I don’t think you know what “international norm” means. The UN has authorized wars like twice (plus many peacekeeping missions), and there have been tons of wars in the last 65 years. The UN Charter is an attempt to undermine the international norm of states starting wars without anyone’s permission.
That depends on how far the President is willing to go. I agree that lobbing a few missiles probably doesn’t really punish Syria. But as a poster earlier argued with me, we can actually punish them if we’re willing to keep escalating. And I do think punishment is necessary.
Fine. Then it’s not against “international norms” to use of CWs against one’s own people. The poster I was responding to used that term to characterize what Assad allegedly did.
“Allegedly”?
I agree that we could punish Assad if we escalate. If there is anyone who agrees with you that we should escalate, I have not met or talked with them. It appears to me that this is the exact reason people are opposing the action - we don’t want it to escalate.
Regards,
Shodan
We don’t need no escalation!
elucidator: I was being rigorously correct. Assad has not been convicted in a court of law yet. I don’t believe Obama is lying to us or misleading us, but it isn’t 100% certain who was responsible for the CW attack.
But it will escalate, won’t it? Assad has shown that he has no scruples whatsoever, there is nothing he won’t do to win. If he starts to lose with ordinary conventional means, he will use whatever is at hand, he will escalate. And every time he does, the moderates in the opposition lose ground, the fanatics become more prominent, all of which makes any negotiated settlement increasingly unlikely.
Will Assad try to move the conflict towards a religious war? Already has, pretty much. Would he try to gain sympathy and allies by involving Israel? I cannot doubt it.
I oppose military intervention and support diplomacy and negotiation even as I realize the prospects are grim. It is scant hope compared to none. But I will not pretend this is a good option, or a noble one, it is simply the least ghastly of an array of horrendous options.
Understood. No snark intended or implied.
I should have said “apparently” instead of “allegedly”. The latter can imply varying degrees of doubt.
I think what we’ve done so far- focus attention on Syria- is the best we can do right now. The British parliment debated it. Russia and Iran are issuing statements about it. At the G20, they aren’t talking about, say Gazprom, no, it is Assad and his CWs. Australia, France, everyone has an opinion. Syria has become the reason Democrats and Republicans think each other is stupid, and Syria is the issue dopers can’t achieve consensus on.
If the goal is to prevent the use of chemical weapons, putting the situation under a microscope seems more effective and less provocative than bombing. From here, if Assad continues to gas people, world opinion can only turn further against him. Right now the question is a Congressional debate. The ball is in Assad’s court to see if he gives the world something else to talk about. He’d be a fool to continue to use gas.
In passing, I heard an idea floated by an obscure Democrat somewhere. Goes like this: Syria is not signatory to the ban on chemical weapons, hence, not technically bound by its provisions. Congress passes a resolution backing Obama’s plan for military action but holds it in abeyance if Assad does two things: one, sign the treaty and put himself under its provisions. Two, respects those provisions under all circumstances. If he fails to comply with either provision, his Assad is grass and Obama gets the lawnmower.
Thoughts?
Contracts entered under duress are invalid.
Wasn’t that the backstory for The Phantom Menace?
How many peace treaties are invalid? Because every one of them ever was made under duress.
But you miss the most obvious point, in that treaties are not contracts.
I think this is only slightly better than the current proposal, as I don’t believe Assad would agree. That makes bombing still highly likely.
I don’t want any bombing under any circumstances unless:
- There is a real and credible threat of attack on the US or one of our NATO allies.
- or -
- There is a UNSC authorization to use force and the US is not the major enforcer.
And Israel? The kosher elephant in the room?
AFAIU, Israel will be quite content to let Al Queda and Hezbollah battle it out, for years if need be. Why intervene?
Is elephant kosher?
Has the US ever come to the aid, militarily, of Israel?
What makes you think that Assad wouldn’t try to turn it from a battle between Shia and Sunni into a war of Islam against Israel, with him as religious hero? Scruples?
As long as it isn’t stuffed with flamingoes and shellfish, I think yes. But I would be the last to know.