Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive?

Great Debates
681

You mean when Romney was promising to send US troops into Syria to prevent the spread of Chemical Weapons? Oh Yeah that summer on the campaign trail.
But now we know that Obama’s red-line has worked.

Without it and the threat he followed up with, this does not happen:

And this doesn’t happen:

In the event that Assad’s regime gets caught transferring chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic the UNSC will impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
And this doesn’t happen:
Noting that on 14 September 2013, the Syrian Arab Republic **deposited with the Secretary-General its instrument of accession to the Convention **on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Convention) and declared that it shall comply with its stipulations and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic, - See more at: http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/syri....EOQROM9K.dpuf
I know you think all the historical accomplishments the past couple of weeks are all a trick by that crafty Putin so that Assad can hide a portion of his CW from the OPCW and then hang on to power eternally, but your last shred of Obama dissing talking points are failing you more and more each day that passes.
If you think we’d be where we are had Obama just ‘shut up’ or sworn America to Rand Paul isolationism about CW in the midst of Syria’s civil war where some dastardly terrorist groups are heavily involved, then there’s little hope for that idea to live anywhere outside America’s right wing pundit and talk radio class.

682

Again, you’re clutching at straws.

Here it is, from the horse’s mouth:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm

The text had not been passed under the Charter’s Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures.

683

So there is no such rule. You were caught fibbing. Again.

684

Your powers of telepathy are incredible, in the truest sense of the word.

685

Where did I say it was a rule? The Fib is on you.

The scenario I played out is based upon the scenario that played out during the run up to the invasion of Iraq except that in Bush’s case he could not get nine or more UNSC members to go along with setting a deadline for Iraq’s full disarmament in ten days (by March 17, 2003 and therefore giving Bush and Blair the UNSC sanction, blessing, authorization, support for an invasion of Iraq.

Bush was denied that support so he withdrew the draft resolution and invaded Iraq entirely on his own with the coalition of the bribed and those damned Brits who were in on the scheme the whole time.

686

Who is choosing to make war somehow civilized?

A bullet is not more ‘organic’ or acceptable, but a bullet actually involves the one who aims a weapon at a target actually sees whomever he has chosen to kill.

If that target is a woman with a child clutched at here bosom then the act of firing that bullet is an atrocity. Having any participants who could and would do that on any side of a conflict is barbaric and uncivilized.

Now if that target was one with a weapon firing at you and you fired back until one or the other falls, then no that is not civil behavior by any means but in war or combat it is tragic but it is not barbaric or an atrocity.

Firing a rocket that dispenses a chemical agent that kills anything that breathes from 40 kilometers away in a safe area at that same women and child, them not knowing it is coming is an atrocity and is barbaric and apparently has no place in the rules of war in world community.

That goes for random bombing of civilian populations too. That violates the rules of war. Civilians can and will be hit during conventional war, however there are certain rules of war that demand the targets be military targets or have an intended military goal.

There should be no bombing of civilian houses for the sake of destroying civilian houses. If there is a military asset ten feet away and the conflict is ongoing, Getting out of that house would be a good idea. Its tragic but there is some sense to the international rules of war that have been developed and agreed.

687

Terr 'n Magiver, why does UNSC Resolution 1441 on Iraq have teeth, but UN Security Council resolution 2118 has no teeth. You both appear to be dodging rather than answering this question.

They both 1441 and 2118 contain two stage wording with respect to taking action in the event of non-compliance.

.

Bush and Blair tried to implement a second stage and failed to get it.

Here is the draft resolution dated around March 7, 2003 of which I speak:

Bush had to know that France would veto this draft resolution had Bush put together nine or more yes votes to pass it. But Bush wanted this passed to show consensus that was only broken up by a veto by the stupid and wavering French who were part of Old Europe.

The point is Terr, that if Syria violates 2118 now, it would likely be more clearly pronounced than Bush’s 'gut feeling on Saddam Hussein hiding something. In that case I do not doubt that nine or more members would take up the issue under Chapter Seven if the OPCW declares a major violation exists.

