Question on internal law: do UN resolutions have an expiry date? That is, since UNSCR 1973 has been granted, can NATO continue bombing forever under this mandate?

The mandate did expire but it was extended there were several all out pushes(carpet bombings,mercenary landings etc) to wrap everything up before that date also Sarkozy wanted a victory parade before Bastille day.In fact the whole resolution is complete and utter nonsense the campaign was planned well beforehand and the invasion(sorry humanitarian intervention/kinetic sculpture/armed conflict) goes ahead anyway regardless of the fig leaf.

I don’t see the problem in getting rid of a beast like Gadaffi. One has to remember that some NATO countries were already involved by supporting him. After all we were buying his oil thus pumping money into his coffers, and some former senior western politicians and MI6 seem to have been working quite actively in his support. Besides I recall the innocent British policewoman murdered two decades ago and the Lockerbie victims. Two wrongs may not usually make a right; but in Gadaffi’s case I think they do.

Article by Mahdi Darius Nezmoyha on the same subject I really admire Mahdi for maintainig independent journalism throughout this conflict.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26774.

Mr Murray,
.
If I may at all I wish to disagree with you on this one. Here is much more in Russian/Chinese vetoing resolution on Syria than any fear of NATO killing Syrians. As you well know Russian government itself brought much more destruction to its own population in Chechnya and no doubt China will do the same if anything ‘goes wrong’ in Kashgar. This as Russian/Chinese response to the Andijan Tragedy can only be viewed from the prism of geopolitical struggle over influence. Both Russia and China will always support any regime that allows them to participate in money making or money laundering or allows them to use territory for geopolitical influence. What we are heading towards is new Cold War with US/EU and probably India on one side and Russia/China on another. There will be much more bloody proxy wars between or within dictatorships and this will least benefit poorest nations.
.
As for UN I think it is very bleeding obvious that nowadays UN continue to serve only its 5 masters who are permanent members of the security council. It is hard to find any more useLESS organisation than UN today.
.
Regime change is always a struggle. No Assad or Karimov will give up their powers without having soaked it in human blood. But in Syria at present the same things are going on as were in Andijan and Russia and China once again prolonging lifespan of another brutal dictatorship.

Roderick, you seem to be conflating ‘Gadaffi’ with ‘Libya’. What is the ‘right’ that is made by the killing of children in Sirte? Even leaving aside the fact that there are questions over who killed PC Fletcher, and, to say the least, doubts over Libyan involvement in Lockerbie*, how many more people than that have been killed by NATO in Libya? Or do you think 300 white Europeans are worth more than several tens of thousands of Arab and black Africans?
.
Your principle error is to think that what NATO has done to Libya is ‘getting rid of Gadaffi’. It’s not. What they’re doing is ‘taking control of Libya’. What do you mean by ‘beast’? Do you actually know anything about this matter?
.
* see http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi

Craig
Your comments about Susan Rice lead me to ask something which has probably been in many people’s minds. Where politicians seem genuinely decent people, and yet go along with crimes like this, do they really not understand what they’re doing? In other words, are they stupid or are they wicked?
.
My conclusion is that the two overlap, and generally there’s an element of each. But there are cases like Obama where it’s very hard to say he’s stupid. Is he not paying attention? Does he think US hegemony is worth the price? I know politicians are constrained by electoral and other practical considerations, but even if they have a lot on their plate and accept unquestioningly what they’re told about ‘OMG, Mr President, there’s going to be a massacre, we gotta DO something’, by the time it comes to bombing TV studios and hospitals and massacring the people of Sirte, don’t they pause and say, hold on, this isn’t right?
.
What goes on in these people’s heads?

Anon – When you pump oil trillions into the pockets of a dictator like Gadaffi, you are already involved with him – they use this money to buy arms, to hire mercenaries and secret police thugs, to buy support from other politicians, army officers, bureaucrats and judges. Add to that the support that former top NATO politicians were giving him covertly (for a fee perhaps) and MI6’s support. This was just a case of two wrongs making a right in my view.

As for the Lockerbie killings, I am not suggesting that the evidence was there to honestly convict al-Megrahi. Indeed, it does seem quite likely that he was framed . Not to suggest that Gadaffi wasn’t behind the Lockerbie mass murders – rather just to suggest that though they got the right principle (Gadaffi), they framed the operative. I am sorry Anon, but I am absolutely bloody appalled that senior former politicians and MI6 were involved just a few months ago supporting this monster Gadaffi. I do hope that Libya ends up with its people running things and not BP/MI6.

How much of Susan Rice’s job is about Israel?’
by Philip Weiss on September 20, 2011
.

