Those wacky Syrians are at it again.

[Bobitis]

http://news.yahoo.com/china-russia-d...130930256.html

Allahu Akbar.

I've come to the conclusion that we should let em all kill each other.
Why should we protect those that wish to kill us? Because some only wanna kill us a little?

Let em eat sand and drink saltwater.

[raven818]

among them 20 women and 20 children

and proposed a high-level conference with the participation of Iran among other powers.

UN Chapter 7 calls for anything from
Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

To:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

So...Russia and China don't want to take even a minimalist approach, as noted in Article 441?

Whats wrong with that picture..in the resolution, you can't see the money involved. I hope I never see the day iran is sitting on the security council along with others that are now on it, as of this year, and these coming on next year;

Azerbaijan (2013) India (2012) South Africa (2012) Colombia (2012) Morocco (2013) Togo (2013) Germany (2012) Pakistan (2013)
Guatemala (2013) Portugal (2012)

Panetta told Pakistan today that " we are reaching the limits of our patience " with them.

I can generally put double speak together enough to make some sense out of it. But I don't have the first clue what that statement meant. What, are we gonna cut off their money? Then they're going to cut off our supply routes again?

It can't be that, we've already been there and done that.