A message from Putin (A good read)

[Fjordsen]

An interesting plea of caution from the Russian president himself, Putin, to the american people.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=2&

It's a really good read for all you people observing international politics. The text only takes a minute or two to read trough.


Just a part I'd like to share for you people who decide not to read it.

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

People who might be interested:
@leftovers5 @MajorasMask

And please, do discuss but keep it civil.

 

[Xargun]

An interesting plea of caution from the Russian president himself, Putin, to the american people.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=2&

It's a really good read for all you people observing international politics. The text only takes a minute or two to read trough.


Just a part I'd like to share for you people who decide not to read it.

I read Putin's letter and although I do not agree with all of his points it is interesting reading and he does make a few good points.
Personally I think the time for us (I'm an American) to strike and hit Syria has passed - to much talk and to little action. We need to turn to diplomacy now. But I also think whoever used those weapons needs to be punished and not lightly. Using any WMD against anyone - enemies or civilians cannot be allowed at all.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Who's the honest, sincere, uncorrupt, democratically elected, human rights advocate, President of Russia? PUTIN! We love you, Putin! Share your wisdom with us, Putin!!!

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Your poll didn't have a "Participate in military actions against Assad" option. That would be my vote.

Moreover, "Allow military actions against Assad" doesn't make sense. The UN can't force anyone to NOT exercise military force against Assad.

 

[EvilThor]

All this syria stuff illustrates the problem with UN..
If you bypass the security council, you are "denying" them power, and destroy their purpose.
At the same time, the countries in the security council with the right to call a veto should never have that right.
The countries with that right is two current or old communistic states (that don't follow the human rights in many cases), they will always follow their own interests and alliances before thinking about the world security and wealth.

The security council should have given permission to strike assad's millitary bases (like airports, storages etc.)
But as said before in this thread, that's too late now. Now do the parts have to make a solution by themselves..

 

[Fjordsen]

Your poll didn't have a "Participate in military actions against Assad" option. That would be my vote.

Moreover, "Allow military actions against Assad" doesn't make sense. The UN can't force anyone to NOT exercise military force against Assad.

If a country that is apart of UN (Even a member of the security council) wages war on another country without permission from the UN, it defeats the entire purpose of having UN. Going against Assad now would destroy the region we today call the middle-east. Iran has already declared that they won't tolerate any military actions against Assad. Assad can and will drag Israel into the conflict if possible which WILL drag most arabian countries into it because as we all know, the Arabian countries are united by one thing: They hate the extremist zionists who occupy land they have no right to claim.

If you think consequense ethics, it's better to let Assad re-instate order instead of letting rebels tear the countries apart into different groups that all fight for the power (And the possibility of a region wide conflict). Remember that there are all sorts of rebels: Al Qaeda, Extremist muslims, Socialists, Democrats etc. Remember that all the weapons we send to support the rebels ends up in the hands of possible terrorist organizations (Just remember the Soviet - Afghan war where US supplied today's Al Qaeda) A continued conflict in Syria will lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths, while an end with one leader will bring a peace. Maybe a peace brought by supporting a dictator, but a peace nonetheless. Is it worth leading an entire region into war just to force democracy on a country that will tear itself apart once their old leader is dead? You may hate me for saying this, but it's better to choose the lesser evil. Kind of like how you americans decided to drop 2 nuclear bombs that killed 200K people instead of invading Japan which could have lead to 10+ million deaths.

Consequense ethics is a bitch because it makes you choose, but it's useful.

Who's the honest, sincere, uncorrupt, democratically elected, human rights advocate, President of Russia? PUTIN! We love you, Putin! Share your wisdom with us, Putin!!!

I wouldn't say any of the things mentioned above about the US government either except Democratically elected

 

[ZeZeene]

I read Putin's letter and although I do not agree with all of his points it is interesting reading and he does make a few good points.

Who's the honest, sincere, uncorrupt, democratically elected, human rights advocate, President of Russia? PUTIN! We love you, Putin! Share your wisdom with us, Putin!!!

