Oct 31 2005
Set the clock for 17 years and 41 resolutions…
Starting now…
U.N. Security Council OKs Syria Resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes agoUNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday demanding Syria’s full cooperation with a U.N. investigation into the assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister and warning of possible “further action” if it doesn’t.
The United States, France and Britain pressed for the resolution following last week’s tough report by a U.N. investigating commission, which implicated top Syrian and Lebanese security officials in the Feb. 14 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 20 others. The report also accused Syria of not cooperating fully with the inquiry.
The three co-sponsors agreed to drop a direct threat of sanctions against Syria in order to get support from Russia and China, which opposed sanctions while the investigation is still under way. Nonetheless, the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Yeah! Those impotent U.N. bastards…
Whatever happened to the good old days when war was the preferred method for solving international problems, and rational diplomacy was a last resort?
October 31st, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Diplomacy is fine, but strong words with a crowd unwilling to back them up with strong deeds is utterly useless.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:06 pm
I don’t think that “rational” and “diplomacy” can be used in the context of Syria, but that’s another issue altogether.
The UN is all talk, no action, and all the tyrannies in the world know it. They still don’t get the part about carrying the “big stick”…
November 1st, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Nathalie, not trying to be snotty here but would you like to give the UN the big stick? The UN is what its member countries make it. I don’t think any of those countries (including the US, remember No U.S. troops under U.N. command and all of that rhetoric in the Contract w/ America) want a strong UN.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:32 pm
You’re kidding right?
The Contract With America?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Dude… Are you seriously saying the Neocons who people like you routinely discuss wouldn’t love the UN to enforce their resolutions?
November 1st, 2005 at 1:34 pm
?…I don’t discuss the neocons with any bit of routine. The neocons to me seem like a very small group of people.
There are still a lot of people in this country that don’t want the UN to have a big stick. And I suspect the neocons don’t really want a strong UN either. They want one that listens to them and enforces their resolutions. That doesn’t say “big stick” to me. Because what happens when the big strong UN wants to enforce something against the interests of the US? Can you imagine the position that Israel would be in if the UN could actually enforce something against them?
My point is people don’t want a strong UN. They really don’t. They don’t want a strong worldwide quasi government. The rhetoric of the 90s and the Contract with America is just an example of that.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:46 pm
1. The myriad of resolutions against Israel are not enforceable militarily or by force..
2. Every country wants a UN that enforces their resolutions.
3. Right now, it seems the UN has a problem enforcing any resolutions, or even coming to an agreement on what should be discussed (Rwanda, anyone?)
My point is that a strong UN that actually backed up its words would be welcome. Right now, you just have an impotent body who sits there yelling at folks who laugh at them because they know they’re not going to be the first country the UN really acts against.
Hell, the UN couldn’t even agree to condemn suicide bombings. I’d say that’s pretty damned impotent.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:34 am
Um, what’s a neocon?