Thread: Military intervention in Syria

Obama's rogue state tramples over every law it demands others uphold

For 67 years the US has pursued its own interests at the expense of global justice – no wonder people are sceptical now


You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council. They've defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. They have abused the powers and trust with which they have been vested. They have collaborated with the other four permanent members (the UK, Russia, China and France) in a colonial carve-up, through which these nations can pursue their own corrupt interests at the expense of peace and global justice.
Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence.
Through this tyrannical dispensation – created at a time when other nations were either broken or voiceless – the great warmongers of the past 60 years remain responsible for global peace. The biggest weapons traders are tasked with global disarmament. Those who trample international law control the administration of justice.
But now, as the veto powers of two permanent members (Russia and China) obstruct its attempt to pour petrol on another Middle Eastern fire, the US suddenly decides that the system is illegitimate. Obama says: "If we end up using the UN security council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier … then I think people rightly are going to be pretty skeptical about the system." Well, yes.
Never have Obama or his predecessors attempted a serious reform of this system. Never have they sought to replace a corrupt global oligarchy with a democratic body. Never do they lament this injustice – until they object to the outcome. The same goes for every aspect of global governance.
Obama warned last week that Syria's use of poisoned gas "threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations". Unravelling the international norm is the US president's job.
In 1997 the US agreed to decommission the 31,000 tonnes of sarin, VX, mustard gas and other agents it possessed within 10 years. In 2007 it requested the maximum extension of the deadline permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention – five years. Again it failed to keep its promise, and in 2012 it claimed they would be gone by 2021. Russia yesterday urged Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control. Perhaps it should press the US to do the same.
In 1998 the Clinton administration pushed a law through Congress which forbade international weapons inspectors from taking samples of chemicals in the US and allowed the president to refuse unannounced inspections. In 2002 the Bush government forced the sacking of José Maurício Bustani, the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. He had committed two unforgiveable crimes: seeking a rigorous inspection of US facilities; and pressing Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, to help prevent the war George Bush was itching to wage.
The US used millions of gallons of chemical weapons in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. It also used them during its destruction of Falluja in 2004, then lied about it. The Reagan government helped Saddam Hussein to wage war with Iran in the 1980s while aware that he was using nerve and mustard gas. (The Bush administration then cited this deployment as an excuse to attack Iraq, 15 years later).
Smallpox has been eliminated from the human population, but two nations – the US and Russia – insist on keeping the pathogen in cold storage. They claim their purpose is to develop defences against possible biological weapons attack, but most experts in the field consider this to be nonsense. While raising concerns about each other's possession of the disease, they have worked together to bludgeon the other members of the World Health Organisation, which have pressed them to destroy their stocks.
In 2001 the New York Times reported that, without either Congressional oversight or a declaration to the Biological Weapons Convention, "the Pentagon has built a germ factory that could make enough lethal microbes to wipe out entire cities". The Pentagon claimed the purpose was defensive but, developed in contravention of international law, it didn't look good. The Bush government also sought to destroy the Biological Weapons Convention as an effective instrument by scuttling negotiations over the verification protocol required to make it work.
Looming over all this is the great unmentionable: the cover the US provides for Israel's weapons of mass destruction. It's not just that Israel – which refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention – has used white phosphorus as a weapon in Gaza (when deployed against people, phosphorus meets the convention's definition of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm").
It's also that, as the Washington Post points out: "Syria's chemical weapons stockpile results from a never-acknowledged gentleman's agreement in the Middle East that as long as Israel had nuclear weapons, Syria's pursuit of chemical weapons would not attract much public acknowledgement or criticism." Israel has developed its nuclear arsenal in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty, and the US supports it in defiance of its own law, which forbids the disbursement of aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction.
As for the norms of international law, let's remind ourselves where the US stands. It remains outside the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, after declaring its citizens immune from prosecution. The crime of aggression it committed in Iraq – defined by the Nuremberg tribunal as "the supreme international crime" – goes not just unpunished but also unmentioned by anyone in government. The same applies to most of the subsidiary war crimes US troops committed during the invasion and occupation. Guantánamo Bay raises a finger to any notions of justice between nations.
None of this is to exonerate Bashar al-Assad's government – or its opponents – of a long series of hideous crimes, including the use of chemical weapons. Nor is it to suggest that there is an easy answer to the horrors in Syria.
But Obama's failure to be honest about his nation's record of destroying international norms and undermining international law, his myth-making about the role of the US in world affairs, and his one-sided interventions in the Middle East, all render the crisis in Syria even harder to resolve. Until there is some candour about past crimes and current injustices, until there is an effort to address the inequalities over which the US presides, everything it attempts – even if it doesn't involve guns and bombs – will stoke the cynicism and anger the president says he wants to quench.
During his first inauguration speech Barack Obama promised to "set aside childish things". We all knew what he meant. He hasn't done it.
Obama's rogue state tramples over every law it demands others uphold | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Interesting article and of course true.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

he is going to end up worst than GW Bush, if that was even fucking possible

That would be "worse," as the "worst," was Jimmy Carter according to historians, however historians ,(if one can believe them) report that Obama will rank along side Jimmy or below in his presidency.

He doesn't seem to get the plot of his office and his responsibilities. Thank God there's been no 9/11 to deal with. GW Bush did a fine job during that crisis and brought the country together during very difficult times. Iraq, well it was a "ms-que," what can I say?

