quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:
"Friends of Syria" want US & NATO to bomb the country. With those friends you don't need enemies.

Which country?

Syria, of course. But in a friendly way.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
Syria, of course. But in a friendly way.

The kindness of the humanitarian bombardments.

UNITED NATIONS: Citing the example of Libya and Syria, India has expressed concern that the UN principle of “responsibility to protect” is being selectively used to promote national interests and bring about regime change in the conflict countries instead of saving civilians.

India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri said that over the last year, responsibility to protect or ‘R2P’ has again been invoked selectively.

“If this does not change, I am afraid, the noble idea of R2P will come into disrepute. Indeed, the Libyan case has already given R2P a bad name,” he said at an informal meeting here yesterday.

Puri said R2P should start with political engagement with the parties concerned and only when an “honest and serious” attempt at settlement fails should the international community respond.

“And the response should again be calibrated and gradual, rather than immediate recourse to armed intervention.

Selectivity must be avoided with respect to situations that the international community chooses to respond to. The principle must also be applied uniformly to all parties to a conflict,” he added.

When intervening in a country facing conflicts, the international community must also be cautious and mindful of the consequences of its actions, Puri said.

“We must not end with a situation where saving hundreds causes killing of thousands. The UN must act impartially and must not take sides,” he said.

Puri said as developments in Libya and Syria have shown, the principle of R2P is being used for regime change.

In Libya’s case UN Resolution 1973 was aimed at ceasefire with the mediation of the African Union (AU), use of all necessary means to protect civilians, no-fly zone, arms embargo and targeted sanctions, Puri noted.

However, he said, as soon as the resolution was adopted, the “over-enthusiastic members” of the international community stopped talking of the AU and the bloc’s efforts to bring about a ceasefire were completely ignored.

“Only aspect of the resolution of interest to them (international community) was use of all necessary means to bomb the hell out of Libya,” he said.

Further, in clear violation of the resolution, arms were supplied to civilians without any consideration of its consequences, no-fly zone was selectively implemented only for flights in and out of Tripoli and targeted measures were implemented insofar as they suited the objective of regime change, Puri said.

“All kinds of mechanisms were created to support one party to the conflict and attempts were made to bypass the sanctions committee by proposing resolutions to the Council.

It goes without saying that the pro-interventionist powers did not ever try to bring about a peaceful end to the crisis in Libya,” Puri noted.

In Syria’s case, Puri said instead of a simple step to hold the Syrian government to a timetable for political reforms, a resolution was proposed to impose sanctions.

“President Bashar Assad was declared to have lost legitimacy. The opposition was discouraged to engage with the government and the armed groups started receiving support ostensibly to defend themselves,” he said.

These examples clearly underline the problem that the principle of R2P is being selectively used to promote national interest rather than protect civilians, he said. “The time has now come to look at both sides of the coin.

Responsibility of each State to protect its populations on the one side is accepted. At the same time, one cannot ignore the responsibility of those who have been authorized to protect to fulfill their responsibility while protecting,” Puri said.

He said that an effective discharge of responsibility and obligations under the UN Charter in a balanced manner is called for, which requires reform of the Security Council so that it reflects contemporary realities. -PTI

http://www.indolink.com/displa....php?id=022212115707

India was always hypocritical . They supported the USSR oppressive govt , they had very close ties with Burnham and Indira Gandhi refused to meet with an indo guyanese concerned group when she visited Guyana under the auspices of the Burnham Govt. They need to stop moralizing and check their own moral standards - clean up their house first with the millions of untouchables still denied benefits of freedom , democracy and independence .

quote:

Originally posted by kidmost:
India was always hypocritical . They supported the USSR oppressive govt , they had very close ties with Burnham and Indira Gandhi refused to meet with an indo guyanese concerned group when she visited Guyana under the auspices of the Burnham Govt. They need to stop moralizing and check their own moral standards - clean up their house first with the millions of untouchables still denied benefits of freedom , democracy and independence .

India is a nation of dark-skinned people and they are totally mistaken if they believe White Anglo-Saxon men will ever treat them as equals. India is on their own they need to understand that WASPS only expect Indians and their nation to play the role of servants.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:
India is a nation of dark-skinned people and they are totally mistaken if they believe White Anglo-Saxon men will ever treat them as equals. India is on their own they need to understand that WASPS only expect Indians and their nation to play the role of servants.

Too simple, Lucas. Not all light-skinned people are racists. Don't blame the skin color, blame the ideology of colonialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:
India is a nation of dark-skinned people and they are totally mistaken if they believe White Anglo-Saxon men will ever treat them as equals. India is on their own they need to understand that WASPS only expect Indians and their nation to play the role of servants.

Too simple, Lucas. Not all light-skinned people are racists. Don't blame the skin color, blame the ideology of colonialism.

It is not a coincidence that the poorest peoples on earth are found in Africa and in the Indian subcontinent. So, yes. it is that simple!

No, it's not a coincidence. But it's not like all the white people took a vote and decided to oppress them. This planet has had, for thousands of years, an imperial system, where the few figured out how to enslave the many. It has only been over the past 500 years or so that humanity began to show signs of breaking free from that. In recent memory the citadel of the empire has moved from Rome to Venice to London, but it has been one continuous problem. I do not hold all white people responsible for it. I give many white people credit for trying to overthrow it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:

quote:

Originally posted by kidmost:
India was always hypocritical . They supported the USSR oppressive govt , they had very close ties with Burnham and Indira Gandhi refused to meet with an indo guyanese concerned group when she visited Guyana under the auspices of the Burnham Govt. They need to stop moralizing and check their own moral standards - clean up their house first with the millions of untouchables still denied benefits of freedom , democracy and independence .

India is a nation of dark-skinned people and they are totally mistaken if they believe White Anglo-Saxon men will ever treat them as equals. India is on their own they need to understand that WASPS only expect Indians and their nation to play the role of servants.

This is where you and I differ. India is very diverse , with peoples from black to white so there goes your argument about color. India has not been able to transform their diversity into an asset upon which they can build power and influence. Too many petty issues dog their ability to emerge as a real power. Just too many issues to discuss here .But India has the potential to surpass every nation and country in this universe and beyond but what the use of potential if it is not harnessed properly.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
No, it's not a coincidence. But it's not like all the white people took a vote and decided to oppress them. This planet has had, for thousands of years, an imperial system, where the few figured out how to enslave the many. It has only been over the past 500 years or so that humanity began to show signs of breaking free from that. In recent memory the citadel of the empire has moved from Rome to Venice to London, but it has been one continuous problem. I do not hold all white people responsible for it. I give many white people credit for trying to overthrow it.

the dude is right in more ways than you can imagine . It is not about those whites who are trying to overthrow these perceptions and stereotypes but rather what are the victims doing about it . Africa like many asian countries lack structures dedicated to the upliftment of the masses of people. Now when there is a crises the easiet thing to do is send money food etc as relief when in fact this kind of action continues to make these peoples less self sufficient and less proud of themselves . I am indian , I have an Indian name and no one and I mean no one dares pi55 on my parade . I will not change my name to fit in. I have fought many battles including CQB's to be where I am in business and no one , no matter how white or royal pis5es on my parade. One has to stop trying to fit in and try to stand out .

There are enough Friends of Syria willing to invade without a UN resolution.!!