Allepo - what a horror story. Now freely killing aid workers and destroying convoys.
Is it feasible for the US to provide air cover for these convoys and knock the s,hit out of any foreign jet or helicopter that threatens the convoys? Would the Russians dare to take on USA jets especially bearing in mind that they say they had nothing to do with the destruction. I guess UN would get all flustered but what can they do about it.
It really has to be stopped. Risky of course but the time has come.
Opinions please but not the "nothing to do with us" kind.
David

 

Opinions, as long as they dont disagree with yours?

 

Might help your credibility if you called it by its real name - Aleppo

 

Thanks guys - what pathetic responses. d

 

He's got a point though. You yourself said you didn't want any of the "nothing to do with us" kind.

 

And simultaneously start WW3? I doubt even Trump would advocate that course of action

 

The best thing for the people Syria would have been never to involve Russia or USA

Cos neither of them are likely to step down

 

What a pathetic first post.... youdo post alot of these stupid threads....

You cant post a thread and ask for people to only post opinions if they agree with yours

 

u.s.a and russia are only involved to protect there own interests oil pipes may be the reason u.s are involved to cut out russia. not so long ago the uk and other countries only had a few weeks of supply left as russia was threatening to cut off the supply not mentioned in the media ? no suprise .

 

If it makes you feel better you can reply saying it's nothing to do with us. But do note that I wasn't suggesting a UK involvement in my "pathetic post"


The reason I said that was that I am sickened by the view that its their problem so let then stew in their own juice. I just feel very strongly that bombing aid convoys is reprehensible. The people that take this view are selfish, heartless individuals - and that is my opinion. Deliberately starving, torturing and maiming human beings cannot go unchallenged.


And please tell me some of my other stupid threads which you refer to.


d

 

Wasn't it only last week that a uk drone strike killed Syrian soldiers ?

 

Yes 60 or so killed. It was an American led raid which the UK forces also took part in.

 

So, watching the news tonight. We have president Assad making public interviews/statements.


Then the USA has a random white house spokesperson making a statement.

What is more credible..the leader or the fall guy?

Obama received a "Peace prize"...isn't it about time he did something to deserve it?

IMO Obama has been the USA's most passive and uninfluential president to date. That's regardless of his inability to address foreign affairs in the Middle East.

 

^^^^ Trump will stir it up fo 'sho

 

Before we all disappear up our own grinners we need to have a look at both sides of the argument.

look what happened in the Balkans when Marshall Tito died?

What happened in Libya when we removed Gaddafi?

What happened in Iraq when Saddam was removed?

Let's have some more hey?

 

Could it actually get much worse though ?

 

With Russia powering up again militarily a direct clash betweem them and the USA is a prospect we should all fear. And if Trump gets in anything is possible.

 

trump has no intentions of taking on putin.
hillary on the other hand has already ruined 27 countries as secretary of state

 

Whilst I agree removing Assad would just be a repeat of previous disasters and power vacuums do those who are saying it's none of our business what is going on in Syria sit there and watch the news and think the bombing of civilians and aid convoys is tough luck let them get on with it?

Putin is getting away with murder as usual and whilst I don't want WW3 I would love to see him challenged and made to think does he risk continuing what he is doing. I've always believed he is a lunatic and the worst thing to happen to Russia since the fall of the USSR.

Russia are allowed to act with impunity and the UN and the rest of the World sit there and watch them get away with it. When is the international community going to stand up and grow some boll0x and do something to threaten Putin's rule in Russia if he doesn't reign it in?

 

^^^^


Well it seems quite acceptable to me for the US to state that they will offer air protection to the convoys.


Call the Russians' bluff if you like but these are WAR CRIMES being committed.


David

 

+1.

 

Russia now committing war crimes by bombing the 2 largest hospitals in Aleppo and the World stands by because all the World's leaders are too scared of Putin

 

What do you propose?

 

You are suggesting direct retaliation ?

can you see where that may end

 

so what is the point of the UN if no one can dare take action against Russia or anyone else powerful who decides to commit war crimes? Just have to sit back and do nothing because everyone is too scared? Might as well tear up the Geneva Convention then if you can't take action against those who break it.

How about the UN declares a no fly zone over Aleppo and if Russia defies it the first military jet that enters it gets shot down for being in a legal no fly zone. If it has international backing and not just done by the US then there is **** all Russia can do about it. But the international leaders won't grow a pair and stand up to Putin, they are all too scared of the playground bully. Makes a mockery of the UN and any so called rules of engagement when you have a nation that can do as it pleases and freely commits war crimes.

 

You do realise that Russia is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council? Are you suggesting that they'd pass a resolution against themselves?

 

No really? Funny, news to me that Russia has the overruling vote at the UN. It has the power to veto however how that can possibly be allowed is beyond me when it's veto is to allow itself to continue committing war crimes. And how does the UN stand when one of it's permanent member states is actively committing war crimes? Seemingly it does nothing. It's a toothless/spineless/hypocritical organisation when it has no actual power to deal with one of it's own members committing war crimes.

 

but it is not really that simple

yes Russia vetoes resolutions/actions that go against its national interest, but then so to the UK and the US

It is the problem with collective decision making that requires a unanimous vote

the UN is not perfect but it is the best we have

here is a list of vetoes

http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick

a quick scan with the Mark 1 eye ball suggest the USA has done most vetoing

 

I know it's a lot more complicated but it's the basic argument and principle. The organisation and it's effectiveness has to come into question when they can do nothing against one of their permanent members committing war crimes, the very thing the UN is there to stop.

 

Propose an alternative.