“A lot.” (Uriel Heilman at JTA had an interview with Rice and asked her that very smart question. Another price we pay.)
.
Chaos4700 September 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm
What’s she going to do? If she doesn’t do what she’s paid to do, the people who hired her will fire her, right?
What, did you think she was working for the United States? That’s a novel idea now, isn’t it.
.
Stating the obvious
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/how-much-of-susan-rices-job-is-about-israel.html

“the several motives”
.
Could you expand on that at all?
.
There’s no direct mention of Libya in the equivalent Chinese statement.

http://www.china-un.org/chn/hyyfy/t865014.htm

‘The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14′
.
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)
.
Foreword
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:
/….
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

As regards Lockerbie I cant imagine why Gadaffi would shoot down a plane in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner.Libya has always been easy to bombhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6797831.ece…..

“Arguably, that could feed in to the several motives they had for not really trying to stop NATO in Libya…”
.
You spotted that one Craig, well done. Now, don`t forget this one
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Tartus?qsrc=3044#Russian_naval_base

Rejoice – Craig Murray and the lovely Putin cut off the Syrian nose to spite the British, French and American face.

There are many dubious propositions in the Russian argument.

The powers in the Kremlin know precisely what to say to appeal to western critical voices. Their aim is to weaken western institutions so as to create a vast Eurasian space dominated by the Kremlin, and they hate democratic governments.

Their real fear is their own power. That is why they don’t want any more uprisings against tyranny in Syria. Their declared arguments are not real arguments. They are just words. They are not in a position to object in any principled way to western ‘aggression.’ They lack the illocutionary force though they are granted rights in the security council.

@DLJ – you might want to read this briefly, it speaks to Craig’s objection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

They may be right about certain facts, though the full sorry justification is entirely constructed to talk up the illusory prospects for some kind of dialogue and to shift responsibility for the violence from Assad and his goons to bandits who are, it is suggested, smuggling in weapons and causing the trouble. This is really ludicrous, when all the world world knows that the Assad regime is extremely cruel and barbaric, off the scale in fact, except if you compare it to Putin’s beloved KGB, whose litany of cruelty will probably never be surpassed in all of human history.

Ok, so we will see how Russia’s oh so principled stance contributes ‘to the maintenance of international peace and security.’ Their ‘victory’ at the SC is completely pyrrhic, as is the crowing on this blog of these anti-western obsessives, conspiracy nuts. My prediction is that the Russian approach to Syria will fail, the conflict will not stop, and that the issue of Syria will appear and reappear in the corridors of the UNSC until Assad falls. Just like Putin’s, his system is doomed to collapse.

It’s a bit ‘shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted’, isn’t it? Russia could have vetoed UNSC 1973, as could have China, but they bottled it, only abstaining, thus letting it be carried.

Any ideas as to why they didn’t use their veto?

Thanks Craig for the translation.

The Russians must have been sorely tempted to allow NATO once more to waste its substance and credibility- amongst sensible people- by letting it have its silly way in Syria.

After all part of the reason why the whole Arab world is shaking is that 99% of the population understand that US/NATO motives are never good. This makes any regime supporting the West, dependent upon it because it immediately loses any credibility domestically. It was the counter revolution which spread a movement that the revolution started: the prospects of America’s allies in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates and Jordan have never been so dim. And the attack on Libya, as well as the subservience towards Israel, is a large part of the reason why.

Interestingly the uzbaki government and obama administration recently renewed their cozy relationship. There are now moves to reopen american base in uzbekistan. Russia’s response to this was cold, and pro kremlin channell rt has aired rather unique criticism towards uzbeks
http://rt.com/news/uzbekistan-child-labor-cotton-987/

Hullo Craig,
.
Hats off to Susan Rice’s commitment to whatever, but in the world of the sharp-end-of-the-stick she will do precisely what her masters order, and commitment be damned. A fig for it.
.
And her masters are whom? Who controls US foreign policy? Or to put it another way, can anyone remember the last time the US did something that was in their own interests? How are US interests served by bringing down Assad? Who does have an interest in Syria’s destabilisation/balkanisation?
.
Again the US golem lurches off for another pointless war, with no reasoning in its head beyond, “Well, if I’m doing it, it must be right.” Eliyahu nods his head. And Susan Rice walks out.

The Russian argument is strong. Doesn’t get around the fact that the Russians have a very dubious record when it comes to support for the Assad clan in Syria. Who’s side are you on, Craig? The protestors or the Syrian government?

Whoops – “whose not “who’s”

Hopefully one day soon the US will be isolated enough for Russia to submit a resolution referring aggression charges against President Obama to the ICC, forcing the US to veto it, and organizing a 377 ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution in the General Assembly condemning his criminal war and war crimes.

