Actually, I think a more interesting question for everyone here is what would your stance be if the situation was exactly the same but only that Bush was President. If this had happened on Bush’s watch and things unfolded the exact same way, would Bush be “masterful” or would you be screaming about Bush threatening military action without congressional approval and being played by Putin?
I am quite consistent on that. I supported President GHW Bush asking for use of force to get Saddam’s army out of Kuwait and I have always had high praise for his handling of that entire operation.
I supported GWBush sending the Special Forces into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime. And I still support what we are doing in there.
I considered the Bush Admin messaging legitimate in September 2002 that he needed an authorization to use force against Iraq in order to force Iraq to let the UN inspection process resume. I agree with both Republicans and Democrats on that because Iraq was in fact in violation of international law at that time because those inspectors were not in Iraq finishing the job. I thought that was legitimate not so much on the Nuclear issue as the Chemical and Biological Weapons threat in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
It was Bush’s turn from stating he could invade Iraq without authorization and without seeking UN inspections to avert war to the talk that emerged in September 2002coinciding with sending Colin Powell to the UN.
So yes. I am consistent. I support Obama using the threat of force to coerce parties into finding a diplomatic solution.
And that is what happened.
Except Obama wasn’t going for a ground invasion as his Republican challenger posed if he became president.
And except, and this is a big one. I do not expect Obama to launch strikes unless the truth and facts and reality becomes. in the months ahead. that Syria and Putin were not serious about dismantling those tons of CW or if more Syrians are gassed to death to flaunt this negotiated settlement.
Bush lost me when he got the diplomatic solution he said he wanted, and then he was the one that put an end to the diplomatic solutions. It was not Iraq that committed that dirty deed of ending UNSC inspections. It was Bush.
See “Arguments that terrorism is not committed by states” in that very article.
The taboo actually pre-dates chemical weapons being cheap or easy to manufacture, and their proliferation to poor nations.
Is it your position then that when an argument exists against using a definition that is in existence such as ‘state terrorism’ not to be confused with state sponsored terrorism, it means that the definition ‘state terrorism’ no longer exists and cannot be used unless Human Action permits it to be used?
Besides that I checked the link and Kofi Annan was making one of the three arguments and he is quoted as saying at the end of his argument…
Your nitpicking aside, the argument about CW being outdated for conventional war is a diversion. The reality is there are 1000 tons of CW right now under the control of someone I have absolutely no problem (and apparently Kofi Annan would agree) calling him and his military leaders STATE TERRORISTS. As for as Red Fury’s cited op-ed from the Japanese Times, much of the cited statistics are most likely true, but the 1000 Tons of CW in Syria are not there because he likes to spend money and time on antique weaponry. He used some of what he produces and stockpiles.
My point is valid because there is not a conventional war going on in Syria. And CW for the purpose of killing humans and livestock would be used to clear out rebel areas without destruction of property.
Bombs can do more damage and killing its true, but big bombs are heavy and missiles to deliver the payload from a safe distance would not be as cost effective as launching some gas and let the wind carry it around.
You cited what I was going to cite, “But because they are cheap, easy to manufacture, and serve as a poor nation’s deterrent,”
And Syria may not have been a poor nation like Yemen or Hiati etc but Syria owes the Russians I think $30 billion for conventional weapons they have purchased.
Syria was not signatory to the CW convention.
For killing human beings in Syria it looks like they are considered by some in the regime to be the most effective weapon for the (£1) Quid.
Or they were… and won’t be for long… because Obama threatened to use limited force and now they are giving them up.
You guessed correctly. I was brushed off. I even highlighted the relevant part of the resolution.
You were not brushed off.
You posted this:
[T]his 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. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]
I will highlight what says there is not authorization to use force. [T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force.
UNSC Authorization to use force could be considered if and only "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.
This is not authorization by the UNSC by any means: " If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3
And that is because it says quite clearly IF THE SECURITY COUNCIL FAILS TO ACT DECISIVLY - now pay close attention to the next seven words - **in the event of further Iraqi violations ** - which means Iraq would have to have further violations, and not act upon them, before member states could act on their own without UNSC authorization.
