Sanity has to start somewhere

Russia will NEVER allow a UN action - their only warm water port is in Syria.  (Well, they have Sevastopol, but getting out of the Black Sea would be a logistical nightmare.)

Plus they know that US is not really about humanitarian intervention...that's just the sales job to dupe the masses.  It is Syria now, then Iran, then they are at Russia's doorstep.

You might be right Don - from every poll I see, Americans are very war weary.  I pointed out to a friend of mine that her 11 year old daughter has never known a day where the USA was not at war.  It seems to be out major export any more. (War.)  Even if he uses congress to get the taste of his own shoe leather out of his mouth, the important thing is to not play the risky game he apparently wants to play.  (Or better, that his puppeteers want to play.)

Of course, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all worked out so well for everyone involved...we obviously know what we are doing.  Plus we would be remiss in not remembering those civilian drone deaths in Yemen too.  And those Sauds that we back are just sweethearts; they take wonderful care of their citizenry.

"USA! USA! USA!"  There, now I feel much better...

"Kerry also said he is confident that Congress will give Obama its backing for a military strike against Syria. But the former senator also says the president has authority to act on his own if Congress doesn't give its approval."

I guess the legal authority comes from "Because I said so."

So no Don, I guess not - that from HuffPost this morning quoting Kerry.

The whole thing is right out of the PNAC playbook.

IMO, yes.   Other than a sense of moral outrage over the use of chemical weapons, Obama has not explained to the US public how it is in our national interests to intervene In Syria. If Israel or any of our Arab allies were threatened by a spillover effect, then perhaps a different argument could be made, but the sad truth is that the slaughter of innocents in Syria is not a US problem...it is a WORLD problem.  And as pitifully dysfunctional as the UN is, we currently have no other way of acting together as civilized nations.  Until Russia and China agree that UN action is justified, it is what is is...an ongoing humanitarian disaster.

I think Obama is somewhat mindful of how he will be perceived by history.  Will he be the leader who got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or as the leader who got us into Syria.  He'd strongly prefer the former, and the last thing he wants to see is for Assad to be toppled, and for Syria to become an Al Queda stronghold.

It is easy for all of us to be critical of past sins, but it is more challenging to come up with positive suggestions for finding a way forward. For example, I had not thought of Russia's need to access the Mediterranean -- is there another country that could replace that access in exchange for cooperation on the Security Council?  There has to be a way forward.  If we look back to Bosnia, it was in no small part their desire to improve US relations that eventually drove Russia to cooperate, and contribute troops and other resources to the peace-keeping mission. I guess from this perspective, the timing of the Edward Snowden incident could not have been worse.

There is a price for Russian and Chinese cooperation. It is up to US, UK and France (and to a lesser extent, the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council) to find out what that price is, and negotiate it to something all sides can live with.  I see no end to this civil war other than a UN-enforced peace. Does anyone else disagree?

ATB.

Hook

If killing innocent civilians with chemical weapons is world problem (and I fully agree that it is) - how is it that killing them weekly with drones and cruise missiles is not?  Even if the incident under scrutiny was from the Assad regime, I bet he can't hold a candle to the number of civilian deaths we have racked up over the past year...let alone the last decade.

A week or so ago in reference to Egypt, BHO came out against the killing of civilians by their military.  I bet that had them just rolling in the aisles in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, & Yemen.

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Which put another way, is hypocrisy.

And as far as timing and Snowden - well, this has certainly blown that off the front page,  No one is talking about the legality of the NSA's activities any more.  Coincidence?  Maybe...maybe not.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, Hook. The only plausible external intervention has to be through the UN with members of the security council acting jointly, even if their motives for doing so are different and to some extent self-serving.  Unilateral action by the US or tri-lateral action by the US, UK & France would be fraught with difficulty and risks making the situation in Syria and the Middle East even worse. If the UN can't agree I think the Syrian civil war is going to have to work its way to its own conclusion, awful though that is likely to be for the civilians.

MDS 

DrMark -

As I said, it is easier to critical of past sins than it is to come up with specific suggestions for a way forward in Syria.

