IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
"the bullet was fired from the gun that's favored by Billy the Kid"
So according to you, a UN Report that talks about delivery systems is contradictory to a report talking about delivery systems... ok, well, have fun in NeverNeverLand... I guess...
Yeah, the part where the mandate only covers whether or not chemical weapons were used is kinda the really important part.
Are you able to comprehend that the UN Report can have more than one really important part?
However, his report will include interviews with survivors and observations on the missiles or other delivery systems used in what the UN is saying will be an "evidence-based narrative" of the attack.
Hmm, who should I go with on this one, the UN or some online poster. Oh my, that's a very tough call, but I think I'll go with the UN.
IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
You asked me for a source about the Russia-Syria Chemical Weapons deal. I gave you that. What else do you want?
As I have had to state three times now, no, that's not what I asked for. I admitted there was a deal in the works from the first post. What I wanted was a better source than the one in Russian about that reporter.
http://missingpeace.eu/en/2013/09/freed ... as-attack/
Belgium writer Pierre Picinin da Prata claims that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, were responsible for the Sarin attack that killed approximately 1500 civilians on August 21th. Piccinin da Prata has been freed last week after being kidnapped in Syria five months ago. He and his colleague Italian journalist Domenico Quirico claim they have proof that Syrian rebels were responsible for the attack with chemical weapons. He says he is certain about this because he and Quirico overheard conversations between the rebels. In the barracks of the Free Syria Army in Bab al-Quad on August 30th. You can watch the RTL interview with Piccinin da Prata here:
It just seems like you're desperate for arguments, so you're yelling "SOURCE!" every step of the way, hoping that I'll be stupid enough to quote the Daily Mail, and then you can launch into the "oh noes, mah opponent quoted Daily Mail" mode. As you can see, the source ain't the Daily Mail, and there's a clip attached of the actual interview.
I provided a translation. You ignored it, and went on your "GIMME SOURCE!" escapade, something that you're slowly establishing a history of doing in this thread.
IshCong wrote:
If they mean you can't really source your stuff, yeah, it becomes your problem because then I have to dismiss what you're saying.
Anyway, I see nothing in that passage saying that there is currently a nuclear power plant at Damascus and last I checked there wasn't. Russia may be offering to set one up, but until one is set up that's only conjecture.
If the link works for everyone but you, that's YOUR PROBLEM. Got that? Good. Now, from the above text:
miniature reactor near Damascus or other unspecified nuclear installations could contaminate the region with radioactivity
Do you not understand the words "miniature nuclear reactor"?
So, despite yelling "SOURCE!" to everything, you've yet to provide any of your own, to back up your claims, and yet you're saying "logic". Ok, whatever rocks your boat... I guess...
IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
President: "Yo, guys, we're going to do a limited strike, just punish the guilty party, and we have good intel, trust me!"
People: "So why do you need Resolutions more extensive than Gulf of Tonkin?"
President: "Well, erm, complications could arise, and I could have my hands tied, so..."
Sorry, after that little "No Fly Zone" stunt, or the lies of numerous other executives leaders, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood.
That's nice?
No, it's not.
IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Bush had a bad reputation about Afghanistan, prior to invading Iraq? Ohhh, do tell, do source, let's see you actually back up something you claim! "Strategic flexibility", is that the new thing for a president saying "please let me bomb another country?" Sounds catchy!
He's had a bad reputation with regards to both for years now. Are you seriously saying that people's opinions of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are positive? Where have you been?
My point: prior to invading Iraq, Bush's Conduct of the Afghanistan War was quite popular. Now, are you actually going to rebut my point, or are you going to further provide us with "high quality" posts that demonstrate your "logic"?
My point: the Resolutions go above and beyond what's required for virtually any flexibility regarding a single strike for a single strike.
Your response: of course they do, did I say otherwise?
Do you not see how your response doesn't actually address my point?
IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
You claimed that Russia and China wouldn't be trustworthy regarding two things:
1. Ensuring that Syria doesn't get hit by an air strike
2. Enforcing anti-chemical weapon UN Resolution
Please explain how Russia and China aren't trustworthy about those two things. Please back up your explanation with logic and actual sources, not imaginary ones. Thank you!
How about the fact that Russia and China have been supporting Syria pretty much all along here? That they've already taken action in the UNSC in the form of a veto to block sanctions, you know, the things that are less concerning than stripping Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles? It's pretty freaking obvious that if you want an actual UNSC operation to occur, as you've suggested, Russia and China may be two involved nations but it should be a lot more than those two.
So you've just demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. Gotcha. Now, in case you missed my previous posts, Russia is the one proposing that Syria turn over the chemical weapons as part of this deal. But in IshCong's World, Russia is going to veto their own resolution, because they vetoed a different resolution before, because both resolutions had something to do with Syria.
IshCong wrote:Shofercia wrote:
When Syria enters into negotiations with the UNSC, and a final, binding contract is reached, that means that said contract, aka UNSC Resolution, cannot be vetoed, since, you know, UNSC Resolutions can only be vetoed before they're passed, and for a contract to exist between UNSC and Syria, the Resolution must actually be passed. I'm sorry, I thought you realized that. My mistake, I presumed too much.
UNSC Resolutions aren't contracts that are negotiated between parties like that. UN Resolutions are resolutions put up for vote in the UNSC and then voted on by the current voting members of the UNSC. They are not negotiated contracts with the involved states.
UNSC to Syria: "we'll pass a resolution, that tells you to decom your nukes, and in exchange, we won't meddle in your Civil War"
Syria to UNSC: "Ok, you have a deal, pass the Resolution!"
UNSC passes Resolution.
----
IshCong imagines Russian and Chinese vetoes.
So you don't know much about Rwanda either. Gotcha.
It was discussed by UNSC members this morning. In what World is that not ongoing? Oh right, your World, IshCong.
Debating with IshCong:
IshCong: "UNSC is toothless...Iran is ignoring sanctions by the UNSC"
Yep, IshCong's World, where a toothless organization passes sanctions, in order to demonstrate their toothlessness.
Apparently North Korea doesn't think that said sanctions are "pfft". Nor does the UN.
But hey, what's the opinion of the UN, when IshCong clearly knows better! /sarcasm
