Syria

[Soxbadger]

Oh so are you now saying that Syria's "Well join the CWC is hollow?" and why in the world does it matter what Israel is doing?

 

Basically Syria hasnt signed the CWC but has signed the NPT. Israel has signed the CWC (not ratified) but hasnt signed the NPT.

 

That has 0 relevance. Its just red herring nonsense.

 

[Balta1701]

Oh so are you now saying that Syria's "Well join the CWC is hollow?" and why in the world does it matter what Israel is doing?

 

Basically Syria hasnt signed the CWC but has signed the NPT. Israel has signed the CWC (not ratified) but hasnt signed the NPT.

 

That has 0 relevance. Its just red herring nonsense.

Because Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously?

 

Syria doesn't have the resources to build the bomb, but enough gas to leave Israel half vacant is a pretty fair deterrent to the threat from Israels nuclear capacity.

[Soxbadger]

Our war hungry President just got blind sided by Putin. Impressive.

 

Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike.

 

What I dont understand is what does it matter if Syria signs the CWC at this point? Isnt the entire point of the civil war that the govt is illegally holding power and no longer represents the people of Syria?

 

What would it matter if King George signed a treaty that governed the US during the revolutionary war...

 

I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game.

[Balta1701]

Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike.

 

What I dont understand is what does it matter if Syria signs the CWC at this point? Isnt the entire point of the civil war that the govt is illegally holding power and no longer represents the people of Syria?

 

What would it matter if King George signed a treaty that governed the US during the revolutionary war...

 

I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game.

Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon.

[Balta1701]

Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon.

Oh, and considering the U.S. DOD has estimated it would take ~70,000 U.S. troops to secure Syria's chemical weapons if the country did collapse, we're just going to put up with it too.

[Soxbadger]

Because Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously?

 

Syria doesn't have the resources to build the bomb, but enough gas to leave Israel half vacant is a pretty fair deterrent to the threat from Israels nuclear capacity.

 

lol

 

Because Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously?

 

Its not a good argument. Just because someone else does something bad or wrong, doesnt mean you should as well. Eye for an eye and the entire world goes ...

 

 

[Balta1701]

Its not a good argument. Just because someone else does something bad or wrong, doesnt mean you should as well. Eye for an eye and the entire world goes ...

I see.

 

So you'd agree that since an eye for an eye is a terrible thing, illegally bombing a country as punishment for using chemical weapons is a ridiculous idea. After all, an eye for an eye and the entire world goes...

[Soxbadger]

Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon.

 

Got the winning lottery numbers?

 

Because as Im sure your aware, Assad wasnt ever supposed to run Syria. But due to freak unpredictable chance...

 

[Soxbadger]

I see.

 

So you'd agree that since an eye for an eye is a terrible thing, illegally bombing a country as punishment for using chemical weapons is a ridiculous idea. After all, an eye for an eye and the entire world goes...

 

I dont believe that its illegal for the US to attack Syria. And If the entire world is going to start using chemical weapons, being blind is the least of our concerns.

 

But then again, ive never proposed an eye for an eye. I dont believe Ive ever proposed killing 1 person, I dont believe Ive proposed the use of chemical weapons.

 

Ive merely stated there have to be consequences, if you dont think so, thats fine, but you gotta live with it, not me.

[Balta1701]

I dont believe that its illegal for the US to attack Syria.

How so?

 

The U.N. Charter explicitly makes military action against member states illegal without the support of the U.N. Security Council. It doesn't give exceptions, it says that under all circumstances except when authorized by the U.N. Security Council, making war against a partner nation is illegal. If military action was to be legal in response to deployment of chemical weapons, it needs to be authorized by the Security Council

 

The U.N. Security Council has shown no interest in supporting a U.S. war against Syria. By any reasonable definition, the U.N. Charter makes war with Syria illegal.

 

At least in the cases of Iraq and Libya, the Bush and Obama administrations were able to get resolutions that gave them enough latitude you could make a case the intervention was legal. In this case, it is completely the opposite.

[Soxbadger]

Without the US does the UN have any ability to enforce any of its laws?

 

You can call something illegal, but if you have no police, you have no law.

