News Forum - Burmese military reportedly killed and burned at least 30 refugees

[DiJoDavO]

1 hour ago, Stardust said:

The Phillipines went by themself to the international courts. What have the Chinese in other countries territorries and in international waters rights to claim anything. Maybe you should how many seamiles it is away and in which Countries this waters are, I guess you are drunk and no more quote me better read first something about searights and where by internatinal regulations this zones are ending. Absolut absurd your statements to claim the waters in the Phillipines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc belong to China and including internatinal waters.

That's what I'm saying. However, I also add to it that the USA is far far away, so if one country doesn't belong there, it's them. 

[Stardust]

11 minutes ago, DiJoDavO said:

That's what I'm saying. However, I also add to it that the USA is far far away, so if one country doesn't belong there, it's them. 

USA not claim these waters! You really do not understand the difference between claimin and free navigation in international waters at internatinol shipping routes. Learn first something about regulations about the sea and shipping maybe then you will understand how absurd your comments are.

[DiJoDavO]

1 hour ago, Stardust said:

USA not claim these waters! You really do not understand the difference between claimin and free navigation in international waters at internatinol shipping routes. Learn first something about regulations about the sea and shipping maybe then you will understand how absurd your comments are.

I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine. Why should the USA be there in the first place with warships? And everyone has to just think it's ok, because they say it's freedom of navigation? But I guess it's only ok as long as it doesn't happen to the west. 

What bothers me is the hypocrisy each time. When something happens to China it's all ok, but when the same thing happens back to the west, it's offensive. 

But well, this wasn't actually the main topic when I see the title. 

Conclusion about the main topic: the west only gets involved as long as there's something to gain. Nothing has been done against the case in Myanmar because there's nothing the USA can get out of it. What's on their agenda now involves China and Russia again. As soon as the news shoves a particular topic down your throat, you will know there's something fishy going on. 

[Stardust]

10 hours ago, DiJoDavO said:

I get your point, but you don't seem to get mine. Why should the USA be there in the first place with warships? And everyone has to just think it's ok, because they say it's freedom of navigation? But I guess it's only ok as long as it doesn't happen to the west. 

What bothers me is the hypocrisy each time. When something happens to China it's all ok, but when the same thing happens back to the west, it's offensive. 

But well, this wasn't actually the main topic when I see the title. 

Conclusion about the main topic: the west only gets involved as long as there's something to gain. Nothing has been done against the case in Myanmar because there's nothing the USA can get out of it. What's on their agenda now involves China and Russia again. As soon as the news shoves a particular topic down your throat, you will know there's something fishy going on. 

I got your point but you not understand how the UN security council works and it depends not only on the USA . In missions with UN mandates you see not only troops from also many european troops like the French, German etc etc. As you seen for example also Germany is seated in the security council. I agree it makes it difficult. But go away from your thinking it is all up to the USA because thats not the reality. Anyway this case is now on the top of the security council and all member countries from the council USA, EU abd they will discuss it also wotheir allies or Nato members. Sure it is a long process because of the amount of countries but it is on the investigation and observation from their militaries, security agencies and it is on the radar and all incidents will be documented and that means they will be held accountable now for all what happened or will happen. That means it is also on the table for UN mandates if troops has to intervene in Burma if they ignore the concil.

[PBS]

2 hours ago, Stardust said:

I got your point but you not understand how the UN security council works and it depends not only on the USA . In missions with UN mandates you see not only troops from also many european troops like the French, German etc etc. As you seen for example also Germany is seated in the security council. I agree it makes it difficult. But go away from your thinking it is all up to the USA because thats not the reality. Anyway this case is now on the top of the security council and all member countries from the council USA, EU abd they will discuss it also wotheir allies or Nato members. Sure it is a long process because of the amount of countries but it is on the investigation and observation from their militaries, security agencies and it is on the radar and all incidents will be documented and that means they will be held accountable now for all what happened or will happen. That means it is also on the table for UN mandates if troops has to intervene in Burma if they ignore the concil.

IMO it is unlikely the UN Security Council will pass a resolution for member States to contribute forces to intervene in Myanmar for peace keeping purposes due to PRC / Russia right of veto. ASEAN is against interference in member States, so don't believe any meaningful contribution from ASEAN members, though it is unusual good news Thailand is stepping up providing a degree of additional resources to assist Karen refugees fleeing the fighting.

Whilst a major funding contributor to the UN and seeking permanent representation on the Security Council, Germany is not currently a member of the Security Council, their last temporary seat expired on 31/12/2020.

[Stardust]

16 minutes ago, Stardust said:

You forgot not to quote me because I said I will not share your irratiinal ways or any fairy tale propagand from the politburo Beijing from you! Ypu are one of the posters who not speak one word german, never lived there, never served there but want to explain the people there German and Germany stay with your dumb and arrogance just away. You never served under un mandate but wanna explain the people un. What you also not realize til 2011 everybody had to serve in the army by mandate and a lot of missions under the un. I wait you want tp explain the people in europe also the balkan wars late in the 90s. You never served in a war or in any way with the un so sure i will always follow what I know because knowing is not the same like believing ir read somwhere like you do. So better not quote me especially after you wanted to tell me the translations are better than the original sources.

By the way if you would know anything about the security council you would know it was the 6th term to take the seat and is in on rotating but Germany is still member in the security council. The seats are regulated in permanent and non permanent. Please not explain me something about UN it makes really no sense for me your quotes on me.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Stardust said:

I got your point but you not understand how the UN security council works and it depends not only on the USA . In missions with UN mandates you see not only troops from also many european troops like the French, German etc etc. As you seen for example also Germany is seated in the security council. I agree it makes it difficult. But go away from your thinking it is all up to the USA because thats not the reality. Anyway this case is now on the top of the security council and all member countries from the council USA, EU abd they will discuss it also wotheir allies or Nato members. Sure it is a long process because of the amount of countries but it is on the investigation and observation from their militaries, security agencies and it is on the radar and all incidents will be documented and that means they will be held accountable now for all what happened or will happen. That means it is also on the table for UN mandates if troops has to intervene in Burma if they ignore the concil.

All a bit moot, as these activities have been ongoing for decades upon decades without the intervention of such enlightened international or regional intervention. Why is that? 

 

[Stardust]

8 minutes ago, Stardust said:

By the way if you would know anything about the security council you would know it was the 6th term to take the seat and is in on rotating but Germany is still member in the security council. The seats are regulated in permanent and non permanent. Please not explain me something about UN it makes really no sense for me your quotes on me.

Seats are 5 permanent and 10 non permanent rotating seats.

[Stardust]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

All a bit moot, as these activities have been ongoing for decades upon decades without the intervention of such enlightened international or regional intervention. Why is that? 

Maybe look who mostly block with their veto rights. You should sent this question directly to the suporters of dictatorships and human rights abuses, torture and killings China and Russia!

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Stardust said:

Maybe look who mostly block with their veto rights. You should sent this question directly to the suporters of dictatorships and human rights abuses, torture and killings China and Russia!

....USA and UK.

[PBS]

1 hour ago, Stardust said:

By the way if you would know anything about the security council you would know it was the 6th term to take the seat and is in on rotating but Germany is still member in the security council. The seats are regulated in permanent and non permanent. Please not explain me something about UN it makes really no sense for me your quotes on me.

Fully aware of UN structure. Germany is not currently an acting member of the Security Council. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by PBS

[dj230]

Crazy the world we live in 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, dj230 said:

Crazy the world we live in 

The world that some live in, perhaps.

Largely fanciful.