This isn’t team sports, Alan, there are no sides to which you can confidently throw your support and eventually argue that – in the end – you were right all along.
.
Why do you assert an either-or between support for the protestors OR support for the Syrian government, based on whether or not the Russian argument happens to be true? This is known as a False Dichotomy, a well known refuge of the intellectually dishonest.
*
This might interest those with a slight bent towards logic/maths. What AC is proposing here would be the following:
.
We have – by AC logic – an _exclusive OR_ between the follow:
.
Either : (Support for protestors) AND (Russians are wrong/Bad)
OR : (Support for Syrian dictators) AND (Russians are right/Good).
.
To make it more clear, Alan Campbell is pretending that you have to do one of the following
(a) support Syrian protestors and totally condemn the Russians in general, and as a consequence their argument too, and in conclusion take it take we, NATO and the US were right all along;
OR
(b) support the Russian argument, drag all their baggage into the equation as something you suddenly need to defend too, and consequently support the oppression of the Syrian protestors.
.
This is an example of a false dichotomy. It is also a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty, because Campbell cannot claim outright stupidity and ignorance in the posing of such a question, which would be the most generous interpretation of his post.

Dear Craig,

Could you clarify something for me? The media is saying that the text of the draft Resolution had been watered down to remove all references to sanctions. I have read somewhere (I have forgotten where) that whilst the text does not refer to sanctions as such it does refer to Article 41 of the UN Charter, which is the Article that gives the Security Council the power to impose sanctions. In other words contrary to what the media seem to be saying the proposed Resolution would have opened the way to sanctions and especially in the light of what happened with Resolution 1973 this was probably the reason why the Russians and the Chinese vetoed it and why the Brazilians, Indians and South Africans refused to support it. If this is correct then the claim that the Resolution was watered down to remove all reference to sanctions is to put it mildly disingenuous and what would appear to have happened is that the words were adjusted but the meaning and purpose of the Resolution were unaffected. It so then the story of the Resolution is being falsely spun.

Turning to another point I understand that the Americans and British walked out in response to the comments of the Syrian ambassador not the Russian ambassador. Having said this the spectacle of senior diplomats representing Great Powers storming out in a huff from a meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations seems to me childish and petulant. It smacks of a spoilt child throwing a tantrum when its lollipop is taken away.

‘ The world must abolish such practises once and for all.’
What? Blatant lying which discredits world powers? We will all be expected to be overjoyed when the apparatus of the New Masonic World Order, which will we are all going to believe in and vote for, takes over. When it comes, we will be crying for a bit of good old-fashioned hypocrisy, lies and spin.

Call me an eco-nutter if you like, but at what point dare we stop and say that bombing the shit out of oil-rich countries to keep the lorries running on the M6, and whitewashing it by supporting solar microgeneration, is total lies and hypocrisy and spin. Russia can pick up Brownie points for talking about civilians in Libya and Syria, fuck ‘em. But when are we going to tie up and gag co-gay-antique-dealers-from Brighton Cameron and Clegg for wheeling out all this crap about green Britain. It makes you sick to listen.

Dear Craig,

I just want to add one point. Some of your respondents have expressed cynicism about Russia’s motives. However Brazil, India and South Africa, all of which are democracies and none of which have the same close relations with Syria that Russia does, also refused to support the Resolution. The brief summaries of what their ambassadors said that I found on the UN website suggest that their objections to the Resolution were essentially the same as Russia’s.

@ Uzbek in UK,

You say: ” As for UN I think it is very bleeding obvious that nowadays UN continue to serve only its 5 masters who are permanent members of the security council. It is hard to find any more useless organisation than UN today.”

But, if the UN as it exists were abolished tomorrow – don’t you think that immediately thereafter the world would be seeking a world body to perform similar and necessary functions and a role in the global community?

Surely, the Russians have their interests – a base in Syria; the Chinese too – some 35,000 present in Libya at the start of the Libyan war; the US and NATO – some contracts coming up for renewal and Gadaffi not shaping up to be good “house boy” – so bomb him out – install puppets – get the oil.

Don’t you believe that all powers have their angles and their interests?

You go on to say, ” Regime change is always a struggle. No Assad or Karimov will give up their powers without having soaked it in human blood” So I ask:-

i) By what lawful authority was this regime change authorised – surely not UN Resolutions 1970 – or – 1973?
ii) With what popular support is a new “bombed in” regime to be able to sustain itself or come out victorious in an election – if the base popular support is not there in Libya to either support it in the majority – or – elect it freely and fairly into government?
iii) What legitimacy can conceivably be conferred on a process where bombs take the lives of Libyan civilians, when the West has confiscated billions, and drawn more blood than ever was occasioned at the point of the pre-emptive strike by NATO that commenced the war and has stirred civil war?
I merely observe – it is an ill war that bombs no one good.

