Site Feedback

Security Council

While innocent people in Syria are being killed by chemical weapons, Security Council cannot decide what to do. Do you think it is a correct way to keep peace in the world?



As you know, you have asked a SUPER sensitive question, so I shall be SUPER careful in what I say.


As you know, the Security Council includes five nations that have a veto. That is, any one of them can  say "No."


And, as you know, some members of the Security Council have different opinions regarding the situation.


So that is why the Security Council has not taken any action.


We can all hope, however, that it may eventually agree on some plan that will be accepted by the "Big Five."

yes of course a peaceful world for all. accordingly it cannot decide to take action to assad because what he did to his own people did not directly affect U.S territory.although it is not right to just involve innocent and civilians for it is against humanity, and all life form. that was very radical to just use weapon of mass destruction. if he can destroy his own people what more to others that could be a threat for his greediness for power, guns , gold  including fortune of his country syria.

First of all , I deeply hope you cannot totally trust Security Coucil of UN . Most of members are not so reliable as you expect especially in the face of such complicated international problems . On the contrary , I believe Syrian people who travel overseas can do more for their fellows instead of foreign authorities .

To exert chemical weapon is radical but stupid as international communites would not agree with such a nation . I do not know how Assad government thinks but it is obvious they made more enemies against  the regime . Maybe , they ignored the tremendous side effect at that time.

UN has not yet proved that the syrian president is responsible for the chemical attack. The attack could well have been carried out by the rebells who have been receiving weapons from US. The case for Iraq war was made at the security council by presenting false evidene and forged documents. Kofi annan said clearly that this war of USA was illegal, but he could not do anything else. USA had been pushing for war in Syria without waiting for UN inspectors findings. When Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, no one was going to dondemn Iraq because the chemical technology was supplied to Iraq by the western nations and Iraq was fighting against their enemy.

It doesn't matter what the Security Council or the US or allies do.  As long as no one is talking about the role of Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, it really doesn't matter what anyone does.  There will be deaths, and lots of them, no matter what happens.  

Shill66.  Let's suppose that Bashar al-Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.  I assume you're not talking about trying Assad in abstentia, because that would not prevent him from continuing to use chemical weapons. Therefore, just out of curiosity, precisely who do you think should arrest Assad for trial, and by what means will they arrest him?  What if Assad announces that he will resist any attempted arrest militarily?  Or, since you didn't mention Assad by name, but instead mentioned "a national leader", suppose that evidence turns up that Russian President Vladimir Putin provided chemical weapons to Assad, or assisted Assad in using such weapons, who will arrest the Russian President, and how? 


Unless you can provide rational answers to such questions, your suggestion that a national leader who ordered chemical weapon attacks against civilians be tried, remains more in the realm of a fantasy, rather than a practical, doable solution.




I am writing to correct a spelling error in my prior post:    in absentia

To arouse a war is the last resort to solve the problem , I believe . There must be another better alternative to be done other than that military trading is necessary .


Add a comment