[mike777]

rbforster, on 2013-September-03, 20:42, said:

Well a couple months ago the UN concluded that the Syrian rebels had used chemical weapons. I don't know if we gave them the stuff like we did with Saddam back in the day, but we sure didnt stop supporting them over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-22424188

So maybe we go back to the crusader's model and let God sort 'em out?

so if true the world needs to bomb both or do nothing?

I just keep going back to Iran/nukes

do nothing or what?

call in police...csi.....un......?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-September-03, 21:52, said:

so if true the world needs to bomb both or do nothing?

I just keep going back to Iran/nukes

do nothing or what?

call in police...csi.....un......?

What is there about Iran that makes them more inherently dangerous than North Korea with nukes or Pakistan with nukes?

The world is a dangerous place, and perfect security is impossible to achieve. The reason to strike Syria now is to punish those who used chemical weapons and send a message that any future use of chemical weapons will receive similar consequences - but that action will lead to more, not less, danger for the U.S. and its allies.

The question is whether or not the issue is worth the price we will pay. If so, then so be it. But it makes no sense to pretend that security can be had by force.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-03, 17:05, said:

I'm not so sure sovereign nations should defer to the UN for this, as it means giving up a portion of their sovereignty. Of course, one could say that these are "rogue nations" and bang on the table and insist that the UN has a right and duty to "Do Something" regardless what the nation concerned thinks.

What do we do when the UN decides it's the US which needs a spanking?

My view is that sovereignty is not absolute. There are international laws that apply to all governments. The role of an international police force is to ensure that those laws are enforced.

As Richard mentioned, the US has a veto power in the UN, so the UN poses no threat to the US. But the best guarantee that the US won't ever need "a spanking" from other nations is to make sure that we in the US uphold international laws and standards ourselves.

[kenberg]

One issue about "punish". Who will actually be on the receiving end of the punishment?
Prolonging the war does not necessarily punish Assad. It would certainly punish the Syrian people.
A strike that changes the outcome of the war would punish Assad.
If we believe Obama, we explicitly disavow any interest in changing the outcome.
And that's a result other leaders would pay attention to.

It's one hell of a tricky mess.

Kathleen Parker mentioned a reader who described the Obama policy as "Speak loudly and carry a twig".
Of course no jibe, however clever, really helps all that much.

[Aberlour10]

What drives Kerry to lie in Congress today?

Al Oaida is not involved in Syria??? hahahahahaa the joke of the year

Every child in Europe knows that Al Nusra Brigades are armed subsidiares of Al Quaida in Syria, These are best armed and best paid forces under the syrian rebels. They fight at the most important strategic places in Syria. The Secretery of State does not know it, or does not want to know it?

Really, such statements make the US administration not very reliable...

[kenberg]

Ah yes, I was just visiting the grandkids. The twins, age 9, certainly agreed that Kerry did not know what he was talking about. . Joe, who will be 4 next week, is still a bit uninformed. But he's an American kid, so what can you expect?

[Aberlour10]

Ken, maybe I should not use this ironic-mode in my posting above but Kerry's statement is so ridiculous....

[kenberg]

Actually I am fine with your phrasing. I won't hold you to proving it literally. I just couldn't resist a little riffing.

It reminded me of a scene from Bachelor Mother, an old Ginger Rogers film, where she got backed into claiming her six month old could talk.

As to knowledge, I am not a greatly informed American but I pay some attention. I am absolutely not equipped to debate the structure of various rebel groups in Syria, or anywhere.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2013-September-04, 10:42, said:

But it makes no sense to pretend that security can be had by force.

It makes no sense to pretend that security can be had without force, either.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2013-September-04, 11:20, said:

My view is that sovereignty is not absolute. There are international laws that apply to all governments. The role of an international police force is to ensure that those laws are enforced.