But, Uzbek, all said – and still more war to be done – I do agree with you on one thing – it is indeed a bloody situation, by way of what you so accurately observed – “having soaked it in human blood” ( we can agree on the “it” being – Libya.

“However Brazil, India and South Africa, all of which are democracies and none of which have the same close relations with Syria that Russia does, also refused to support the Resolution..”

Sadly those countries, South Africa in particular,can almost always be relied upon to back dictatorships.

Just look at India’s record on Burma; South Africa on Zimbabwe.

That’s a rather silly point, Alan. India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours.

The outrageousness of Iraq Afghanistan Philistine and now Libya, and the activities of the Masonic Zorld Order like the UN and NATO and the USSR in Chechnya, is used as a form of essence of evil in black magic to de-stabilise the psychology of ordinary citizens.
We are unable to take in the vast complicity of sheer evil that our familiar politicians are participating in. The Libyans are the victims, but we JoeBloggs ordinary people are the target of the Zorld Order psy-ops game. We feel powerless in the face of unbelievable greed, corruption and collective state violence.
To compound the problem, within the very institutions that ordinary people turn to for support, such as ‘democracy’ the church, or even Islam, we find that they are run by psychopaths of the same kind. The self-apppointed leaders of Islam run programs of spying, deception, bad behaviour to psychologically stress out ordinary believers and prepare them acting out their Islamist agenda. The church is and always has been and always will be visibly corrupt to all observers who have a shred of integrity. The idea of encapsulating the Holy Spirit into drinkable blood/wine is about as Satanic a ritual you ever could find.
Mind control is the essence of the raw game of politics.
The bombs are there to intimidate us, and make us more compliant to the financial lobotomy, the removal of all economic power, or intellectual power, from us the citizens to the grasping hands of Thatcher’s spawn of Zio=banking Masonic ghouls.

“India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours…”

Oh, of course. Silly me. That makes supporting dictators alright then.

Seems to me the Libyan adventure was seen by Cameron and Sarkozy as an ‘easy win – low hanging fruit’ a way to gain kudos as low cost. Would have worked had Libya been like Egypt but instead of giving up once it was obvious Gadaffi was a harder nut it was ‘I’ve started so I’ll finish’ and it’s not finished yet.

As for Syria, I cannot understand why Assad made the mistake of severe repression. There are plenty of ways to give the illusion of democracy without giving up real power. Perhaps the Russians will help Assad re-establish his severely dented credibility. Syria certainly does not need NATO sticking its nose in. Then there is the question of just how free do we Westerners (and Easterners) want oil-producing countries to be?

pretty disgusting
.
As was Barry making him leave through the garbage heap.
.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/back_door_dalai_not_so_grand_exit_MHe5umYwtJffh3pymuRIJN

The UN has always been a toy of the US.I don’t think it should surprise anyone that when the US does not get its way,it stops playing.I find it pathetic however that diplomats walk out and do not listen to argument and speeches from countries that they don’t agree with unless they are only there to dictate.
How resolution 1973 could be stretched to bomb and kill one side in a civil war is beyond me.Why the UN has permitted their resolution to be misinterpreted on this scale is also a mystery,unless they support the bombing of civilian infrastructure and the civilian population that do not support the side which NATO has armed and supported.
The hypocrisy of the US anger re: the resolution for Syria after all their vetoes in the past is laughable.I feel for the Syrian people being the pawns at the UN,but I trully believe that the US is as interested in the civilians of Syria,as they were for those of Libya,Somalia,Afghanistan,Iraq,Yemen and Pakistan where they are currently bombing and killing them or the civilians of Vietnam that were carpet bombed in the 70′s.
In the end there will be less killing if the US(NATO) stay out of their business.

This morning Rosemary Hollis (now of City University and previously of Chatham House) was the warm up act on Radio 4 Today for Tzipi Livni who is meeting Hague in London. Syria was demonized. Evan Davis interviewed Livni who has escaped arrest for her war crimes in Cast Lead since the ConDems changed the law on universal jurisdiction. The Arab Spring was discussed and its effect on Israel. She held forth with the usual script …… little Israel surrounded by enemies, blah blah. Davis had the gall to wish her a good time whilst she was in London. No doubt she will be visiting the luxury goods purveyors in Bond Street and Knightsbridge.
.