If you were in Obama's shoes, what would you do?  Are there any specific steps the US can take to help bring this war to a conclusion?  Or do you agree with MDS that until there is UN consensus, there is nothing at all that can be done?  If yes, what steps would you take to help the UN reach that consensus?

Hook

One further thought. Rather than military action I've often wondered why the UN doesn't employ financial sanctions against the perpetrators of crimes like this. Co-ordinated action among the members of the UN to identify, freeze and ultimately seize all the financial assets of the perpetrators and their family members ought to focus the minds of people like Assad and his generals.  That would make the action really personal without the risk of bloodshed and so-called collateral damage. If it can be done for drug barons why not war criminals?  

MDS

Hi Hook:  They are not "past" sins - it is an ongoing policy of this administration.  We violate international law every week.  what's our justification?  We have the biggest armed forces and economy.  Nothing more.

The Syrian situation is horrible.  But make no mistake, there are literally dozens of countries where serious human rights violations are ongoing, and have for years or even decades, and we do nothing about it.  Why is this so important?  Because it is part of our desire to spread our hegemony over the entire Middle East.  And that is driven by the Zionists and our Oil Corporate interests. 

How much of the existence of this civil war is owed to the provision of weapons and the like with American backing either directly or through Saudi Arabia?  The rebels have sarin from the Saudis.  They were losing.  Is it not possible they staged the murder of their own to get the West more directly involved?  That is the ultimate stupidity of BHO's "red line" remark.

And I am sorry, but I can also believe that our leaders would no this and run with it, because it serves the interests of those who want things this way.  I am NOT saying this is the case, only saying that I see nothing from a bunch of morally bankrupt liars to preclude it.

DrMark -

My use of the word "past" was literal. I am aware that many of the situations you describe are ongoing.  But beyond it "is horrible", I would still be interested in hearing your thoughts on Syria, so I will try asking again:

If you were in Obama's shoes, what would you do?  Are there any specific steps the US can take to help bring this war to a conclusion?  Or do you agree with MDS that until there is UN consensus, there is nothing at all that can be done?  If yes, what steps would you take to help the UN reach that consensus?

Hook

I would do nothing.  I think going in opens a can of worms that we are unwise to open. You are not going to save lives net-net by throwing a match into the tinderbox of Syria and starting WW III.  If Iran responds to Israel, they will attack the nuclear facilities, and it could be game on.  In fact, that may be what this is all about.  I have a hard time buying Netenyahu's sudden concern for Syrian citizens.

The USA is not being threatened by this, and as horrible as it is, it is an internal Syrian affair.  There is no right under US or international (or UN) law to intervene.  Plus, we still do not definitively know who has done it.  All we have are vague statements with no backing, from a government who has been known to stretch the truth (and outright lie) to use military force where they want.  More than once.

But then, your assumption is that the administration is going in for altruistic reasons, as opposed to USING altruistic sounding reasons as an excuse to engage in their ongoing regime change policy.  You are being compassionate and sincere, and our politicians certainly have a different agenda.

DrMark,

As I understand it, International Law is not quite "black" and "white". There are many shades of grey in there.

IIRC for example, if the security council can't agree on (say) delivering punative punishment (which I understand they are entitled to do), then a group of countries can take unilateral action if they consider their action will be effective in saving lives overall, and especially the lives of disadvantaged groups suffering persecution.

Of course, there are many issues to consider before taking such action, but in principle, I understand that "sensible" unilateral action is considered legal. Whether such "sensible" action would be wise, is a separate issue.

Cheers

Don

UN Charter, Article 2(7) - Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter 7 deals with "ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION" - and goes on to deal with international incidents, which this is not.

All that aside: it really doesn't matter, Obama and his puppeteers have already decided they are going to attack; this delay is for show only.  They will gather, fabricate, lie, or ignore whatever evidence and laws they need to - and will be involved military in a short time.

I will ask my question again: Why would Assad use chemical weapons, knowing the UN was coming, in a war that he was winning handily against US-backed rebels?  He is a bad guy, but I can't imagine that he is that stupid.

Apparently, sarin gas is not difficult to make, regarding the chemistry involved.  However, there is also a big difference between "weapons grade" sarin that Assad would have, and the home made stuff.   Specifically, there are chemical preservatives in the "good" stuff, that if not present, would 100% rule out the Assad regime.