 

(edit)

 

And Im not up on the UN rules etc, but Im thinking that in order for any US action to be declared illegal it would have to be voted on by the UN Security Council, which means the US can veto it?

Edited September 9, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

Bad things only happened between 2001 and 2009.

 

Somewhere between that statement and nothing happened is the truth.

[Balta1701]

Without the US does the UN have any ability to enforce any of its laws?

 

You can call something illegal, but if you have no police, you have no law.

 

(edit)

 

And Im not up on the UN rules etc, but Im thinking that in order for any US action to be declared illegal it would have to be voted on by the UN Security Council, which means the US can veto it?

Apply every single word of this post to your focus on the illegal chemical weapons attacks. The conventions on chemical weapons usage similarly do not establish a police force or enforcement mechanism. That is left to international agreement, to the United Nations.

 

Here's article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

 

Without the support of the Security Council, bombing Syria is just as much of an illegal war crime as syrian use of chemical weapons.

 

The U.N. has no enforcement power you're correct, but basically the U.S. bombing Syria would be declaring that we're big enough to make our own rules because we know no one will enforce them against us.

[Soxbadger]

So what does it say when the UN allows a member to flagrantly break its rules?

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

 

Article 1 Act 1

 

And based on Article 2, Act 2:

 

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

 

Once Syria failed to fulfill its obligations under the UN charter, it no longer is entitled to the rights and benefits of the UN. Therefore it can be argued the US action would be legal, as Syria is no longer fulfilling its obligations.

 

Simply put, any authority is only as legitimate as its actions. And if the UN will allow a member to use chemical weapons without reprisal, then the UN isnt worth anything anymore. Might as well call it the League of Nations.

[Balta1701]

Once Syria failed to fulfill its obligations under the UN charter, it no longer is entitled to the rights and benefits of the UN. Therefore it can be argued the US action would be legal, as Syria is no longer fulfilling its obligations.

 

Simply put, any authority is only as legitimate as its actions. And if the UN will allow a member to use chemical weapons without reprisal, then the UN isnt worth anything anymore. Might as well call it the League of Nations.

And you know who is left the authority to determine that Syria is not fulfilling those obligations? The U.N. Security council.

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

 

If the UN will allow the United States to attack another country without reprisal then the UN isn't worth anything any more. Might as well call it the League of Nations.

 

Every single statement you make about the Syrian Use of chemical weapons would apply 100% as much to the U.S. aerial murder campaign. Every single one.

[southsider2k5]

Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike.

 

What I dont understand is what does it matter if Syria signs the CWC at this point? Isnt the entire point of the civil war that the govt is illegally holding power and no longer represents the people of Syria?

 

What would it matter if King George signed a treaty that governed the US during the revolutionary war...

 

I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game.

 

He could have led with that instead of threatening to bomb them.

[Soxbadger]

He could have led with that instead of threatening to bomb them.

 

He could have, he might have, I dont know, Im not privy to any of the information.

 

But I do know that no matter what happens, there will be some people who write that it was a masterful plan and others will write that it was the worst plan ever.

 

Generally speaking I think most people negotiate from an extreme position and then settle on a middle position. It rarely works where you offer a middle position, then move to an extreme position, to finally settle on middle position.

 

Not how Id play the game, but I guess its a possibility. My preference is to start with the extreme and then move towards middle. But really thats just personal preference.

[Balta1701]

He could have, he might have, I dont know, Im not privy to any of the information.

 

But I do know that no matter what happens, there will be some people who write that it was a masterful plan and others will write that it was the worst plan ever.

 

Generally speaking I think most people negotiate from an extreme position and then settle on a middle position. It rarely works where you offer a middle position, then move to an extreme position, to finally settle on middle position.

 

Not how Id play the game, but I guess its a possibility. My preference is to start with the extreme and then move towards middle. But really thats just personal preference.

Actually you do know, because the U.S. is pulling the same "we refuse to negotiate with Syria until Assad steps down" line that it has used in so many other countries to zero success. The only reason why there was a response here was that the Russians were looking for a way to make the US look bad, which is why the U.S. has been trying to walk-back the concept of an "offer" all day.

 

If they'd actually intended to make some sort of "offer", they wouldn't be doing it the day before the President's big attempt to sell why we need to murder Syrians. At least not publicly. Undermines everything the President will say tomorrow.