Looking for the link which is not up yet I see I missed this yesterday on the same programme.
.
0745
Thought for the Day with Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks.
!!

The war criminals are also hypocrites.

.
TEL AVIV, Israel (Ma’an) — Israeli officials will temporarily lift a ban on agricultural exports from the Gaza Strip to allow the entry of palm fronds used to mark a Jewish holiday, a newspaper report said Wednesday.
/….
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=426506

From the MediaLens editors -
.
Guardian’s ‘neutral’ take on Syria resolution
Posted by The Editors on October 6, 2011, 8:37 am
,
Ian Black:
.
‘This is bad news for protesters in Syria, where at least 2,700 have been killed since March, and bad news for those who yearn for a UN that can prove effective, if not in tackling all the world’s ills at once, then at least in responding to one of its most glaring and urgent injustices.
.
‘The chorus of condemnation from western capitals sounded genuine. Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s ambassador to the UN, expressed outrage. “This will be seen in the region as a decision to side with a brutal regime rather than with the people of Syria,” complained William Hague, “and will be a bitter blow to all those Syrians who have implored the international community to take a stand.” France’s Alain Juppé found the veto “deplorable”. Privately, but fairly openly, the Russians were accused of being hypocritical and cynical.’
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/oct/05/syria-protests-un-analysis
.
Compare with Craig Murray:
.
{http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/10/diplomatic-blowback/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter}

Enough to make you sick hearing twinkle tits ask bomber Lipni noncholant questions, not a single challenging issue, as if Israel is at ease with itself and has no worries at all.

Any Israeli politicians, serving or not, can come here, knock on BBC doors and get instant service from our public broadcaster. Now cue any other EU politician and then wait for Evans lay into them hell for leather, just as he is told by his handlers.

Did not bother to listen to Lord schmoozer Sucks ‘thoughts for our day to come’. Lets say I should be sorry about my typo’s, but…..

The trouble is with the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, it is only effective as the member states allow it to be. Member countries who don’t comply, like the UK and US in Iraq, Israel in Palestine, Nazi Germany in Czechoslovakia, Japan in China, Italy in Ethiopia, and others, let the whole entity down. There should be hefty fines for non-compliance. All statements like ‘creating a no fly-zone’ should be qualified so that everybody understands it actually means ‘bombing the shit out of them’ and they should say that instead of using euphemisms which have no meaning in fact. But there does need to be a restructuring of the Security Council. The US and UK are as one, and should only have one vote. Australasia should be represented at top level, as should the Middle East and Africa. This will not cure the world’s problems but it would be fairer. The Russian Federation has been quite right to vote against NATO intervention in Syria because of the Libyan example, and to explain why. The pity is this was not done before NATO’s attempts top get its hands on Libyan oil at whatever cost to human suffering and infrastructures. Good post Craig.

What common sense both the Russians and Craig Murray speak in these matters of Syria and Libya.

The US and NATO have only ever had two prime motivations in their recent policies in the Middle East in respect of countries like Libya, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Pakistan, Bahrain. The first is control of oil with unimpeded availability and at an acceptable price desirable to Western economies. The second is enabling Israel’s ambitions to extend its borders, and to disrupt neighbouring states in order to minimise the prospect of co-ordinated opposition. The rest of the rhetoric from the US and NATO is largely irrelevant, except in defining the means to these two ends.

If a country’s population wishes to embark on regime change internally or to seek to remove invader-occupiers, then such is the stuff of history and politics. For sure Russia will have a point of view in such matters, as will other big players like China and India, but as a mature nation Russia is right to stop the UN from being used by the US and NATO as an authority simply to rubber-stamp their own military actions for their own politically motivated strategic ambitions.

Just because we write large cheques to buy a country’s oil does not entitle us to meddle in their internal affairs.

What annoys me about this debate, and particularly those who oppose the intervention in Libya, and who agree with the Russian statement is the complete lack of expressed concern for the people of Syria. You can decry the UN but it is the only representative body of the whole planet. Whether we like it or not, we are all one.

Western democracies historically, particularly since the Vietnam war have on many occasions been guilty of massive crimes against civilians, particularly in that war and in Central America and in Iraq.

But what attitude do you propose that we adopt to the people of Syria, or those of Libya had there been no intervention?

Should we just forget about them like we did about people from Darfur and Burundi?

Susan Rice supports demonstrations in Syria while her government arrests 700 peaceful demonstraters in New York. Funny that?

Tony From Uxbridge: “Just because we write large cheques to buy a country’s oil does not entitle us to meddle in their internal affairs.”
Isn’t that the reason for the meddling – the large cheques? Regime change is not the real purpose of NATO’s actions – it’s to get cheaper oil – or even free oil. NATO is the villain in all this, it is the godfather of world villainy. What it wants it takes with arms. Armed robbery, like the Great Train Robbery, is peanuts to the attempted robberies of NATO. Every day they fill me with disgust.

