TED Conversations

James Whitehead

This conversation is closed.

Were China and Russia justified in vetoing the UN resolution for Syria?

Given the media blackout surrounding Syria and the dubious fatality statistics, is it fair to suggest that the proposed resolution was rushed/ambiguous and left open possibilities for military intervention? Could it be argued that the USA should have been more prepared to negotiate the terms of the resolution? By vetoing the resolution, have China and Russia contributed to the continued bloodshed, or would the implementation of the resolution only have led to further deaths?

At this time, is Western intervention in Syria appropriate, given the current climate of Civil War?

Does intervention question the sovereignty of Syrian Government?

Is the US using Syria as a platform for an attack/action against Iran?

To what extent would you agree that sanctions proposed by the resolution should not have concentrated solely on e Bashar al-Assad's government, but rather look at calming both the militia and armed rebels groups?

To what extent would you agree that the USA government is hiding its true intentions behind the guise of "Human Rights"?

Is it fair to draw parallels between Syria and Libya?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 9 2012: I agree that the Lybia resolution was hasty, which seems to support the veto, although as you correctly say for humanitarian reasons it is essential that a solution is found sooner rather than later.....Contradiction and Hypocrisy are everywhere! Perhaps the USA use "humanitarian reasons" as a means to their ends? perhaps they hide behind this sheild to gain support for altereor motives (im no conspiracy theorist but, hey, all the evidence points to this)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.