And now President Assad will read from Chapter 2 of "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

UN: *scribbles*

If only the us was not still screwing around in Afghanistan. OBL is gone, move on and put a bullet in Assad.

"Only a mad man kills his own people." -- Bashar al-Assad

Why so Syrias? Want to know how I got these scars? ( says Assad )

janzee: UN: *scribbles*

Of course they do. Two of the veto enabled countries have essentially said 'over their dead bodies' at this point. UN isn't even writing official harsh notes right now. When 2 of the big 3 say 'no', that's it. Nothing happens. The system was built just for that to be the case.

Yes, yes, how mush more unpayable debt must you lump atop the existing unpayable debt to murder more people in Syria to stop all the murder?

I'm wondering how this will play out? Will the UN today be the toothless organization that can do nothing, or will they be the nefarious NWO that can take our guns at a moment's notice? Will the right be in 'Bah Gawd, They're a killing citizens over thurr!' mode or 'GLASS PARKING LOT!' mode? I'm going to retroactively care when something happens.

The UN needs to hurry up and get past it's angry memo stage.
It's now time for the hand written, five page, letter of displeasure.

/and use the good stationary!

xaldin: janzee: UN: *scribbles*

Of course they do. Two of the veto enabled countries have essentially said 'over their dead bodies' at this point. UN isn't even writing official harsh notes right now. When 2 of the big 3 say 'no', that's it. Nothing happens. The system was built just for that to be the case.

Its actually 1 of the big 5 that can veto. The US, UK, France, USSR (now Russia), and China were all made permanent members, the only with veto powers. One of them says no, any UN action stops.

The only way the Korean war was UN approved was because the UK and US goaded the USSR and China into walking out of the meeting, then quickly passed the resolution. No one really walks out of those meetings anymore.

xaldin: janzee: UN: *scribbles*

Of course they do. Two of the veto enabled countries have essentially said 'over their dead bodies' at this point. UN isn't even writing official harsh notes right now. When 2 of the big 3 say 'no', that's it. Nothing happens. The system was built just for that to be the case.

Does this make ANY sense to anyone? Do we know who he is talking to?

I always get a chuckle when I read America throwing around angry accusations of other countries bombing citizens into a pulp, while America bombs citizens into a pulp. It always makes me stop and picture the school yard bully telling the teacher about another student punching people.

Notice how the teabaggers were gung ho about bombing Iran but completely fail to give a shiat about Syria.

Smoking GNU: xaldin: janzee: UN: *scribbles*

Of course they do. Two of the veto enabled countries have essentially said 'over their dead bodies' at this point. UN isn't even writing official harsh notes right now. When 2 of the big 3 say 'no', that's it. Nothing happens. The system was built just for that to be the case.

Does this make ANY sense to anyone? Do we know who he is talking to?

OOPS! Sorry. I meant to quote Eapoe6 there.

I think we might be expecting a bit too much out of the UN.

I'm pretty sure it was designed to stop wars between countries and to facilitate dialog between nations on things like trade and such.

I don't think it's mission was ever meant to be becoming World Police and meddling in the internal affairs of specific countries.

Jake Havechek: Notice how the teabaggers were gung ho about bombing Iran but completely fail to give a shiat about Syria.

Iran was mean to us once (translation: fought back after we overthrew their government, plus, you know, Carter was worse than Hitler AND Stalin).

Calvin Hobbes: I think we might be expecting a bit too much out of the UN.

I'm pretty sure it was designed to stop wars between countries and to facilitate dialog between nations on things like trade and such.

I don't think it's mission was ever meant to be becoming World Police and meddling in the internal affairs of specific countries.

That was actually the original purpose of the United Nations when it was developed after World War II. It was designed to prevent large, multinational conflicts and brutal regional brushfire wars which caused both World War I, and World War II, and to allow major international powers to intervene in cases of genocide - like the holocaust.

In reality, it's often been the United States acting byproxy of the UN, because other countries won't contribute man power or money.

shiate could get really real if this keeps up ... Isaiah 17:1

veryequiped: I always get a chuckle when I read America throwing around angry accusations of other countries bombing citizens into a pulp, while America bombs citizens into a pulp. It always makes me stop and picture the school yard bully telling the teacher about another student punching people.

The difference is, of course, that the United States doesn't try to bomb civilians. They try to bomb legit targets and occasionally miss. The Syrian government is trying to kill its own people. It's less like your teacher analogy and more like the difference between a mad bomber and a clumsy construction worker who demolishes the wrong house. They're both damaging, but only one is morally reprehensible.

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: I know this is a bad idea but maybe someone should give them some smart weapons that would keep them from hitting unarmed innocents.

...They've been trying to blow up unarmed innocents for a while, why would they stop when they have better weapons?

Libtards on Libya: Yay! We're killing dark-skinned Muslims! Obama ROX!!

Libtards on Syria:

Novart: Pantubo: Libtards on Libya: Yay! We're killing dark-skinned Muslims! Obama ROX!!

Libtards on Syria:

Oh boy

Only retards use the word libtard...

/no offense to retards

Why are China and Russia hell bent on propping these f*ckers up?

Surool: Why are China and Russia hell bent on propping these f*ckers up?

Because Syria is a good customer. While Russia has stopped all "new" sales of weapons and armor to Syria's military (they did that last week I think), they are still honoring the contract to maintain and provide parts/support to it.

veryequiped: I always get a chuckle when I read America throwing around angry accusations of other countries bombing citizens into a pulp, while America bombs citizens into a pulp. It always makes me stop and picture the school yard bully telling the teacher about another student punching people.

Hey now, we don't bomb our own citizens! (At least not since that business in '85 in Philly, unless you want to count the guy in Yemen we killed, but he wasn't in the country at the time, so that shouldn't count, right?)

I had the radio on kinda low, tuned to the BBC Newshour, and "Treimsa" sounds kinda like "Tromsø," so I briefly thought Syria had invaded Norway.

So what the hell is the NWO supposed to use for an excuse to start WWIII??

karl2025: The difference is, of course, that the United States doesn't try to bomb civilians. They try to bomb legit targets and occasionally miss.

Well, not even going into the multitude of times in the past that the US has intentionally committed terrorism or targeted civilians and sticking to more recent examples:
Hence why they hit one of the only news organizations willing to tell the truth on the ground in Iraq--Al-Jazeera--multiple times on "accident", drone strikes that intentionally target civilians, soldiers who intentionally target or massacre civilians (this is more of a case of "renegades" but they've overlooked and permissed nevertheless, even allowed to run for office and sometimes elected.). Not to mention, the US hasn't had any legitimate targets since about World War II.

Myria: Why would Russia or China object to Syria's actions on civil rights' ground? They'd both do the exact same to their own citizens if they felt the need.

The same goes for the US, which is why we haven't intervened.

This is a surprise to anyone? Assad's father took down Hama in '85 and nobody cared. Probably figures the same rules still apply - nobody will do anything to keep you from killing and massacring your own citizens.

liverpool1892: This is a surprise to anyone? Assad's father took down Hama in '85 and nobody cared. Probably figures the same rules still apply - nobody will do anything to keep you from killing and massacring your own citizens.

Ah, my apologies, it was '82.

This will end with the genocide of Syria's ruling minority Alawite population, once Asad's army cannot or will not protect them. And no one will lift a finger to save them.