My understanding is that the US has never given up any of its sovereignty to the UN. As for "international law" that's a different class of object than the laws with which most people are familiar. International law is sort of like a set of "gentlemen's agreements", to which nations adhere, or not, as they see fit. There are a lot of people who would like things to be different, who would like the UN to be a true world government, but it ain't. Not yet.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-04, 23:11, said:

My understanding is that the US has never given up any of its sovereignty to the UN. As for "international law" that's a different class of object than the laws with which most people are familiar. International law is sort of like a set of "gentlemen's agreements", to which nations adhere, or not, as they see fit. There are a lot of people who would like things to be different, who would like the UN to be a true world government, but it ain't. Not yet.

There are these things called treaties, conventions, charters and declarations that have signatures at the end of the document.

An example of such a document is the Charter of the United Nations. The USA have put their signature at the end of that document in 1945. One of the articles in this charter is article 25:

Quote

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

These are not "gentlemen's agreements". These are contracts. As a consequence, decisions of the UN Security Council are binding, also for the USA. That means that the USA has legally given up some of its sovereignty to the UN Security Council.

Every time you sign an agreement, you give up some of your sovereignty. The fact that -in practice- it is hard to enforce some of those agreements, particularly on countries with powerful armed forces, does not change that.

Rik

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-04, 23:06, said:

It makes no sense to pretend that security can be had without force, either.

Security is an illusion. What is crazy is to think it is an attainable goal.

[kenberg]

As far as I know, the Security Council has not made any decision regarding Syria.

My earlies recollection of Security Council actions goes back to 1950, I woke up one morning to find that North Korea had crossed into South Korea, and that the U.S. had brought the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Action by the United Nations was authorized, and many nations sent troops to back up the action of the Security Council. I was only eleven at the time, but still I am really pretty certain that the Soviet Union did not send troops to fight, or at least they did not send troops to fight on the side of the United Nations.

No doubt there will not be any Security Council action on Syria, so Russia will not be obligated to send any troops.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2013-September-05, 06:31, said:

As far as I know, the Security Council has not made any decision regarding Syria.

My earlies recollection of Security Council actions goes back to 1950, I woke up one morning to find that North Korea had crossed into South Korea, and that the U.S. had brought the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Action by the United Nations was authorized, and many nations sent troops to back up the action of the Security Council. I was only eleven at the time, but still I am really pretty certain that the Soviet Union did not send troops to fight, or at least they did not send troops to fight on the side of the United Nations.

No doubt there will not be any Security Council action on Syria, so Russia will not be obligated to send any troops.

The United Nations and the Korean War

Quote

The actual invasion of the South by the North took place on June 25th 1950. The Security Council of the United Nations met the same day. The Russian delegation to the Security Council did not attend the meeting as they were boycotting the United Nations for recognising Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan as the official government for China whilst ignoring Mao’s communist regime in Beijing. Therefore, the obvious use of the veto (which it is assumed the USSR would have used in this case) did not occur.

At the meeting, America claimed that North Korea had broken world peace by attacking South Korea. America called on North Korea to withdraw to the 38th Parallel. Nine out of the eleven countries in the Security Council supported this view. Russia was absent and one abstained.

Since then, Russia has not been boycotting the UN.

[kenberg]

Yes, I remember how it happened. Truman was given the credit for realizing that there was this opportunity to avoid a Soviet veto.

But I was responding to the legal argument that we must "accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council". Legalistic arguments get legalistic responses. We are required to carry out decisions of the Security Council. If the Security Council makes no decision, there is no obligation to carry out a non-decision.


Actually, I am not simply being legalistic. "Obligated to act to carry out Security council decisions" is quite different from "Obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". Presumably they said what they meant when the wrote it. I seriously doubt that we, or the Soviets, or the Brits or the French, would have agreed to "obligated to not act without Security Council authorization". At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2013-September-05, 08:55, said:

At any rate, they were not asked to agree to that. They agreed to act to carry out decisions when the Security Council took action, that's all they agreed to.

