9. Clear steps in the transition. (click here) The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic will end only when all sides are assured that there is a peaceful way towards a common future for all in the country. It is therefore essential that any settlement provide for clear and irreversible steps in the transition according to a fixed time frame. The key steps in any transition include:
(a) The establishment of a transitional governing body that can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place, with the transitional governing body exercising full executive powers. It could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;...
What this states is that Syria is suppose to be inclusive in it's resolve by all parties. In other words, John McCain should be arming rebels to end the existence of another.
It is also very clear there is to be no escalation of tensions and/or violence to achieve this end. I don't see NATO redefining international treaties in order to insure an end they decide is important. The END of the violence is already make clear within international documents, WHICH I WILL POINT OUT, the EU was a party to.
1. On 30 June 2012, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Turkey, Iraq (Chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States), Kuwait (Chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the League of Arab States) and Qatar (Chair of the Arab Follow-up Committee on Syria of the League of Arab States) and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy met at the United Nations Office at Geneva as the Action Group for Syria, chaired by the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to Syria.
Is there something I missed here that states NATO has territorial rights to run game in any way Cameron wants to because his politics requires it? NATO may have their own ideas, but, there are countries in the region that can and should see to the outcome of the people in Syria. The USA Congress has no jurisdiction as the EU does not. Neither does Russia.
The reason the USA is at all involved is because President Obama received a request from the then Prime Minister of Iraq. There is no joint treaty with the region and everyone else. The USA has the responsibility to protect it's allies, namely Jordan and Turkey that share borders with the area, but, there is nothing providing international intervention by NATO to this region.
The AGREEMENTS about Syria are already reached and simply be tossed out because NATO thinks differently.
There is already 1100 Americans in the former Iraq and they need to come home along with whatever diplomats that currently provide THE EXCUSE for the 1100 American military personnel to be there.
If NATO expects Russia to live up the rule of international treaties, then NATO needs to as well.
Air support for any military movements in northern region of the former Iraq can come out of Turkey.
These are the countries that were signators to Geneva II on Syria. Geneva II took place on 22 January 2014 in Montreux and on 23–31 January 2014 in Geneva (Switzerland). The other name for this agreement is Geneva II Middle East peace conference. In this understanding is the fact some countries want the Assad government supported while creating a "Transitional Government" where all people have a stake in the political outcomes of the country. NATO cannot simply decide it is going to change the game plan and carry out their own ideas. That is exactly the problem in Syria and that is why there was Geneva II.
The travesty to Geneva II is the fact the so called opposition has no cohesive leadership. There are multiple authorities in Syria. One is Assad and Hezbollah. Others are many including The Free Syrian Army. That has been the trouble the entire time. A completely separate problem is that of the dissolution of Iraq. Add to that the fact the Baathists have joined IS/IS/L the former al Qaeda in Iraq.
ISIS is not the problem alone. The real problem and why the country remains unstable is there is no consensus among the people within Syria whom the opposition leader is. The reason IS/IS/L was once considered the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is because both the Baathists and Syrian rebels were working together.
That is the problem with ATTEMPTING any confrontation in the Middle East and/or Pakistan/Afghanistan/India; there is no culture that provides allegiance to a common goal. It is like trying to catch a gopher in a borrow with two or more exits. While one exit is closed the gopher is busy making another.
DAMN IT, this is costing the USA billions everyday and no one gives a damn about that. This so called 'idea' from NATO won't work. It just won't. The people already on the ground in Syria are way ahead of The West.
When the USA entered Afghanistan after the 2001 attacks on Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon it was cake walk. The paratroops found friends among the Afghan people and when the tanks arrived it was simply a matter of moving from the north to south without a hitch.
Why?
When fighting forces in these lands organize (And Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is more than qualified to talk to the truth within my words.) it is under a warlord that pays them through plunder of the land they conquer. When a warlord finds himself under attack and the fighting force knows they are outnumbered what happens?
They disappear only to have regrouped to form another fighting force under a different warlord. McCain likes to refer to this as "Wack a Mole."
Conventional Western war methods don't work in these lands. The ONLY method of any country with these dynamics is containment. Eventually, containment leads to leadership to relieve the suffering of the people and that is where The West and others find leverage to bring about a different and more benevolent outcome to the people. At that point refugees can find their way back to their homes to repopulate the land.
There is Geneva II and that outlines basically what I have stated here. The problem with Geneva II is there is no outstanding leadership willing to come forward in peace to resolve to a Transitional Government. Syria is not at the point whereby Geneva II can apply it's principles.
As far as Americans and Europeans going to Syria to fight; that is their choice AND their peril. I do not see The West has any responsibility to rescue anyone when the choice they made is so very dangerous. If the USA pledges to rescue every American now captured by IS/ISL, it is dragging itself into a forever war and that is exactly what the rebels of IS/IS/L wants. None of those that died ever believed they would face a ruthless Islamist. To that end their religious leaders within the sovereign borders of any other country have caused their deaths.