[Soxbadger]

Youre basically arguing that a case never settles the day before trial because lawyers wouldnt prepare for a big trial just to settle at the 11th hour.

 

If the President of the United States doesnt have multiple contingency speeches based on what events transpire, then I really am overestimating the office. I just cant imagine a world where they have 1 plan.

 

But maybe so, itd be terrifying but maybe its true. But if I was the President, Id have multiple speeches and one of them would be written about how I did this amazing thing of getting Syria to sign the CWC, something that no other President could accomplish.

 

Id pat myself on the back and call it a day.

 

Its really not that difficult to play all sides and make yourself look good. Just like its not hard to play all sides and make someone look bad.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Youre basically arguing that a case never settles the day before trial because lawyers wouldnt prepare for a big trial just to settle at the 11th hour.

 

If the President of the United States doesnt have multiple contingency speeches based on what events transpire, then I really am overestimating the office. I just cant imagine a world where they have 1 plan.

 

But maybe so, itd be terrifying but maybe its true. But if I was the President, Id have multiple speeches and one of them would be written about how I did this amazing thing of getting Syria to sign the CWC, something that no other President could accomplish.

 

Id pat myself on the back and call it a day.

 

Its really not that difficult to play all sides and make yourself look good. Just like its not hard to play all sides and make someone look bad.

Considering that extending this offer on Wednesday would make themselves look good while the President will have to figure out how to explain it away or ignore it tomorrow, they totally let the Russians play them and make them look bad.

[Soxbadger]

In what world is the US getting Syria to sign the CWC and not having to kill anyone, bad?

 

How is the US bad with that result?

 

Im just not understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Do you just hate the US that much that you want it to look bad?

 

Its a damn tricky situation with lots of lives at stake. And you care more about how we look than getting a good solution?

 

Is that really the case?

 

Just hard to imagine.

[Balta1701]

In what world is the US getting Syria to sign the CWC and not having to kill anyone, bad?

 

How is the US bad with that result?

 

Im just not understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Do you just hate the US that much that you want it to look bad?

 

Its a damn tricky situation with lots of lives at stake. And you care more about how we look than getting a good solution?

 

Is that really the case?

 

Just hard to imagine.

The world where the President is going to go before national TV tomorrow and try to explain again why people need to die.

[Soxbadger]

You keep predicting the future...

 

Its interesting, instead of actually discussing the topic, you just fixate on something that hasnt happened and may never happen.

 

I cant imagine you actually have a copy of the exact text of Obama's speech tomrorow.

 

So how can you be so sure what he is going to say?

 

Why not wait for the facts?

[greg775]

The world where the President is going to go before national TV tomorrow and try to explain again why people need to die.

 

Enough time has passed I'd be all for letting this atrocity slide. It's stupid to lob some bombs over there, now. Just a thought. Obama doesn't come across as much of a Prez, to me. Lousy lousy lousy on the economy and slow to pull the trigger on international affairs IMO.

I think Robin is a better manager than the Big O is a President.Couldn't we have acted on this incident a bit quicker, Mr. President?

Edited September 9, 2013 by greg775

[Balta1701]

You keep predicting the future...

 

Its interesting, instead of actually discussing the topic, you just fixate on something that hasnt happened and may never happen.

 

I cant imagine you actually have a copy of the exact text of Obama's speech tomrorow.

 

So how can you be so sure what he is going to say?

 

Why not wait for the facts?

The reason why the us can't accept this offer and te reason the Russians jumped at it is that the US has refused to negotiate over Syria unless Assad leaves. Refusing to negotiate does exactly what it is supposed to do, shut down negotiations entirely and force a military response.

 

If the US accepts an offer to negotiate with Assads regime over the chemical weapons, the US will be dropping its deman that Assad leave before any negotiations take place.

 

That's why the Russians jumped at it, it's a way to force the war-hungry us government to the negotiating table. If the US sits down and negotiates, then Assad and the Russians will have extracted the biggest negotiating victory they could have asked for. The gas attack will have been an enormous success.

 

Conversely, when the US refuses to negotiate on those terms, it makes the no vote in Congress even more likely since the US will be refusing to negotiate over an offer with international support.