Sure Putin can still veto it and perhaps China would too, however their veto would fly in the face of the international CW agency that they themselves are proponents and committed.

If Putin does, member states have a decision to make and I think it would go down with severe sanctions first and if what ever the Assad regime did to violate 2118 actually disturbs international peace and security such as trying to smuggle CW out of the country or worse yet using them to kill again, Obama gets a good sized coalition to take Assad Down with military action.

I see none of that happening because Syria needs and has shown a strong commitment to getting rid of every last CW In their arsenal.

But you asked Terr, and we must speculate the worst to show you how these UNSC resolutions and votes etc work.

And Magiver, if the UNSC ‘sanctioned’ Bush’s invasion of Iraq, why did Bush need to pose this draft resolution on March 7, 2003 in the first place. Can you explain that specifically since you are the one going around writing that the UN sanctioned Bush’s invasion and Kofi Ana is wrong to say it didn’t?

688

Direct answer to you. 1441 was made under Chapter 7. 2118 was not. Here it is from the UNSC:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11135.doc.htm

The text had not been passed under the Charter's Chapter VII, nor did it allow for coercive measures.
689

So you will avoid any discussion that both resolutions contained two stages to get to authorization to use force in the event of non-compliance?

And you refuse to accept the reality that I have pointed out that in the case of Iraq Chapter 7 had been invoked many years before 1441 came to pass.

Bush had to try to get a second resolution passed to get UNSC support for use of force and you must choose to ignore that fact because it strikes down your argument entirely.

690

He didn’t have to. He was authorized to strike Iraq by 1441, since it was done under Chapter 7. Obama is not authorized to strike Syria, since 2118 is not under Chapter 7. You not understanding the distinction is your problem.

691

Must we limit our reading and interprtation of both resolutions to their respective sub-title text only? Must we deny that text exists under the subtitles? Text such as this as found in 1441.

Must we pretend that 1441 does not qualify the Chapter VII enforcement language to include this:

This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.
I see no need to pretend those words are not there. You need to deal with it, Terr.

692

Who are you, as compared to Kofi Annan who does not agree with you at all?

693

So Terr, how’s your fogged up crystal ball lookin’ these days? Have you thrown a brick at it?

694

You are clueless. And no, those words are NOT in the resolution. Apparently you haven’t read it. Figures.

695

Words in paragraph 4, 11 & 12 of 1442 are not there Terr? My my.

696

Buddy you claimed that this exact text:

“This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

is part of the resolution. It isn’t. Admit your mistake.

697

I’ve been using Magiver’s synopsis of the language in UNSC Resolution. Is there something wrong with it? If it was good enough for Magiver, why isn’t it good enough for me.
Now I have posted all three paragraphs in full that define the two step process. Do you deny they depict a two stage process that contained no automaticity for the use of force or a ‘hidden trigger’ for the use of force?

Here’s the language that is there:

Now can you cite where the UNSC regarding UNSC Resolution 1441 decided to reconvene in order to consider the situation? No of course you can’t because the second step in the two stage process to authorize use of force was never needed.

Kofi Annan is correct that the US invasion of Iraq “was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter”. You and Magiver are extremely wrong to claim that the UNSC authorized what Bush and Blair did to Iraq.

698

Here’s a report about it:

Hopefully you read the part about ‘nine members’ Terr.
In context of the whole this:

The US and Britain are seeking nine votes in favour of the draft resolution they presented last week, which would then force the French or Russians to use their veto.
…explains everything

699

Face it, kids. NotfooledbyW has nailed it. It was a beautiful triumph of diplomacy by Obama and Kerry, several years in the making. Even if the “misstatements” really were fumbles, and I’m not convinced of it, they retained control of the ball. There was a bit of “good cop/bad cop,” and Putin gets to play humanitarian and dealbroker, but we seem to be stuck with him, so we might as well help him grow up. Applause all around.

700

You’re pathetic. Let’s see: let’s say “nine members” of the UNSC vote for a resolution. And one permanent member votes against. Is that resolution now a valid UNSC resolution and can it be enforced? Yes or no?