Conjunction. I understand your concerns for Syria and the Syrian people. But the devastation, killing, maiming and bombardment by NATO has set brother against brother, torn families apart, left families grieving. I will re-post this short video which Mary first posted. Is this what you want for the Syrian people?
.
http://12160.info/video/terrifying-nato-cluster-bomb-in-libya-raw-footage?xg_source=activity

The Guardian seems to be unable to hire even basically competent hacks to write its propaganda. The article cited by Mary above claims that Russia and China voted for UNSCR1973.

If their quotation from Amnesty International is correct, it’s a pity. If AI are so in favour of the defeated resolution they ought to be criticising NATO for perverting UNSCR1973 and thus forcing the veto of its Syrian twin.

Thank you for clarifications Mr Murray. It is clearer to me now what you meant.
.
Although, I think that it was obvious for both China and Russia that NATO will never limit their military action by airstrikes to enforce no-fly zone and protect civilians. I think it was clear to both China and Russia that regime change in Libya was pretty much what NATO wanted (particularly taking into consideration relationship between ‘Mad Dog’ and various US presidents). Both China and Russia did not veto UN resolution on Libya and my reading of the situation is that ‘something’ was promised to them. It is believed that US rarely make any concessions either diplomatic or in business BUT this time I strongly believe that ‘something’ was promised to these two.
.
This ‘something’ was not enough this time as both China and Russia vetoed UN resolution on Syria. It is pretty much this simple in current world order. Hidden agendas and backroom deals are real instruments of policy making on global scale. And Russia is now trying to explain their veto as USSR did many times before in the UN history. This will work for some, particularly for those Russians who still believe that Russia is great power and those who believe that Russian mission is counter balance whatever West comes up with.

I still believe that UN consists of bunch of pencil pushers and NOTHING else. In my memory this club of useLESS pencil pushers DID NOT come up with anything that saved lives. In Africa and in Asia millions have been slathered while these bunch of pencil pushers attended meetings wearing black/dark blue suits and set up useLESS agendas and adopt something on the paper which extremely rarely works out to be useful.
.
Someone mentioned here that UN represents whole world. Whilst it looks like this, in reality UN serves only to its 5 masters who can overturn any decision and push forward their own agenda. UN needs reformation and this will not come easy. My believe is that UN security council should be abolished and all 5 members should be stripped off their permanent membership privilege. Every decision should be made based on simple quantitative majority. If every state represented in the UN is equally sovereign (which at least on the paper seems to be true) then every state’s opinion on each matter should be counted. Saying this it will complicate situation because more states in the world today and most certainly most of the people in the world are stripped off their right to participate in decision making of their own governments as their states are run by various dictatorships that DO NOT require mandate to govern. Hence, before UN can represent every nation in the world, every nation in the world HAS to be represented by their people and not just by bunch of corrupt and quite often bloody thugs. Otherwise, I DO NOT see any use of the opinion stating that UN represents whole world as at present it is not true.
.
The other problem that comes up forward is the problem of International law that arises from above mentioned problem of UN and its functions. It is true today that millions of people are allowed to live under oppressive governments just because International law calls for UNCONDITIONAL respect of sovereignty. So putting it in other words is bunch of thugs (Karimov or Assad alike) have managed to kill all opponents and eradicate any oppositional thoughts WITHIN their country then they are ALLOWED to continue to govern, kill, rob, rape, enrich themselves JUST BECAUSE of principle of UNCONDITIONAL respect of sovereignty. This is the world we are living in. Is this GOOD? Who cares?

Uzbek. Unconditional love means: I do whatever I like and you have to follow the rules. Unconditional respect for sovereignty is simkilarly one-sided. We intervene for oil. You have to remove your hijab in our public buildings. The concept of unconditionality is directly opposite to the religious concept of conditionality of good behaviour leading to the reward of heaven.
That’s why the World Ziorder of Masonic satanists, i.e. UN and NATO don’t like Islam.

The Russians or the Chinese would be insane to support any resolution ever again that could possibly give Nato and the US a pretext, excuse, or UN ‘cover’ to launch an attack another country.

One can imagine a situation where Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, or Venezuela might find themselves in line for pro-western regime change, or even China itself at some future date, perhaps in relation to Tibet or Taiwan.

One thing’s perfectly clear, neither China or Russia trust the Americans and are extremely wary of them.

