Saiks, and Alieu
Your short reactions are not
doing justice to the topic, but I am
with you for there is something quite
profound in your takes. If time permits,
you should consider full length essays
on this crucial topic.
The geopolitical calculations
over this region are immense, and so
far, there is no convincing evidence
that Assad indeed used the alleged
chemical weapons. A CNN anchor suggested
to a so-called political science
professor (Arab national) out of
Dubai that it is indeed plausible for
the chemical weapons to be supplied by
countries such as Saudi Arabia, and
others opposed to Assad. His response
was that the rebels would not use such
weapons against their own people. And he
calls himself a political science
professor!
The chemical weapons issue is
quite complicated and there are a number
of possibilities over who could have
been behind its alleged use. If chemical
weapons are like bullets, I wonder if it
is possible to track the origin of the
type used in this alleged attack in
Syria. Any views, Kejau, and Khaleel?
More fundamentally, another issue
for me is why so much emphasis on the
alleged use of a weapon that killed 2000
max in a war where an estimated 100,000
perished. Is this not baffling, and why
the huge global arsenal of chemical and
nuclear weapons?
I'm glad the democratic system in
the UK forced a climb down by David
Cameron yesterday.
In the domestic arena, there is
no question whatsoever that the US and
the UK are among the preeminent
democracies of modern times, with
governmental systems based on restraint
grounded in the rule of law
and the separation of powers. There is
no such routine respect for legality
when it comes to international affairs.
Over the past several days, the UK
Foreign Secretary consistently argues
that with or without the authorisation
of the UN Security Council, they will
move against Assad. This is quite
troubling in the sense they set up the
veto and permanent membership system of
the Security Council. It is vital that
they operate within the constraints of
that system, and not use its awesome
powers as a double-edged sword. None of
these leaders would dare contemplate in
the domestic sphere what they are
advocating in international affairs!
At the very least, the prudent
thing to do is wait for the report of
the UN mandated weapons inspectors, and
in the words of the Secretary General,
"give peace a chance" in that process.
If the US goes in today, the UK
will not join in for a few more days, if
at all. I celebrate UK democracy for
insisting on verifiable transparency
LJDarbo
K,
Just droping few Lines,East
Timor and Siera leone conflicts
ended not as result of militAry
intervension likewise Sudan.the
Un has/had a peace mission in
the first two,one of which you
Your self participated with A
full Un mandate not only making
it a legal action,but in world
opinion too very ligitimate.see
i Am not a pasifist ,in my
response to brother khaleel i
will forward the reason given by
Obama as to why he need to act
on Syria
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:51:45
+0200
From:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L] Obama
considers military action
against Syria
To:
[log in to unmask]
Thanks Saiks.
As brother Demba said,
the results are determined
mainly by the nationals and
not the liberation aiders.
Sierra Leone, East Timor,
Sudan, came to mind as
success stories.
Kejau
-------- Original message
--------
From: samateh saikou <
[log in to unmask]>
Date:
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L] Obama
considers military action
against Syria
Brother
Khaleel,thanks,so much sense
in what you said it will be
difficult to respond to you
but I will try later in the
day. Kejau, what for me is
liberation might be very
much different from
yours,which is also ok.One
thing is certain,I dont
believe that it is the duty
and responsibility of one
nation to liberate another
nation,for me there will be
no liberation based on the
desire of the people.There
is no force on earth that
can resist the will of the
people.The mighty fascist
Soviet Union was pulled down
to the ground by people
without guns or bullet,if it
can happen there,it can
happen anywhere on this
earth. I dont believe that
the people of Irag,Libya or
Afghanistan have been
liberated.Let me tell you
one thing,if the US or
Senegal,or any nation offer
me to liberate Gambia with
results of Irag ,Libya or
Afghanistan,I will say no
thanks,let Jammeh rule.
For Freedom
Saiks
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013
07:45:55 +0200
From:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L] Obama
considers military action
against Syria
To:
[log in to unmask]
-------- Original message
--------
From: Khaleel Jameel <
[log in to unmask]>
Date:
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L] Obama
considers military action
against Syria
Saiks,
Asad’s
guilt or innocence
in the recent
chemical attacks
on his own people
could have been
determined from
jump by working
with the
international
agencies to
investigate cause
and responsibility
for that heinous
crime. But of
course who is
going to extend
his/her hands to
shake another if
your hands are
covered with dirt
during a search
for a grave
digger? U.S never
blessed Saddam to
use chemical
weapons back in
1988 or so. It
could be argued
that someone in
that
administration has
to know that they
were going to use
it prior to them
executing that
mission. I would
certainly not
reference
wikilinks in a
serious
conversation, and
of course key word
here is I.
You
are right; I will
never consider war
to be a solution
to any situation.
U.S invasion of
Afghanistan, Libya
and Iraq did not
make those
countries a
developed country
but has arguably
not made them any
worst. Like Demba
mentioned, these
countries were
liberated and
given a chance.
How they choose to
run their country
from that point
have a lot to do
with their
concept,
commitment to
their people and
the rule of law.
I
don’t honestly see
Syria being any
different but
would you rather
the world sit back
and watch the
massacre and
slaughter of
innocent citizens
of Syria? U.S.
is indeed doing a
lot of supporting
of many
organizations
openly and
privately however;
so is many other
countries in the
world. Does that
make it ok? Hell
no. Did you see
how much Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and
Jordan combined
gave to Egypt?
Ridiculous I’m
thinking.
It
is my believe
that there is no
morality in war.
When one nation
comes to the
conclusion to
fight another
nation for
whatever reason,
humanity and
morality failed
utterly. I
believe that every
war is futile when
compared to the
senseless massacre
of human lives.
U.S however has
lost both money
and lives of their
brave men and
women in defense
of many nations
across the globe
and I commend them
for that. It only
shows their
tenacity for
freedom to prevail
and they
demonstrated time
and time that they
will make the
ultimate sacrifice
for any nation.
Are they always
right; no. Is it
necessary at
times; I will say
yes but don't beat
me up bad.
Khaleel
Date: Wed, 28 Aug
2013 23:47:41 +0200
From:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L]
Obama considers
military action
against Syria
To:
[log in to unmask]
Saiks.
I wonder how
you can say the
US invaded those
countries even
after helping
those countries
people to remove
dictatorship.
Do you meant to
say UK also
invaded Sierra
Leone?
Kejau
-------- Original
message --------
From: samateh saikou
<
[log in to unmask]>
Date:
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [G_L]
Obama considers
military action
against Syria
I
will be happy to
know how one is
certain that
Asad is
responsible
.lets look at
the following
facts too.in may
a un inspector
claimed that it
was the rebels
who did the
c-attact
,which was the
original case,
few days ago we
have been
reading leaks
docs from
weakilinks that
Sadam with the
blessiing of the
US did use
it,Now we all
know what
happened in
Faluja,right,which
means there are
nations who have
no right to talk
about moral