But again, I don't think the US government cares - they want the rebels to oust Assad. Things were not going well, and as a result they will engage.  I hope I am wrong, but I will be shocked if I am.  This all smells way too much like Iraq.  (Remember the US intelligence on babies being plucked from incubators and left to die - now proven to be lies propagated by the Kuwaitis.  But why vet the story when it justifies what you want to do?)

Only this time the stakes on the world stage are even higher.  Much higher.

Both. But not so easy to implement if it was the opposition (to Assad) who deployed the chemical weapons

Cheers

Don

Mark,

Unlike you goodself, i'm no expert on the UN. However, I am surprised there is no provision for intervention when a nation deploys banned weapons in an act amounting to genocide within its own population.

Hmmm. As I said above, the UN is past its sell-by date.

Cheers

Don

No expert by any means - just went to the UN charter & read, and consulted some international law sites.

On the other hand, I believe the human rights violations are just a foil for them to do what they wanted, since their rebels weren't faring so well.

I think this says it oh so well:

http://www.counterpunch.org/20...-banality-of-empire/

Yours naively,

UN Rules old boy. Or the Geneva Convention. Gotta have Rules, otherwise its every man for himself and anything goes, which would be an absolute nightmare.

Presumably you are suggesting that if we allow bullets and bombs, we might as well allow NBCs as well ?

I don't agree with that prospect. And i'm not naive enough to think we can eliminate warfare overnight. Nice idea - yes. But it ain't going to happen !

Cheers

Don

I think TomK means the other way - why are we (the USA) "allowed" to kill civilians with conventional weapons with impunity?  (TomK; correct me if I misinterpret your position.)

And as for the UN, their mission pretty clearly states they are not to get involved in internal issues.

But when you are empire building, none of that matters.

Cheers

Don

Actually Don - I have always felt the UN was irrelevant; and I actually like your term "past its sell by date."

As a former New Yorker, they could dump the whole thing in the East River for all I care for it.  If they conduct impartial (and I find that difficult to believe, given their funding) investigations that might be their main function, but they pretty much don't mean anything in real international relations that I can see.

But the Rockefellers bought & paid for it, so it will stay.

The voice of the people, or at least their lobbying of their elected representatives, has no doubt been partly responsible for the result in Parliament, here in the UK.

Given that the interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the jury is still out on Libya, can by no means be seen as successful or even possibly better than complete inaction on the military level, it can be no surprise that there is a strong sentiment in the UK currently against starting again in Syria.

I think most people ask themselves whether Cruise Missiles and drone attacks with huge collateral damage will do anything useful in curbing the odious Assad.

Would removing the current administration in Syria lead to a some liberal minded, tolerant [of the Christian minority, and others] regime that is going to be supportive of the Western hegemony in the Middle East, or merely allow the extremists the opportunity to come in and be far more risky than the Devil we know in terms of securing Peace.

Unfortunately joining a civil war in a foreign country tends to leave one side defeated [or the other], and thus there are two generations at least of terrorist haters of the interloper from the loosing side...

I can see no justification for the UK getting into Syria at all. There is role for diplomatic approaches, and that will involve sitting down at a table with people who are hardly kindly. But grubby diplomacy is likely to produce better results in time rather than the inevitably catastrophic results for people who are actually completely blameless in so many cases, while the odious ones will survive and thrive, some of them at least in the event of foreign military intervention.

Norway has frequently brokered successful diplomatic efforts, and I think it is time for Britain to take a leave out of Norway's book as a priority.

ATB from George

The current status of the UN Charter, as outlined by Mark indicates that no nation can interfere with the internal affairs of another nation. For years this has been used by regimes around the world to cry "foul" at any attempt by outsiders to prevent genocide.

70 years ago, Germany had an "internal" arrangement for reducing a selected part of their unwanted population. Should a similar act by a sovereign nation be tollerated today simply on the grounds that the UN Charter denies internal intervention?

Am I the only person around who considers that external intervention might sometimes be justified, despite the UN Charter ie, when a member State flagrantly disregards the terms on which they joined the UN ?

Or would it be enough for them to be expelled ? or perhaps given a reprimand ?

Cheers

Don