WAR: Bush Calls for U.N. Session on Syria's Role in Hariri Assassination

At appears a new report lists proof of links to the Lebanese PM's assasination all the way up to the levels of the Syrian government. The damning document could be just the smoking gun needed to tighten the noose around the uncooperative at best Syrians.




If the report as seriously links Syria as purported, a war with Syria may not be out of the question. At least the fall of Bashar Assad to internal forces.


[edit on 10/21/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Nerdling]

Am I the only one that really doesn't care? I don't know if its the message or the messenger (lol not meaning you djohnston77). After the stuff we have pulled lately I find it hard to care too much about what someone else has done. Make sense? I don't see much support coming from the American people for any kind of conflict with any other country. I suspect this is where it is going.

This issue is simply not one pertaining to just the US, but smacks conflict with the UN, as well.
Hariri probe puts Syria on collision course with UN

Seems Assad's borther-in-law has been implicated in the assassination:
Brother-In-Law of Syrian Leader Implicated

Nonetheless, I am not seeing a US-led war, or for that matter, a UN sactioned or approved war. Sanctions will debated and one can best bet that Russia and China will probably veto such an option.

My reading and understanding of this situation is that a UN special investigator also edited the Hariri Report:
How U.N. Hariri Report Was Edited

What is unapparent is the implications this will have on the rule of the House of Assad(s).
Syria Rejects Accusations in Hariri Probe





seekerof

I just hope we dont have a war over this!.Our troops are gtting tired and all war out.

Three things.

1- I keep getting "Fox News source not found", so I can't check the story.

2- Any excuse to screw with yet ANOTHER country comes to mind.

3- Since when has this administration given a damn about what the UN has to say? Now they want it's counsil? Pfft.

Salient point imo.

Tried it with another browser, same result.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by intrepid]

WooHoo, finally got the story, my last two points remain though.

The hypocrisy of this is astounding but not unexpected! Those who commit moral outrages expressing moral outrage. May just be enough to divert the attention of those with short term memory problems.

The bottom line is that the American people don't care about the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister, nor do they care about the alleged involvement of Syria. This is not being used as a pretext for invasion. If anything, this is being used by the US as an attempt to put sanctions on Syria. Economically crippling Syria further reduces their ability to fund, harbor and export terrorism, as well as meddle in Iraq's affairs. This is also an attempt by the US to undermine the already fragile rule of the Assad family.

I'm not saying that any of the above actions are going to be successful, I just find it rediculous that anyone thinks this is Bush's attempt to gain American or UN support for an invasion. That's just not the case- at least not yet.

Phonetap info:

"Hello?"
"White House. May I help you?"
"Is George there?"
"One moment, please......."

"This is George."
"George. Bad news buddy. The Russians won't give us Iran and the Chinese won't allow the North Korean stuff."
"Well find somebody in the neighborhood. Try that Serium...Cereal...."
"You mean Syria!?!"
Yeah, that place. We've got to have something to keep our foot in the mouth......I mean door."

I doubt we will invade/occupy Syria but US forces have already crossed into Syria recently during border skirmishes and I wouldn't be surprised if we pushed for the UN to give us and others in the region to conduct air strikes against Syrian Military targets. Some are already suggesting Syria is becoming to Iraq the equivalent of Cambodia to Vietnam during that conflict.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
The bottom line is that the American people don't care about the assassination of Lebanon's Prime Minister

He was their ex-Prime Minister.

How can sanctions be placed on a whole country because of one crime? Dont people get it? Sanctions only hurt the little guys, Assad will still get enough money to support himself and his army whilst the average citizen goes without medicine, food and jobs. How is this a foreign policy objective of any civilized country?

And your option(s) or alternatives to maintaining global order, which was the purpose of economic sanctions when the UN adopted the policy in 1945, is what exactly, subz? If one takes the liberty to research a little bit, one will know that that the UN sets up special committees, UN Sanctions Committee, that regulate the enforcing of UN imposed and authorized sanctions, and for granting humanitarian exemptions and exceptions.

Anyhow, UN sanctions have only been applied fourteen plus times since the UN adopted such a policy. Again, a little effort to research the purpose of international sanctions issued and/or authorized by the UN, may prove insightful.
USE OF SANCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE UN CHARTER
Unilateral Versus Multilateral International Sanctions: A Public Choice Perspective
Humanitarian Safeguards in Economic Sanctions Regimes: A Call for Automatic Suspension Clauses, Periodic Monitoring, and Follow-Up Assessment of Long-Term Effects
Debating the Law of Sanctions
The Applicability of International Law Standards to United Nations Economic Sanctions Programmes
SECURITY COUNCIL CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON SANCTIONS-RELATED ISSUES; WIDE SUPPORT EXPRESSED FOR ONGOING REVIEW PROCESS

More can be found.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
And your option(s) or alternatives to maintaining global order, which was the purpose of economic sanctions when the UN adopted the policy in 1945, is what exactly, subz?

Well I might debate the strategic value of economic sanctions but that's not the issue here. Its whether or not the killing of Lebanon's ex-PM allegedly by one element of the Syrian government is justification for punishing the entire Syrian nation en masse. A (highly probable) hypothetical for you Seeker; lets say a cabal in the US government commits an international crime and the World finds out. The UN authors a report into it and accuses this cabal of invading a nation based on lies. The UN then slaps the entire US with economic sanctions for those actions. You'd be happy with that outcome? You'd accept that YOU personally should pay the price for the actions of a few in your government?

But to answer your question, what is my alternative to economic sanctions to maintain global order? I would revoke Syria's UN membership and make it a precondition of reentry that Syria cooperate fully in a trial of those who orchestrated Hariri's assassination. But, hey, what do I know?

Originally posted by Seekerof
If one takes the liberty to research a little bit, one will know that that the UN sets up special committees, UN Sanctions Committee, that regulate the enforcing of UN imposed and authorized sanctions, and for granting humanitarian exemptions and exceptions.

Oh give me strength...just how well did the Oil for Food program work? How about the whole of Iraq's sanctions? What a great achievement they were for maintaining "global order". A million children dead over 10 years, for what gain? A cassus belli for invading in another decade?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Anyhow, UN sanctions have only been applied fourteen plus times since the UN adopted such a policy. Again, a little effort to research the purpose of international sanctions issued and/or authorized by the UN, may prove insightful.

What are you trying to imply there Seeker? That the position im taking is uninformed? Or that I should gallantly research the topic more like you have? I resent your implications any way. Must you take cheap shots like that?

I've seen how useless economic sanctions are. One has to look (like I have in great detail already thank you) at the impact economic sanctions have had on Iraq and North Korea. They do nothing but kill more innocent civilians than any war would. They don't curtail the spending of their governments and create a black market on a national scale. Forgive me if I think economic sanctions, even when justified, are a complete farce.

[edit on 22/10/05 by subz]

Pieces of the puzzle dropping into place.
Does war start right before Cheney/Scooter gets indicted?

Entire 101st Airborne Division Deploying to Iraq

No military promises on Syria

THE US has refused to rule out military action against Syria but says it has not exhausted diplomatic moves to get Damascus to change its ways over Iraq and Lebanon.

Rice refuses to rule out more war in Middle East

Asked by the Senate foreign relations committee whether any military action against Syria would require congressional approval, Dr Rice said she "didn't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers … and the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq".

Rice backs war in heated session with senators

Under sharp questioning by a Senate committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday strongly defended the Bush administration's Iraq policy while refusing to say when U.S. troops might start withdrawing or rule out military action against Syria and Iran for their alleged role in aiding the Iraqi insurgency.