Skip to main content

View Diary: Assad Gassed His People, Even Opponents Of Syria Resolution Agree. Question Is What To Do (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush and al Qaeda are both over done here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton

    I think the msm may be responsibility for some of that. Case in point, consider this article and how far you have to read into the article to get the more nuanced information:
    http://www.reuters.com/...

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:45:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, I heard a report (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob, Justanothernyer, ParkRanger

      From two US reporters in Syria. What they fed indicated that much of the information we had been hearing a be a little old. They both said that at this point the Al Qaeda elements are largely controlling the northern sanctuaries of Syria and are consolidating their positions. They also said that the bulk of the fighting, especially that which is occurring in and around Damascus is by non-Al Qaeda forces.

      There is no question that it is a mess. And it is an open question as to whether anything we do will make it less of a mess. One thing I do agree on is that doing nothing will pretty much for that there will be greater use of chemical weapons. I also think that it stands to reason that if the United States does use force it will increase our leverage with the various elements within Syria down the road when this conflict is ultimately resolved.

      But my main reason for supporting the strikes that I actually believed in the chemical weapons convention. And I know that unless there are sanctions for people who break rules, the rules are meaningless.

      Further, affiant sayeth not. 53959

      by Gary Norton on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:54:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  unless (0+ / 0-)

        the states which break rules are powerful enough to fight back. I presume that you are aware that North Korea has chemical weapons. But any strike on North Korea would result in nukes hitting South Korea, Japan, and (perhaps) even Seattle. So no American President would even consider launching such a strike.
             By the way, the United States still has stockpiles of chemical weapons despite the Chemical Weapons Convention. See "the rules" are international agreements. The United States does not get to be law-maker, judge, jury, and cop all in one just because we happen to be a superpower. If you believe that removing the Assad regime from power is in the national interest of the U.S., worth putting thousands of Americans on the ground to stop the fighting and secure the chemical weapons, say so directly.

        "Something has gone very wrong with America, not just its economy, but its ability to function as a democratic nation. And it’s hard to see when or how that wrongness will get fixed." Paul Krugman and Robin Wells

        by Reston history guy on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 03:53:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  woah, a couple corrections . . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Reston history guy, Gary Norton
          I presume that you are aware that North Korea has chemical weapons. But any strike on North Korea would result in nukes hitting South Korea, Japan, and (perhaps) even Seattle. So no American President would even consider launching such a strike.
          It's not illegal for North Korea to possess chemical weapons. North Korea is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (which bans the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons) and is not bound by its terms.  North Korea IS a signatory of the 1925 Geneva Protocols, but these ban only the USE of chemical weapons, not their manufacture or possession.
          By the way, the United States still has stockpiles of chemical weapons despite the Chemical Weapons Convention.
          This is terribly misleading. When any nation signs the Chemical Weapons Convention, it has to "declare" any stocks of existing chemical weapons materials that it still has, and then a schedule is worked out for the destruction of all those materials under UN inspection. Only one nation (India) actually met its deadline.  All the other countries that had existing chemical stockpiles at the time they signed the treaty (including the US, Russia, Libya and South Korea) still have parts of their arsenal that have not yet been destroyed.  These are gathered into designated locations where they are kept under the eye of UN inspectors. They are not combat-ready.
          The United States does not get to be law-maker, judge, jury, and cop all in one just because we happen to be a superpower.
          On that, I agree. As I have repeatedly said, I am not a pacifist and I am not in principle opposed to the use of military force. At this point, it seems clear that Assad has used chemical weapons, in violation of international law--and it also seems possible that the rebels may also have used chemical weapons, in violation of international law. In my view, ANYONE who uses them, under any circumstances, deserves to be facing charges of "crimes against humanity" in Le Hague, and their access to such weapons removed.

          BUT . . . .

          I am adamantly against any unilateral American action to "enforce international law". Given that the US itself has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court and has itself blocked any application of international law to itself or its international buddies, I see no reason to allow the US to enforce international law on others that it does not even accept for itself.

          And in my view we cannot allow ANY nation to unilaterally appoint itself the world's police force, since the temptation for ANY "superpower" is to enforce the rules against people it doesn't like, and ignore the rules against people it does like. International law makes the world a better place, and it must be enforced---but allowing a "superpower" to unilaterally decide which laws get enforced and against whom, is not "international law"; it is plain ole superpower imperialism, and it makes the world a worse place. We cannot allow it.

          So I am against ANY international law enforcement, by ANY country--whether it's the US, France, UK, Russia, China, or Lichtenstein--that does not have the explicit prior approval and authorization of the UN.

          And that is why I oppose any US military action in Syria.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site