Skip to main content

View Diary: Pew: 48% of Americans oppose airstrikes on Syria, with only 29% in favor. 54% want U.N. resolution (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lack of a UN resolution isn't stopping North Korea (0+ / 0-)

    from bombing the shit out of Japan. Fear of a devastating retaliation is stopping North Korea.

    Military might is still vitally important in this world.

    •  It is, but are we concerned about (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbsoul, speedingpullet, CenPhx, JesseCW

      international law or not?

      A lot of people trying to justify bombing Syria say they're terribly concerned about international law until it stops them from doing what they want to do. Then they think it's an impediment.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 04:29:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends (0+ / 0-)

        For example, action to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a requirement of the signatories to the treaty.

        The concept of humanitarian intervention without UNSC approval was established by Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia to stop genocide. One UN official speaking about Syria has already used the word although I am not sure if he was referring the strict treaty term or the demotic use of the word.

        As far as legality without Chapter 7 approval goes, you might like to read thefull version of the UK Attorney General's opinion(which has always been available in full and is not an edited down version as supplied by Blair at the time of the Iraq War vote).

        If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:

        (i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

        (ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

        (iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

        We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.

        by Lib Dem FoP on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:12:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just want the UN inspectors to comment n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          I'm a sanctimonious purist. Whatchya gonna do about it?

          by speedingpullet on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:21:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The only action that signatories of the NPT (0+ / 0-)

          promise to engage in is cutting off all support for the nuclear efforts of any violators or non-signatories.

          There is NO military enforcement clause to the NPT.

          Now, when the AG of the UK becomes a UN official and speaks in that official capacity, his statements will be relevant to this discussion.

          Right now, the Client he's serving is an extremist Right Wing Tory/LibDem government, and a Prime Minster hungry for war.

          "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

          by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:36:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

            The role of the AG was subverted by Blair even though his independent advice this time chimes with the similar reasoning behind ignoring the UN at the time of the Iraq war.

            In the case of Iraq, the then AG was told to go away and rewrite his bit of the "dodgy dossier" to exclude a second UN vote. You may note that the current advice makes specific reference to a future veto or block by Russia.

            You really do not know UK politics or you would not make the very uninformed comment about the coalition that you do.  

            We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.

            by Lib Dem FoP on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:07:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, the last AG was subverted, but that's (0+ / 0-)

              really no reason at all to believe that this one might be.

              Sound.

              Are you really getting butt-hurt that someone has attacked your support for a Far-Right freak show of a Government that's nothing but Maggie with a Public Relations Polish?

              Your party killed itself for a generation by jumping in bed with those animals.  It's done.  You'll be lucky to score twenty seats next go round.

              "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

              by JesseCW on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:42:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site