The USA is not obligated to defend Islam.
(a) The establishment of a transitional governing body that can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place, with the transitional governing body exercising full executive powers. It could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;...
What this states is that Syria is suppose to be inclusive in it's resolve by all parties. In other words, John McCain should be arming rebels to end the existence of another.
It is also very clear there is to be no escalation of tensions and/or violence to achieve this end. I don't see NATO redefining international treaties in order to insure an end they decide is important. The END of the violence is already make clear within international documents, WHICH I WILL POINT OUT, the EU was a party to.
1. On 30 June 2012, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the League of Arab States, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Turkey, Iraq (Chair of the Summit of the League of Arab States), Kuwait (Chair of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the League of Arab States) and Qatar (Chair of the Arab Follow-up Committee on Syria of the League of Arab States) and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy met at the United Nations Office at Geneva as the Action Group for Syria, chaired by the Joint Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to Syria.
Is there something I missed here that states NATO has territorial rights to run game in any way Cameron wants to because his politics requires it? NATO may have their own ideas, but, there are countries in the region that can and should see to the outcome of the people in Syria. The USA Congress has no jurisdiction as the EU does not. Neither does Russia.
The reason the USA is at all involved is because President Obama received a request from the then Prime Minister of Iraq. There is no joint treaty with the region and everyone else. The USA has the responsibility to protect it's allies, namely Jordan and Turkey that share borders with the area, but, there is nothing providing international intervention by NATO to this region.
The AGREEMENTS about Syria are already reached and simply be tossed out because NATO thinks differently.
There is already 1100 Americans in the former Iraq and they need to come home along with whatever diplomats that currently provide THE EXCUSE for the 1100 American military personnel to be there.
If NATO expects Russia to live up the rule of international treaties, then NATO needs to as well.
Air support for any military movements in northern region of the former Iraq can come out of Turkey.These are the countries that were signators to Geneva II on Syria. Geneva II took place on 22 January 2014 in Montreux and on 23–31 January 2014 in Geneva (Switzerland). The other name for this agreement is Geneva II Middle East peace conference. In this understanding is the fact some countries want the Assad government supported while creating a "Transitional Government" where all people have a stake in the political outcomes of the country. NATO cannot simply decide it is going to change the game plan and carry out their own ideas. That is exactly the problem in Syria and that is why there was Geneva II.
The travesty to Geneva II is the fact the so called opposition has no cohesive leadership. There are multiple authorities in Syria. One is Assad and Hezbollah. Others are many including The Free Syrian Army. That has been the trouble the entire time. A completely separate problem is that of the dissolution of Iraq. Add to that the fact the Baathists have joined IS/IS/L the former al Qaeda in Iraq.
ISIS is not the problem alone. The real problem and why the country remains unstable is there is no consensus among the people within Syria whom the opposition leader is. The reason IS/IS/L was once considered the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is because both the Baathists and Syrian rebels were working together.
That is the problem with ATTEMPTING any confrontation in the Middle East and/or Pakistan/Afghanistan/India; there is no culture that provides allegiance to a common goal. It is like trying to catch a gopher in a borrow with two or more exits. While one exit is closed the gopher is busy making another.
DAMN IT, this is costing the USA billions everyday and no one gives a damn about that. This so called 'idea' from NATO won't work. It just won't. The people already on the ground in Syria are way ahead of The West.
When the USA entered Afghanistan after the 2001 attacks on Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon it was cake walk. The paratroops found friends among the Afghan people and when the tanks arrived it was simply a matter of moving from the north to south without a hitch.
Why?
When fighting forces in these lands organize (And Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is more than qualified to talk to the truth within my words.) it is under a warlord that pays them through plunder of the land they conquer. When a warlord finds himself under attack and the fighting force knows they are outnumbered what happens?
They disappear only to have regrouped to form another fighting force under a different warlord. McCain likes to refer to this as "Wack a Mole."
Conventional Western war methods don't work in these lands. The ONLY method of any country with these dynamics is containment. Eventually, containment leads to leadership to relieve the suffering of the people and that is where The West and others find leverage to bring about a different and more benevolent outcome to the people. At that point refugees can find their way back to their homes to repopulate the land.
There is Geneva II and that outlines basically what I have stated here. The problem with Geneva II is there is no outstanding leadership willing to come forward in peace to resolve to a Transitional Government. Syria is not at the point whereby Geneva II can apply it's principles.
As far as Americans and Europeans going to Syria to fight; that is their choice AND their peril. I do not see The West has any responsibility to rescue anyone when the choice they made is so very dangerous. If the USA pledges to rescue every American now captured by IS/ISL, it is dragging itself into a forever war and that is exactly what the rebels of IS/IS/L wants. None of those that died ever believed they would face a ruthless Islamist. To that end their religious leaders within the sovereign borders of any other country have caused their deaths.
The USA is not obligated to defend Islam.
