In hopes of garnering more support the UN dropped possible sanctions vs Syria if they don't comply with the investigation into their support of the murder recently.

It would appear Syria and Iran are doing all they can to upset the ole applecart lately huh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5381888,00.html

Fandros

The UN passed this measure in the past few hours. Now to see if Syria will comply or test the resolve of the war weary UN.

Fandros

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 31 (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution on Monday demanding Syria cooperate with a U.N. probe into the death of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri or face possible future actions.

The resolution was adopted 15-0 after principal drafters the United States and France agreed to delete a specific reference to economic sanctions and instead said the council would consider possible unspecified further action if Syria did not comply. So Syria has about ten years before they really need to start listening, or else. Phew! glad that's taken care of.

Aye, originally Russia and China took exception to the resolution due to it containing the terminology that would result in immediate sanctions.

Russia is a long time ally of Syria's and likely would have abstained at best.

My question is, does this mean a full blown investigation? Or we going to send in folks to peer at it for 10 years, as Akipt eluded to?

Fandros

Syrians Proclaim Their Nation's Innocence

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_re_mi_ea/syria_un_lebanon

"The Security Council resolution was unjust. Syria could not have possibly betrayed Lebanon," said Hassoun, clutching a Syrian flag. She added she was not worried about possible U.N. action against her country, saying: "We have done nothing wrong." Well, she's right not to be worried anyway.

The United Nations is a joke. They have no real power, and they stay hand tied because of political alliances. They need a complete overhaul before any nation will take them seriously. The Syrians SHOULD be open to the investigation if they have nothing to hide howerver. Their reluctance paints them in a bad light.

I'd have to agree that the UN is often a powerless guppy in a tank full of sharks.

We need to push the pressure ourselves, along with allies and hope for the best.

Fandros

Wow, after reading the info from this link I begin to see why some NeoDoves are so...well wacked out. Talk about misconstruing info and putting to their own use.

Antiwar.com sounds like a breeding ground for....tinfoil hats.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=7804

Fandros

Fandros, why must you and many others insist that everyone who espouses some position must be a liberal or conservative. Just because someone may be anti war does not make them a liberal. I resent it very much. I am pro military strength, and pro deterrant, but I am absolutely anti pre emptive war and I am a fiscal republican. Stop the stereotypes.

Point taken, changed my term from Neolibs to Neodoves.

Sorry about that.

Fandros

Phel, did you read the article by chance? Or just take umbrage against me merely because we've differing viewpoints lately?

Fandros

Yup the UN is pretty much useless. Personally I am more interested in Syria's involvement in the insurgent activity in Iraq. It seems that most of the insurgents are coming from Syria and they are doing nothing about it.

Personally I think we should bomb them. Send over B52's for about a month or three. Not send in troops, just bomb them. If they refuse to stop the flow in insurgents bomb them more.

I'd say about the same for Iran but the youth there doesn't seem to like the hardline Islamic extremism for the most part. We should at least however launch a surgical strike and knock out their nuclear capabilities.

Either way we're gonna have to do it someday. The UN moves like molasses uphill in January.

I read the article, and thanks for the link, btw.

There was a smorgasbord of items to discuss in that piece, but a few stood out blatantly.

1. While the term a "strategic opportunity" was used by an official to describe the situation, the writer of the article took it upon himself (such arrogance) to assign a definition to those words that would fit with his treatise, saying it meant we were going to engage in military aggression. As most of us know who visit these boards and post in guild forums or talk to others in games, it is EXTREEEEEEEEMLY frustrating having folks redefine what we are saying based on their own thinking, rather than allowing we might mean something different. Having seen this in the first part of the article, it would be easy to simply dismiss the entire piece as nonsense.

2. If Condi did indeed state publicly that it was our intent to reshape the region, that would be an incredible case of putting one's foot in one's mouth. The art of war, whether diplomatic or military, precludes sharing your intent with foes.

3. The point regarding Syria not securing it's borders has always been an ironic one, because like it is noted in the article the U.S. cannot secure it's own borders, and yet is demanding that another country to so with it's own. Granted, the sheer size of those borders in terms of linear miles is a vast difference when comparing Syria to America, but the difficulty in preventing movement across borders is such an obvious one to us that we really have no business demanding it of any other country.

This was an interesting read, and shows that both sides have people who are skilled at spinning and inciting.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/09/MNG6TFL27R1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Looks like the Iraqi's and such are going to take up a more defensive stance on the Syrian border.

Fandros