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by MrG

And as the war drums beat, sort of, there is always a rise in the threat of terrorism. To wit:

Amusing, but not written by Cleese.

Who, then?

The US has now given the ultimatum to Asaad to hand of all chems within a week.

Only a pussy would give in to the demands of a president on the back foot. Asaad is no pussy. Game on

Originally Posted by MrG

Who, then?

Unknown.

snopes.com: Alert to Threats in 2013 Europe

Originally Posted by MrG

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Excellent ! Most amusing...

Sounds like Obama is having second thoughts and not getting the support he was hoping for.

Let's hope the Syria call on Obama and tell him to fuck off, unless Obama is willing to destroy his own stock pile

what a fucking circus,

do they want them destroyed or just to put a UN guard on them.

but then Assad remains in office and the so called rebels lose.
not the result the west had in mind.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by MrG

Who, then?

Unknown.

snopes.com: Alert to Threats in 2013 Europe

Damn.
Thanks.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

but then Assad remains in office and the so called rebels lose.
not the result the west had in mind.

Look before you leap springs to mind. Or choose your friends carefully, your enemies even more so.

Assad remaining in power is a lot better than salafist terrorists who swear fealty to Al Qaeda taking over the reins- a whole lot better. Syria dumping it's chemical weapons is a good result, from what has otherwise been another diplomatic and foreign policy fiasco. It also gives us the excuse to walk away from this nauseating alliance with al qaeda. The usual suspects will try to scupper the deal- they just want war and suffering on a huge scale, that is their whole purpose behind this disruption. Well, we've seen the results of their barbaric and ultimately stupid philosophy in the first twelve years of this century, and our children will be paying for it for many years to come. Hopefully the US leadership (if there is any left that still reports to the amerkin citizen) will have the good sense to shove them back in their nasty little box.

Originally Posted by sabang

Well, we've seen the results of their barbaric and ultimately stupid philosophy in the first twelve years of this century, and our children will be paying for it for many years to come. Hopefully the US leadership (if there is any left that still reports to the amerkin citizen) will have the good sense to shove them back in their nasty little box.

The really frightening thing is, it could get worse.

The Left, such as it is, is imploding even worse than it did during Clinton. The Right are still hot with the smell of blood in its nostrils from the Bush Years. Hopefully their march to glory is leading them right over a cliff of their own making...but who knows.

They've done their worst, if the Left can get it together and take them to battle. But the Left can be a feckless bunch, and We The People the world over are easily bought by the latest gadget.

Try to be serious for a moment gents. Do you really think the American reign has been worse than the European one it replaced?

I know that history counts for nothing where the opportunity for a good whine and self-righteous beating of the breast is at hand, but really...

War on Terror, War on Drugs. War on everything. You missed a few.

Other high-profile examples include the War on Poverty, War on Cancer, War on Gangs, War on Women, and the War on Christmas.

So it's off to the UNSC to broker a "diplomatic" solution. Russia is going to introduce a resolution placing Syia's chemical weapons under UN control.

Predictable given a President who wants to get the US out of ME conflicts but is "morally" and legally committed to do something to prevent use of chemical weapons.

Fair enough. Let's say a diplomatic solution is reached where Assad agrees to UN oversight. If evidence is as stated, bottom line remains. Assad regime used chemical weapons. Unless he is "punished" he is off the hook.

Watched Obama speech this AM. Not much new except holding off on vote in Congress until discussions are held regarding diplomatic solution. There is still a fly in the ointment. Even if Russia, US, UK and France agree on resolution, what about China? China opposes any intervention in a nations civil/domestic affairs. Placing Syria's chemical weapons under UN control is certainly intervention in Syria's domestic affairs. Will China veto such a resolution?

Originally Posted by Norton

Will China veto such a resolution?

Not likely, as they have contractual obligations to re-supply chemical weapons once they are removed.

US President Barack Obama has postponed a Congress vote on military action in Syria, vowing to pursue diplomacy to remove the regime's chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

vowing to pursue diplomacy to remove the regime's chemical weapons.

Also disavowing any and all connections to any red lines drawn in the sand by him.

That's what we call crawfishing 101. He's getting pretty good at it and rightly so. Barrackasims same as Jizzy fits are getting a bit tiring for the State Departments egg heads.

Judy Collins is his most favorite singer these days, Send in the Clowns...ta da da da di da.....Bo Diddly Bo Diddly what did ya do...go Bo Diddly, Go Bo Diddly....

so if Al Qaeda wins in Syria I hope there aren't any CW for them to use
Got to think through future repurcusions of toppling the regime

^No problem, Russia, England and China have more than enough in storage units to supply any and all, but Al Qaeda isn't their friend either.

The Ball is back with the "rebels".

What to do next ?

Grenades into Israel might be to obvious

Shoot down a turkish plane and get NATO involved ?

^More likely "Gas the Refugee camps in Iraq and Turkey."

It's possible

Anyway; Obama got bailed out for now

Big smell of sawdust here

Originally Posted by helge

It's possible

Anyway; Obama got bailed out for now

Big smell of sawdust here

Yeah Sawdust and greasepaint , any one want to read what a real Clown has to say, read this !The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Obama Should Have Put His Speech on Pause