Corrupt or not, valid points stay valid points.

All this syria stuff illustrates the problem with UN..
At the same time, the countries in the security council with the right to call a veto should never have that right.
The countries with that right is two current or old communistic states (that don't follow the human rights in many cases), they will always follow their own interests and alliances before thinking about the world security and wealth.

First of all, regardless of whether they are or were communistic, capitalistic or some strange sort of cheese-based economy, everyone always puts their own interest first. No exception.
Second, if you were to strip these two countries of their privileges as permanent Security Council members, you'd effectively render a third or even half of the world's population virtually powerless in these matters. In which case it'd hardly be the "United Nations" anymore, would it?

 

[Jack_Reacher]

I wouldn't say any of the things mentioned above about the US government either except Democratically elected

LOL - fair enough... but I think we do a hell of a lot better than Russia (and many, many other countries) when it comes to corruption and human rights.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Second, if you were to strip these two countries of their privileges as permanent Security Council members, you'd effectively render a third or even half of the world's population virtually powerless in these matters. In which case it'd hardly be the "United Nations" anymore, would it?

Well that's not a sound argument. There would still be plenty of world powers involved if Russia and China were kicked out. They never do anything good - they're always protecting dictators and vetoing stuff that has to do with human rights.

 

[EvilThor]

Corrupt or not, valid points stay valid points.


First of all, regardless of whether they are or were communistic, capitalistic or some strange sort of cheese-based economy, everyone always puts their own interest first. No exception.
Second, if you were to strip these two countries of their privileges as permanent Security Council members, you'd effectively render a third or even half of the world's population virtually powerless in these matters. In which case it'd hardly be the "United Nations" anymore, would it?

I'm not saying that it would be very wise to strip them of their rights, but I'm saying that when you got two countries who do NOT follow the human right convention who can lay down veto on all the questions, it makes the job very hard for all the other countries who rely on following the human right convention, (and make their decision from there).

In a perfect world should no county have the veto right in the security council..

 

[ZeZeene]

Well that's not a sound argument. There would still be plenty of world powers involved if Russia and China were kicked out. They never do anything good - they're always protecting dictators and vetoing stuff that has to do with human rights.

I'm not saying that it would be very wise to strip them of their rights, but I'm saying that when you got two countries who do NOT follow the human right convention who can lay down veto on all the questions, it makes the job very hard for all the other countries who rely on following the human right convention, (and make their decision from there).

In a perfect world should no county have the veto right in the security council..

Aha, now here's the tricky bit. You see, Russia and China weren't really involved much with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at all. So the important question here is: "Should we force our ideals upon a situation in a region that clearly has different ones?"
While I am an advocate for human rights in general, this is still a question we should ask ourselves, regardless of our sides in this conflict.

(Just a little sidenote: I am not explicitly taking anyone's side in the discussion here, merely trying to point out flaws in arguments and sparking more conversation)

 

[Fjordsen]

Well that's not a sound argument. There would still be plenty of world powers involved if Russia and China were kicked out. They never do anything good - they're always protecting dictators and vetoing stuff that has to do with human rights.

I'm not saying that it would be very wise to strip them of their rights, but I'm saying that when you got two countries who do NOT follow the human right convention who can lay down veto on all the questions, it makes the job very hard for all the other countries who rely on following the human right convention, (and make their decision from there).

In a perfect world should no county have the veto right in the security council..

US doesn't respect human rights themselves and have supported way more dictators than china and russia. Boom.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

US doesn't respect human rights

Well that's a huge generalization. There are some issues with privacy in the USA right now, as I'm sure you know. But to say that the US doesn't respect human rights is just slanderous and untrue.

 

[EvilThor]

US doesn't respect human rights themselves and have supported way more dictators than china and russia. Boom.

I am perfectly aware that USA in many cases break the human rights (like how they threat their prisoners, torture etc.), but US got a decent politic in most international cases of this calibre in the last time(ofc. with exceptions). The reason why I didn't mention US, is because US is surprisingly enough not the problem in this case (yet?).

