Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (2) [1] 2   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Paper Tiger?, NATO Air
cnflyboy2000
Posted: April 17, 2012 05:07 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



PMYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: April 17, 2012 07:11 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1866
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



If the French planes would not attack on their own when the British and the Americans did not yet wake up to reality, Gaddafi would still be in power now.
PM
Top
lancer21
Posted: April 18, 2012 10:14 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 2883
Joined: September 04, 2010



"Protect lybian civillians" huh? What a load of propagandistic crap. :angry: Like Yugoslavia , like Irak , like Afghanistan, i'm sure the only reason they bombed that country to the stone age and killed thousands is " to protect the civillians". Yeah right .

What's that saying " same Mary but with a different hat ". Or "We escaped the devil only to find his old man".

Current world politics are utterly disgusting.

This post has been edited by lancer21 on April 18, 2012 10:22 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Victor
Posted: April 19, 2012 01:10 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (lancer21 @ April 19, 2012 12:14 am)
Current world politics are utterly disgusting.

Can you please point out an age or a time frame when politics where not disgusting?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
21 inf
Posted: April 19, 2012 04:32 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



Which would be legal basis for a foreign military intervention in Syria?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
contras
Posted: April 19, 2012 08:58 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 730
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



QUOTE
Which would be legal basis for a foreign military intervention in Syria?


No one that really works, which could be really without fault. Don't forget that only two interventions (wars) were made with the "blessing" of ONU: war in Korea (1950-1953) and war in Irak (1991).
Pretext would be to stop the killing and to avoid the chaos to spread on entire Middle East.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: April 20, 2012 08:11 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



We are constantly bombarded with news report about how wicked the Assad regime is when its army uses weapons to fight... Fight who? There are armed gangs on the "other side". Who are the guys who fight the government? Who arms them? Why are they given carte blanche? Why are all the demands for "cease fires" concentrate ONLY on the state's army and yet no such demands are made of the "other" armed faction?

I have no idea what is gong on, but to me it sounds like this demand for the national army to "cease fire" is in fact "unconditional surrender". But surrender to whom? Who are "the other side"?

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
21 inf
Posted: April 21, 2012 05:43 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



QUOTE (contras @ April 19, 2012 10:58 pm)
QUOTE
Which would be legal basis for a foreign military intervention in Syria?


No one that really works, which could be really without fault. Don't forget that only two interventions (wars) were made with the "blessing" of ONU: war in Korea (1950-1953) and war in Irak (1991).
Pretext would be to stop the killing and to avoid the chaos to spread on entire Middle East.

In this situation, an intervention is ilegal. It is not democracy anymore in Occident, but the right of the force, instead the force of the right. Of course is tragical civilians are killed by a dictator, but to start an atack against a country without legal basis is extremelly dangerous, creating precendents. But above all, it is IMORAL and ILEGAL.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: April 21, 2012 06:30 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (21 inf @ April 21, 2012 05:43 pm)
In this situation, an intervention is ilegal. It is not democracy anymore in Occident, but the right of the force, instead the force of the right. Of course is tragical civilians are killed by a dictator, but to start an atack against a country without legal basis is extremelly dangerous, creating precendents. But above all, it is IMORAL and ILEGAL.

For the intervention to be illegal the UN would have to say it is.

An intervention in Syria won't create precedents because the precedents already exist (remember Kosovo).
PM
Top
21 inf
Posted: April 22, 2012 08:07 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



What says the International Right (Dreptul Internaţional) about such situations as in Libya, Syria, Kosovo and other examples? Does it allow a foreign power to intervene in the internal affairs of an souveran state and if yes, under what conditions?
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
hiolop
Posted: July 13, 2012 09:57 am
Quote Post


Soldat
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 6
Member No.: 3323
Joined: June 19, 2012



That's really annoyed :angry:
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
  Posted: August 26, 2012 05:20 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



I can see three reasons for which no intervention will take place in Syria too soon:
1. No oil there, thus no immediate interest
2. The coming US elections - "peaceful Obama" is a better tune to play...
3. The support from the other "Axe of Evil" countries such as China / USSR (no mistake here!)
IMO, at least!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
guina
Posted: August 26, 2012 07:20 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 339
Member No.: 1393
Joined: April 16, 2007



The Syrian conflict is nothing more then an expression of the principal antagonism that is dominating the Islamic world,shia vs sunna.In a country where 70 % of the population are sunnis and they are ruled by an 12 % alawite minority,such conflicts,sooner or later,are bound to happen.

This post has been edited by guina on August 26, 2012 07:26 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
  Posted: August 26, 2012 09:00 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE (guina @ August 26, 2012 10:20 pm)
The Syrian conflict is nothing more then an expression of the principal antagonism that is dominating the Islamic world,shia vs sunna.In a country where 70 % of the population are sunnis and they are ruled by an 12 % alawite minority,such conflicts,sooner or later,are bound to happen.

Oh, is it that simple? Isn't there a "stick which stirs the s**t", handled by someone from outside?
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
ANDREAS
Posted: August 26, 2012 10:50 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



The Syrian Civil War and Big Power Rivalry :
http://youtu.be/PuM9Kc2AfCI
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (2) [1] 2  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0248 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]