The US does not believe it is ever constrained by the UNSC’s failure to act and that was put in there because that is the reality of the world powers that be.
The UNSC did not authorize Bush to invade Iraq. In fact Kofi Annan said it quite clearly"
Can you cite anything to show that the UNSC voted in favor of the US invasion of Iraq with no veto from France Russia or China ? If not you are wrong.
Bush and Blair on March 7 2003 put forth a draft resolution which contained language that would authorize the use of force. They did a vote count of the fifteen members and did not have the nine required so they pulled the resolution and went ahead with attacking Iraq on their own without UNSC authorization.
Do you dispute any of this?
The day Kerry said what he said it was “as if” as far as he knew. Either Putin didn’t have Assad on board or Putin was not ready himself to concede. After Kerry made the remark Putin was ready to concede. The hullaballoo about Putin spanking Obama is just that. It is based on nothing at all except contempt and dislike of Obama.
Last Saturday, Kerry:
“We agreed that Syria must submit within a week — not in 30 days, but in one week — a comprehensive listing,” Kerry said Saturday. He said the U.S. would allow “no games, no room for avoidance, or anything less than full compliance.”
Today:The State Department signaled that it would not insist that Syrian President Bashar Assad produce the list Saturday, the end of a seven-day period spelled out in the framework deal that Washington and Moscow announced last weekend in Geneva.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Wednesday that “our goal is to see forward momentum” by Saturday, not the full list. “We’ve never said it was a hard and fast deadline.”
Can you provide a logical reason for suppporting a failed state?
– much more at source.
A hell of a lot of good you are doing there, besides making opium Aghanistan’s main export yet again. At the expense of how many innocent lifes? Who the hell cares? “Revenge and/or retaliation” which are totally meaningless at this point, are certainly not the answer.
It’s quite interesting what Assad said on Fox News:
*(President Assad: No, no. The only thing we have to do is provide the information, and to make them accessible to our sites, which is not a problem. We can do it tomorrow, we don’t have any problem.
Fox News: You could do it tomorrow?)*
Assad answered:
*President Assad: Yeah, of course. We don’t have a problem. The problem is how fast they can be in getting rid of any chemical material, because this is a very complicated situation. It’s not about will; it’s about techniques. So, only experts can answer your question.
I am confident that any delay is not being caused by Syria. There is other reporting out there about the UN agency wanting to do this right.
Have fun while you can. By November you won’t be having any because Syria will be disarmed. Kucinich fixed the Assad interview for Fox. What a team.
Is partisan gloating now a legitimate method of “debate”? Who knew!
Sound Familiar? Ten years ago last April there were some cocky American luv Iraq Invaders just one month into to that violent WMD inspection program:
See this comment under a link Syria Asks UN TO Help Rid Mideast of Mass Weapons. to report titled “Syria asks UN to help rid Mideast of mass weapons”
I am gloating over the great news last week that diplomacy is winning out over military action with regard to Syria. If you think that is partisan I cannot dissagree with you more.
What an amazing appropriate name for a State Department spokesbeing.
257p0205
257p0221
Why is one of your angle’s for criticizing and mocking Obama to bring up the deaths of Syrians and link Obama’s name to the outcome of this matter? Obama’s red line comment was not drawn at the use of conventional weapons by the Syrian government on his own people?
Ignatius gets it right:
All should read this.
and this
I share your relief that Putin’s diplomatic efforts seem to be winning out over Obama’s miltitaristic ones, but it’s still still very early in the process. Let’s keep in mind that Putin is still denying that Assad used CWs, so the senior partner in this effort isn’t exactly on the same page with the US and other Western Powers.
The LA Times is reporting that Syria may miss the first deadline in the deal, for providing an inventory. Let’s hope the deal as a whole stays on track.
that can’t be. Kerry drew a line in the sand. He didn’t color code it but it sure sounded red to me. And Assad said it was no problem so the clock’s ticking. 6 more days and we’ll know where all of them are.
And NotfooledbyW has extolled the virtues of our dear leader’s diplomacy. So it’s GOING to happen. And we’ll be able to prove it because… well it’s just GOING to happen. Rest assured.