President Obama Hits The PAUSE Button On Syria

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:
He's had that reason from the beginning: If the dictators of the world know that they will face military action if they dare to use nerve gas against civilians, they will be less likely to use nerve gas against civilians.

The United States does not have jurisdiction over the dictators of the world. International law does. If the UN's inspectors conclude that Assad has used nerve gas, and the UN then gives the US a mandate to attack, fine with me.

The United States (like any othe Super Power) has jurisdiction over whomever it wants. Clearly, this is a truth with which you have a difficulty, but nevertheless it is so.

"International Law" is a political construct with absolutely no international authority.

If the UN and it's staff could be relied upon to rise above politics (which they most assuredly cannot) perhaps it's pronouncements and opinions might actually be worthwhile.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The UN does not intend to give anyone a mandate to curb the use of nerve gas against civilians, so the US is going to go ahead and do it without a mandate.

If the UN does not intend to give anyone a mandate to bomb Damascus, then America's right under international law to bomb it anyway is as strong as Cuba's right to bomb Guantanamo Bay for the human-rights abuses America committed there. In other words, it has none.

Put that together with the absence of any strategical logic connecting Obama's "limited strikes" with the cessation of nerve-gas attack, and the case for such an attack looks awfully feckless.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The United States (like any othe Super Power) has jurisdiction over whomever it wants. Clearly, this is a truth with which you have a difficulty, but nevertheless it is so.

No it isn't, because might does not make right. (I never disputed that the United States has the might to flaunt international law and act as a vigilante.) Clearly, this is a truth with which you have a difficulty, but nevertheless it is so.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

I believe that Syria did use chemical weapons against its own citizens. Obama drew the "line in the sand" that the rest of the world should be repulsed by this.
He miscalculated.
80% of Americans seem to feel it does not concern us. Other countries are content to sit on their hands. And our Congress will wait until they finish their vacation before they formally think about formulating an opinion.

I think you may be right about all of that.

But I also think the president would welcome a "delay" by Congress so that he can say it was not his fault that the "line in the sand" was not acted upon.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

...might does not make right. (I never disputed that the United States has the might to flaunt international law and act as a vigilante.) Clearly, this is a truth with which you have a difficulty, but nevertheless it is so.

Specious, in my opinion, since one might not be talking about the "right" of trite expressions. One might just be talking about what one should do. Like you "do not do shame," some people might not do trite expressions. They might just be following a "moral compass" that not everyone subscribes to. Moral compasses do not always point to a collective choice of what's the "collective North."

And, even though you are now a US citizen, many folks in this country do not have your opinions, since they perceive the US differently perhaps than new citizens, their families having been here for centuries (no different than Europeans). Without being offensive, your opinion, to many is inconsequential, since you are the proverbial "new kid on the block," when it comes to opinions about the role of the US in the world. Just being candid.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

So, what is the alternative? Allow chemical weapons to become acceptable, perhaps even a convential means of achieving objectives?

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

So, what is the alternative? Allow chemical weapons to become acceptable, perhaps even a convential means of achieving objectives?

I won't answer this question because I disagree with its premise. Your usage of the word "allow" implies that America is in charge, that America has the rightful power to allow or forbit the Syrians from throwing poison gas upon another.But right now, it isn't and it doesn't, because nobody elected it sheriff.

That being said, yes, the alternative is that America sit tight. And that's exactly what I want it to do.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Oh brother, you sure are on a kick. Forget the word allow and forget America the boogie man for a minute.

Lets say no one does anything except say nerve agents were used. Assad uses them again to clamp down on the opposition. Is the world saying it is now ok to use chemical weapons to achieve political objectives? For what reason then did we go into Kosovo?

3 Replies

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Is the world saying it is now ok to use chemical weapons to achieve political objectives? For what reason then did we go into Kosovo?

That was a violation of international law, too. I was against it when it happened, and haven't changed my mind since.

0 Replies

@revelette,

PS: I cannot forget America the bogeyman, because I never thought of America as a bogeyman in the first place. I think of America as a powerful country whose elites are idealistic, mostly ignorant about the rest of the world, and in enthusiastic pursuit of policies that sound good at the time they conceive them, but in the end create bigger messes than abstinence would have. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" --- and America's foreign policy keeps paving it.

4 Replies

@Thomas,

I get that, but still, in the end, doing nothing might be as bad as doing something. After all, if Assad has all these chemical weapons and there are so many different types of people in Syria right now, it would be thoughtless to just let the chemical weapons be unprotected. Also, the next people he gases might not be as expendable.

Sorry for the crack.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

I get that, but still, in the end, doing nothing might be as bad as doing something.

I agree with that. I'm not claiming America has any good options here. It does not.

Revelette wrote:

t would be thoughtless to just let the chemical weapons be unprotected.

How is Obama going to protect the chemical weapons in Syria without security forces on the ground? How will he accomplish this with the "limited attacks", most likely air strikes, that he's proposing?

Revelette wrote:

Sorry for the crack.

No problem.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

How is Obama going to protect the chemical weapons in Syria without security forces on the ground? How will he accomplish this with the "limited attacks", most likely air strikes, that he's proposing?

French papers have published today the huge amount of chemical weapons in Syria - known since years - as well as all those disappeared to "current address unknown".

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Do I understand you correctly? You're saying that America and France would know how to blow up a large-enough share of Syria's nerve gas to meaningfully curtail atrocities against civilians?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

We may end up looking like a paper tiger if the Congress refuses to give the president permission to retaliate for the chemical usage...

"RETALIATE" means that they did something to US. You're talking about an expression of displeasure, not retaliation.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

[quote="oralloy"
If it isn't too late for Israel to conduct the bombing campaign, they should break their deal with Obama and start bombing tonight.
[/quote]

What deal did Israel have with Obama?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Good catch, gungasnake

0 Replies

Best move Barack Obama has made as president...and I hope it is a legacy that will influence future presidents in these kinds of situations.

My thanks to the UK for leading the way on this.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

...I think of America as a powerful country whose elites are idealistic, mostly ignorant about the rest of the world, and in enthusiastic pursuit of policies that sound good at the time they conceive them, but in the end create bigger messes than abstinence would have...

Bigger messes for whom? Bigger messes by whose standards? You might be forgetting that most of the "elites" do not hail from your country of origin, and might not subscribe to the values you subscribe to. You are judging, in my opinion, as though your values are a priori the right values.

In my opinion, you might need to travel to the hinterlands, in the US, to see that many Americans hear a different drummer than you might hear.

What I find interesting, is that you do not seem to give much credence to the greater vested interest that those elites have in maintaining the national algorithm of the US. Internationally, it's all about who can have the most eventual wealth, in my opinion, something many Europeans do not subscribe to. Or, at least resent it, if the US wins the proverbial Monopoly game.

Thank you for not responding. It makes my day less stressful.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That kind of raises the question of what happens to nerve gases when they are "blown up". Personally, I would like to know which way the wind was blowing relatively to myself and the nerve gas.

2 Replies

President Obama Hits The PAUSE Button On Syria

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know