It brings up a couple of points. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but it seems disingenuous for the anti-war crowd in Hollywood to say that we shouldn't have any boots on ground in Syria and then just say the UN should arrest Assad and try him for war crimes. As you pointed out, US troops would be the ones doing the arresting. Technically, all we were supposed to do in Iraq was arrest Saddam and confiscate his WMDs...as he was already in violation of multiple UN resolutions. Unfortunately, sectarian insurgents didn't let go that easily, and we were in a shooting war for 6 more years. I imagine that that would be the best case if we went in to Syria (UN-backed or not) to arrest Assad and confiscate his WMDs. The worst would be somewhere on the spectrum between Beirut 1983 and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know NATO much better than the UN, having operated under it a couple times (once in a shooting war in Libya, once in a shooting war here in Afghanistan). Due to that, I don't know what responsibility or requirements (or treaties, if you prefer) that we have to the UN that, say, Russia or Tonga don't. And I'm pretty sure Russia's not sending troops in to remove Assad for war crimes, UN resolution or not. What, exactly, is the C-in-C's duty to the UN? EVEN IF they come out with a "Arrest Assad for war crimes" Resolution, who are they to tell the US Military (by telling it's C-in-C) that they have to go arrest someone in another country?
I think the concept of arresting a nation's leader without troops on the ground is an impossibility. If France sends in troops on the UN's behalf and arrests him, they wouldn't be US troops (duh). This CBS News article talks about UN Chapter 7: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162...military-force-fails-in-u.n-security-council/ Chapter 7 allows the use of international armed force to back up U.N. decisions. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 43 1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. 2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided. 3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. (Lots more at the 2nd link)
Great reading all your posts. I don't know what position to take but I lean towards "do nothing." My brother who is a Commander in the Navy and is actually supposed to go to Beirut (Syria's neighbor) for work IN TWO WEEKS says that he is against bombing Syria. My husband who follows everything more closely than I do thinks we should make a surgical attack to take away their ability to make the chemical weapons.
You need a different crowd around you. It has been very stupid, not great, reading on all these posts. Assad is far more popular than Obama. Arresting him over a false flag attack doesn't fly. The hypocrisy of conservatives, to switch sides to anti-war, while writing an article accusing liberals of hypocrisy, when most liberals like Asner oppose the Democratic president, when most conservatives backed Bush, is hypocrisy squared.
I guess Barrack didn't ask Putin but Shazam! At least Barrack won't be sending our warriors out again. I think that is a very positive end result
So, are we just supposed to take Syria's word that they are handing over all over their WMDs? Seems foolish to me. Obama - "We're going to bomb the shit out of you". Assad - "No, wait, we'll hand over our weapons (heh heh)". Obama - "A diplomatic solution". Why would a man who allegedly gassed thousands of people just give up all of those weapons? What a stupid premise.
You're right, your premise is stupid as usual. Had you read even one article, you'd know that Syria will sign a treaty allowing for thorough immediate searches by inspectors all over Syria.
They are 'crafting a plan', with China and Russia (who both supply arms to Assad) running the show. LOL
I just watched the speech. What was the point of it? A history lesson? Mostly it was our President letting us know how noble and smart he is. I always enjoy Stephen Green's take. http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2013/09/10/drunkblogging-tsyria/
Jeff Merkley's public response to the issue: “I share the President’s deep passion that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. The United States must not ignore Syria’s egregious crime against its citizens. “Indeed, America should bring the world together to condemn and penalize Syria for this action. Such an effort, however, is best pursued through international negotiation and diplomacy. I’m encouraged that the U.S. and other nations are now pursuing just such an international diplomatic strategy for ending Syrian access to chemical weapons. Over the coming days we will see if the Syrians and Russians can be full participants in a timely and verifiable intervention to accomplish this important and significant goal.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough This guy is Obama's new Chief of Staff. His resume is foreign policy. Looks like zero domestic policy experience or interest. The chief of staff has this very important role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Chief_of_Staff "Negotiate with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and extragovernmental political groups to implement the President's agenda" He's not quite Dick Cheney, but he's the guy you'd pick if your 2nd term agenda is war.
Just to give people an idea of how badly the Obama Administration effed up the messaging, check out this video montage [video=youtube;clcl0VZhl24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clcl0VZhl24[/video] Their own words show how much they're trying to spin their way out of this situation.
Even the AP is going after him http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fact-check-obamas-syria-case-still-lacks-proof
Jen Rubin's take (she supports the Obama position that a military strike needs to occur) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...llogical-argument-from-a-paralyzed-president/
The only way the president makes war his agenda is if his corporate sponsors want it. So to me the question is, "who wants war and why?"
President Obama doesn't want war. He wants to cover his ass from his undisciplined and stupid off the cuff pronouncement. He doesn't care about the efficacy of his response, only that he responds. He misspoke and painted himself into a corner. Then Kerry painted the walls behind him with the only exit getting down on his knees and blowing Putin. Syria has been nothing short of a national humiliation, highlighting our retreat from the world stage. Meanwhile, in Iran, the centrifuges keep spinning. We now live in a world controlled by Russia and China.