Anno,
.
By UNCONDITIONAL sovereignty I mean that sovereignty of the state is put before well being of citizens of the state and that this sovereignty CANNOT be breached even if people are being slathered within the borders of this state. That is what International Law prescribes to all humans in the world. So basically if you were born in lets say UK you are lucky one and if you were born in Uzbekistan/Syria/Zimbabwe you are UNlucky one because International Law will protect BUT not you but sovereignty of the state where you live. And this is Unconditionally to whether you are well within the borders of that state or NOT.
.
As for religion. I might be wrong but was not religion the main reason of wars in the few thousand years? Yes, 2 World Wars were nothing to do with religion and particularly with Islam but stating that being Good Muslim guarantees one a place in Heaven this is a bit of naive. I have nothing against people who believe in this, but I myself believe in Freedom and this contradicts every religious books and dogmas.

‘“India shares borders with Burma, and S.A. with Zimbabwe. Obviously they need to be cautious about their relationships with their neighbours…”

Oh, of course. Silly me. That makes supporting dictators alright then.’

India & South Africa have no interest in antagonising the dictators on their borders, and brown nose them occasionally as a consequence.

The US in contrast brown noses dictators on the other side of the world, like Karimov & the House of Saud. Is that preferable ?

Evan Davis with Rosemary Hollis and Tzipi Livni (referred to earlier) on Radio 4 Today.
1hr 33mins in on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006qj9z/console
.
I can’t find it now but Davis introduced an item on Afghanistan by saying ‘Guess how long we have been in Afghanistan?’ as if it is some sort of social affair or tea party. Some of these BBC types are shallow and lacking in both humanity and soul. 2,000 jobs to go. Bet it won’t be any of the Radio 4 Today team of presenters.

Another illustration of the BBC mindset on our wars. No mention of those we have killed and maimed, in thousands I should think.
.
5 October 2011 UK military deaths in AfghanistanIn pictures
How they died
Full list
The UK’s military role in Afghanistan since 2001 has not been without its human toll. Members of the Army, RAF, Royal Marines and special forces have lost their lives in the fight against the Taliban. Here, the BBC News website offers a look at who they were and how they died.
.
Click on the photographs below to find out more information on each casualty.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10634173

Conjunction
.
The whole point is concern for the people of Syria, that their country should not be turned into Iraq mkIII.
.
Did you not see the reports that Russia proposed a text which called for restraint on all sides in Syria, and specifically said that foreign military intervention was not appropriate. Why wouldn’t Barry and Nick and Dave agree to that?

The whole situation from Libya to Syria is quite tragic.

The Libyan situation, in particular, would cause one to laugh if it were not all so tragic. A country is in peace; some dissent existed; no massacre was occasioned; NATO intervenes and massacres and destroys the country and its established government; then NATO pronounces victory:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDvFl0LqPOs

This MediaLens contributor has collated this list of all the NATO aggression in Libya. An amazingly long record.
.
NATO Rejects Every Attempt Made to Declare a Ceasefire in Libya – PLEASE READ
Posted by Plus Ultra on October 6, 2011, 2:38 pm
.
This is a list of key ceasefire moments that I have been collating over the last few months. It really does portray the west as entirely callous and acting against all good conscience. A sobering read:
.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1317908295.html

In response to John Goss and Quelcrime, NATO members to my knowledge have never even whispered about invading Syria for all sorts of very good reasons. All they are talking about is a resolution.
.

It seems to me that most of the anti-NATO arguments are along of the lines, ‘Look what they did in Iraq. Therefore everything they do, or could ever do, is wrong.’ Really, we have to be a bit cleverer than that.

NATO in Iraq?

Conjunction. My last two posts went flying into the ether so I’ve put brackets round the link which I think might be causing the problem, so you’ll have to cut and paste. This video runs for 18 minutes and is worth watching to the end. But because people have restrictions on their time if you just watch the first three minutes, or even start at 1 min 30 seconds and you will see that Syria is indeed on the US/NATO hit list, and should have come before Iraq.
.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4UEBade0E)
.
[Mod: sorry, no idea what held this comment or the two before it, which I've deleted because they're duplicates.]

Thanks Mod.

Craig, I’ve just looked at your former link and just love that sentence; “I suffer from that old springing eternal of hope, and am therefore always in a state of disappointment.” How can depression make you laugh. But it did. And thank God: because otherwise it would make you cry – and it will.

laugh?

No John Goss – cry ( for the lost lives).

“The US in contrast brown noses dictators on the other side of the world, like Karimov & the House of Saud. Is that preferable ?”

No. It’s just as bad.

Craig

I bet you never thought you’d find yourself agreeing with Con Coughlin!

Every heard of the logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well”, Alan?
.
Ever heard of the “one club golfer”?

