calls for Chinese troops) is that a chapter 7 UN resolution would be necessary.I have never had any doubt in my own mind that that would be the only basis I personally would be able to support British involvement in Syria.

No it's not obvious you chump. You can't now wriggle back and imply that's what you meant because of some wording.

 

[rigsby]

Quite obviously,the implication with both of the quotes (especially KL's QT comments, which calls for Chinese troops) is that a chapter 7 UN resolution would be necessary.I have never had any doubt in my own mind that that would be the only basis I personally would be able to support British involvement in Syria.

So I know you don't want to answer but would that mean British ground troops (and others) fighting ISIS in Syria

 

[londonblue]

Quite obviously,the implication with both of the quotes (especially KL's QT comments, which calls for Chinese troops) is that a chapter 7 UN resolution would be necessary.I have never had any doubt in my own mind that that would be the only basis I personally would be able to support British involvement in Syria.

But that's the point, it isn't obvious, and comes over as wriggling out of it. I'm not arguing what you thought you said, I'm arguing that it didn't come over that way.

However, this is a distraction. My main point was ignored, that being a terrorist won't distinguish between a UN resolution with Chapter 7 and one without so it's an irrelevance.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So I know you don't want to answer but would that mean British ground troops (and others) fighting ISIS in Syria

I have no problem with that as long as it's under a UN chapter 7 resolution.

 

[callan]

I have no problem with that as long as it's under a UN chapter 7 resolution.

What do you see as the main benefits of having a UN chapter 7 resolution, as against the UN backing for action post Paris?

I can follow London blues argument that the terrorists won't care a jot what the UN do whether under chapter 7 or otherwise, but would like to hear your argument as to why chapter 7 is so important.

 

[rigsby]

I have no problem with that as long as it's under a UN chapter 7 resolution.

The first problem with the UN is that most countries wont commit any troops for action in Syria. Others like Denmark might contribute 60 or so troops but with a caveat that they can not leave their base and go on patrol (like Afghanistan). Other nations use all sorts of tricks to make sure their troops are never near the front line. So it will end up with US and British being killed yet again in the ME.

The second problem is that every military commander from any country who's troops are actually doing any fighting, will want air cover. Guess what air cover means.... air strikes.

At the moment at least a pilot can take his time to try and hit the intended target, he can even ask for confirmation or abort the mission. Of course with your own troops under fire as a pilot you have to act fast and risk collateral damage (civilians). Not to mention the fact that the first hiding place for a terrorist, from ground troops, is amongst women and children in cities and towns. Which of course means our boys and girls will have to kill plenty of innocents whilst pursuing ISIS.

So what your really saying is that you and Ken (military expert) Livingstones idea, is to kill even more innocents than anyone who has supported air strikes. Which you have always claimed increases recruitment for terror and makes Britain more of a target.

 

[Firestorm]

But that's the point, it isn't obvious, and comes over as wriggling out of it. I'm not arguing what you thought you said, I'm arguing that it didn't come over that way.

However, this is a distraction. My main point was ignored, that being a terrorist won't distinguish between a UN resolution with Chapter 7 and one without so it's an irrelevance.

I think that's where the confusion may be arising, the UN can't make a decision on Sanctions, or the use of Military force , without recourse to Chapter 7.
I imagine its the specific Articles in Chapter 7 which will be the debating issues.