 

[EvilThor]

Aha, now here's the tricky bit. You see, Russia and China weren't really involved much with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at all. So the important question here is: "Should we force our ideals upon a situation in a region that clearly has different ones?"
While I am an advocate for human rights in general, this is still a question we should ask ourselves, regardless of our sides in this conflict.

(Just a little sidenote: I am not explicitly taking anyone's side in the discussion here, merely trying to point out flaws in arguments and sparking more conversation)

All this can be shortened down to the question "do you care?"
ofc. we can let different cultures sail their own sea, and torture, massacre, abuse and in other way harm their own people in their path.

I see what you mean, and I agree with it to a certain point..
We should not force our representative democracy over the heads of other countries.
We should not make countries follow a specific politic.

We should however care when people get slaughtered by their own leaders, and when governments refuse to let their people live a life.

 

[leftovers5]

A line is crossed when a government very clearly uses chemical weapons against innocent people, including children. Assad's men wore gas masks as sarin gas killed people in the "trouble" neighborhoods for his regime.

When Clinton didn't choose to prevent the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 up to ONE MILLION people died as a result, having their appendages and heads wacked off. Who are we to let this happen when we clearly have the ability to prevent it? Or, at least, lower the death toll? Obviously it was not as complex of a situation, you don't need to point that out, but the principle still stands. The United States of America cherishes its values and doesn't take kindly to other nations clearly violating them.

I don't support the rebels, but the regime cannot be let to pass by scot-free when it suffocates its own people. The last times chemical weapons were used in mass were during Hitler's reign in the Holocaust and the Iran-Iraq War with Hussein and Khomeini. Assad needs to be punished and vindication has to be had.

I remain skeptical that he will hand over all of his weapons and that, if he does, it will be not be done in an efficient manner.

 

[Fjordsen]

A line is crossed when a government very clearly uses chemical weapons against innocent people, including children. Assad's men wore gas masks as sarin gas killed people in the "trouble" neighborhoods for his regime.

When Clinton didn't choose to prevent the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 up to ONE MILLION people died as a result, having their appendages and heads wacked off. Who are we to let this happen when we clearly have the ability to prevent it? Or, at least, lower the death toll? Obviously it was not as complex of a situation, you don't need to point that out, but the principle still stands. The United States of America cherishes its values and doesn't take kindly to other nations clearly violating them.

I don't support the rebels, but the regime cannot be let to pass by scot-free when it suffocates its own people. The last times chemical weapons were used in mass were during Hitler's reign in the Holocaust and the Iran-Iraq War with Hussein and Khomeini. Assad needs to be punished and vindication has to be had.

I remain skeptical that he will hand over all of his weapons and that, if he does, it will be not be done in an efficient manner.

You forget that the US is the worst nation at interfering in different culture countries politics. Remember Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran (Helping the Shah to power), Iraq and Afghanistan. American intervention lead to unecessary high death tolls and years of dictatorship.

The only good thing US did in those wars was helping South Korea, but by saying that, I should also mention that North Korea was left in chaos.

There is yet to be seen decisive evidence that either Assad or the rebels used gas.

I'm glad US has a more coolheaded president now than in the past. Otherwise US might have banzai-charged Syria by now and caused millions of deaths and a regional war.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

You forget that the US is the worst nation at interfering in different culture countries politics. Remember Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran (Helping the Shah to power), Iraq and Afghanistan. American intervention lead to unecessary high death tolls and years of dictatorship.

If mistakes were made in the past (each of your examples can be debated as "mistakes" or not) that should not stop us from doing what is right.

 

[Fjordsen]

If mistakes were made in the past (each of your examples can be debated as "mistakes" or not) that should not stop us from doing what is right.

Clearly the US is incapable of dealing with situations like this with all those failurers in the near past. I wouldn't risk millions of lives to save thousands of lives.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

Clearly the US is incapable of dealing with situations like this with all those failurers in the near past. I wouldn't risk millions of lives to save thousands of lives.

Well now you sound like a borg.