“Every heard of the logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well”, Alan?”

Thankfully not.

From AP
“Medvedev said in televised remarks that the authors of the resolution had refused to include a Russia-proposed provision saying there should be no foreign military interference in Syria.

“That means only one thing: our partners at the U.N. Security Council aren’t excluding the repetition of the Libyan scenario, although in private conversations they said that they understand that Syria is not Libya,” Medvedev said at a session of the presidential Security Council. “The proposed text would have allowed to again resort to weapons.”"

Wrt the earlier point about Susan Rice and ‘good people’ working for this or that govt/state, well, of course there have been ‘good people’ working in all regimes. Believe it or not, there were even a few members of the SS who helped some Jews escape the gas chambers, etc. It’s the system – individuals can be psychopaths or as humane as the system allows, but there will always be a range of people in any regime. the other side of this would be to say that of course bad things are contributed to/committed not only by evil people. Politics is complex. Rice is fronting an imperial power. Was Agricola ‘good’ or ‘bad’? And what about Asoka? Akbar? Their civil servants? Who knows? Naturally, once someone is in a senior position in any political apparatus, it’s likely that they’ll hav traded-in a substantial portion of their conscience. My father-in-law knew Inder K. Gujral, who was Prime Minister of India for a period in the late 1990s – fellow-socialists, though one ended-up in Pakistan – and he could’ve told you that Gujral was indeed a decent man. But I’m sure he’ll have had to compromise his decency on more than one occasion; think of, say, Kashmir, etc., it’s impossible to do otherwise once someone is at that level.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._K._Gujral

Thanks for this invaluable post! The Russians will nonetheless be delighted by the mess NATO have got themselves into. I predict that the Libya debacle leads to the fall of Cameron, the dissolution of NATO and the refoundation of the UN.

@ All,

The majority here also hopes:-

“I predict that the Libya debacle leads to the fall of Cameron, the dissolution of NATO and the refoundation of the UN.”

rogerh – 6th October 2011
“As for Syria, I cannot understand why Assad made the mistake of severe repression. There are plenty of ways to give the illusion of democracy without giving up real power. Perhaps the Russians will help Assad re-establish his severely dented credibility. Syria certainly does not need NATO sticking its nose in. Then there is the question of just how free do we Westerners (and Easterners) want oil-producing countries to be?”
.
I’ll tell you; my knowledge is better than that of Western commenters. The severe repression in Syria during this turmoil was a responsibility of low-level security cadre without experience and training for this kind of situation, which is domestic armed conflicts, especially in urban environment. For, there are two kinds of protesters: one group are not protesters at all but terrorists who murder in cold blood, mutilators of bodies, like in Libya. It’s not that “Assad made the mistake,” but Western media are lying through their teeth.
.
There are also genuine protesters. Last time I checked their leaders followed the negotiation in Damascus with partying alongside the regime people.
.
Some people need reminding that Assad is an ophthalmologist by choice who left London because of his patriarchal background. He is elected and apparently popular. Since when is that compatible with tyranny? How does that qualification differ from double-speak?
Yes, there are ruthless, repressive elements in the Syrian regime. Aren’t they present in the security organs of every state? Especially so in underdeveloped countries like Chile, Brazil and Argentina? Does that make Michelle Bachelet, Dilma Rouseff and Cristina Kirchner “criminals” for Craig Murray, and he has “no time” for them, and let’s hope they get eliminated? Just how stupidly presumptuous can some people get?
.
http://www.youtube.com/user/108morris108#p/u/75/zO1OiDOIyGU
http://www.facebook.com/Syria.True.News

@ Levantine,

The following video – from the horse’s mouth – states unequivocally why these wars are taking place:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

I know that video, but thanks for posting it.
.
I came back as I haven’t finished. Anyone with a moderate interest in Assange and the Dalai Lama can find that they run their organisations undemocratically, which is especially significant because those organisations are fairly small and with much fewer responsibilities than governments. To regard, as Craig does, these two people as some kind of humanists who deserve to be honoured, while condemning state leaders for every single blemish in their countries is a very bad performance, to say the least. He risks being seen as a useful idiot.

Levantine:
Anyone with a moderate interest in Assange and the Dalai Lama can find that they run their organisations undemocratically, which is especially significant because those organisations are fairly small and with much fewer responsibilities than governments.

Yes, but also…they’re not governments (not sure what you mean by ‘the Dalai Lama’s organisation’ in this context). How do the arguments for democracy in government apply to a small website like Wikileaks? Someone sets up an organisation and recruits some staff to help run it – is this comparable to a large body of people choosing a government to manage their country?