No doubt about that. Agreeing to work together toward common objectives is not the same as giving away the right to pursue one's own objectives. The fact that I accept the legitimacy of the local police force does not mean that I've given up my right to self-defense or that I believe that the police always get it right.

My opinion is that it is in the long-term interest of the US to refrain from acting as the unelected police force of the world. But in a situation like the 9/11 attacks, for example, I totally agree that it was correct for the US to go after bin Laden and his training camps in Afghanistan and clean them out without asking the UN.

The correct course after 9/11 was to do that and only that and then come right back home. Had the US president taken his head out of his rear and done just that, we'd be in a much better position today.

Just saw this in the NY Times: Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

Quote

As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers.

The video also offers a reminder of the foreign policy puzzle the United States faces in finding rebel allies as some members of Congress, including Senator John McCain, press for more robust military support for the opposition.

And it's not as though Assad is not Syrian.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2013-September-05, 09:39

[kenberg]

I largely agree with this. I most seriously wish Obama had never said "Assad must go" and I wish he had never said anything about lines of various colors. From the time of the campaign in 2008 I have been unenthusiastic about Obama's speeches. I didn't hear the much praised one in 2004, but I am always skeptical when I hear such extraordinary praise for a speech. The man is far too fond of his own voice and far too confident that whatever he says will happen actually will happen. And now we are in a jam. I get the sense that the movement is toward a much more muscular strike. As I mentioned, jokingly, there are high level discussions regarding Richard's earlier post. But not jokingly, a three day in and out sounded stupid. And the out part is always harder than the in part.

Whatever we do, I think this will be a change in how Obama is seen. Not a change he will enjoy.

[ArtK78]

The issue here is not whether we want to or need to take sides. The issue here is the use of chemical weapons.

It appears that the US has sided with the rebels, but this is an uneasy alliance at best. As time passes, it becomes more clear that the rebels do not represent what is "right" in Syria (if anything is) and also do not share the objectives of the US. I would not be the least bit surprised if the rebels would be just as anti-American and anti-US interests as the Assad regime if the rebels were to gain power. So, the bottom line is that this is a no-win situation for the US as far as the civil war in Syria is concerned.

But, again, that is not the issue.

kenberg, on 2013-September-05, 09:52, said:

The man is far too fond of his own voice and far too confident that whatever he says will happen actually will happen.

Ken, in reading your posts, I thought you were above this type of unsupported characterization. I always read your posts as representing a voice of reason in a Forum often lacking reason. I am disappointed.

I assume that you have not had personal conversations with President Obama or those close to him which would support your assessment of his being "far too fond of his own voice."

If Mr. Obama were indeed "far too fond of his own voice" then I would expect him to be making far more formal addresses to Congress and to the nation than he does. His major speeches have been few and far between.

As for the rest of that sentence, I would hope that President Obama has confidence in obtaining his objectives but also skepticism of his ability to get his way by merely stating what he wants. His dealings over the last 4 1/2 years with Congress and the international community should provide him with ample evidence that he can't get his way by merely stating what he wants.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-05, 00:25, said:

That means that the USA has legally given up some of its sovereignty to the UN Security Council.

Well, no. We have, as someone pointed out upthread, veto power over any decision of the UNSC. A decision that has been vetoed is no decision at all. It didn't happen.

There are many treaties the US has not signed precisely because it would require giving up some of our sovereignty (or because they directly conflict with the US Constitution, for example the Paris Accords of, I think, 1856, which "abolished" the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal).

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2013-September-05, 09:27, said:

My opinion is that it is in the long-term interest of the US to refrain from acting as the unelected police force of the world. But in a situation like the 9/11 attacks, for example, I totally agree that it was correct for the US to go after bin Laden and his training camps in Afghanistan and clean them out without asking the UN.

The correct course after 9/11 was to do that and only that and then come right back home. Had the US president taken his head out of his rear and done just that, we'd be in a much better position today.

With this I wholeheartedly agree.