This is about nothing more than punishment for the violation of 188 countries signing a "no use of chemical or nuclear weapons" agreement.
No regime change is sought. No "dog in the fight" either.
Makes me wonder what they will bomb. Some trees?
Sends a clear message: If you use these weapons in large scale, we will vaguely bomb some shit. But that's all. I'm sure North Korea is shaking in their boots. Wondering, did the U.S. just say....wait, what did they say?
You seem to misread the situation. Regime change is sought, just not by direct military means. There is currently a civil war going on that is pursuing regime change. The US is simply seeking to even the playing field and send the message that it's not ok to gas civilians to try and terrorize people into submission.
I watched John Kerry beat the war drums today, invoking memories of World War 2 and not acting while Hitler committed genocide. I do think it's comical how Kerry was chosen to be the public bad guy to protect Obama from making it look like he is the one lobbying to attack Syria.
My position is unless there is U.N. support, the U.S. needs to stay out of it and mind their own business. Frankly, I don't blame Britain for not wanting to be involved after being taken on a roller coaster ride the last time the U.S. wanted their support.
I think reality just sinks in that you can't be the global police. It makes enemies in the world, sets you up for terrorist attacks, and costs you a ton of money which could be used for domestic purposes or paying off our debt as opposed to plunging us further into debt. Why get involved if the U.N. doesn't support it and your own national security interests aren't at stake?
I think that WWII is a perfect line to draw. Conflicts like these don't stay localized to the country they are currently happening in. If Assad gets away with using chemical weapons without consequence, the stage is being set for several things to occur both during and after this civil war - Assad using chemical weapons again, selling/giving chemical weapons to others to use, other parties seeing that there are really no consequences for developing and using chemical weapons, and an expansion of human rights violations due to the lack of punishment for doing such.
The idea of getting UN support, when you have Russia wielding its veto regardless of the circumstances, would be like waiting for Japan to give the go ahead for the US to attack after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Letting people like Assad do what they will because "it's not our problem" doesn't work and that has been shown throughout history as well. These people were our enemies long before this civil war and will continue to be regardless of our actions now. The decision has to be made on whether the international community will allow things outside of international norms, like the use of chemical weapons, to go on unpunished. If the world wants to turn a blind eye, that's fine, but when someone releases a nerve agent in the middle of London and it's found to have originated in Syria, I hope the US gives them the big middle finger when they come asking for help. The bed is made and they can lay in it.
If we are that proficient and effective, we will have acted as al-Qaeda's air force, in effect. You think the secularists will be strong enough to take control of the country, bring stability? Plus now Syria has had, and may well continue to have, a grace period of days to move the stuff most important in the defense of the Assad regime to locales that cruise missiles can't do as much damage. You think the Assad regime, the Iranians, Hezbollah and Russia will just allow their meal ticket to be blown away without finding a way to hit at us somehow?
You think they aren't doing all of that right now regardless of how we respond to this? None of these countries have ever really been our friends and they have in the past and will continue to do whatever they can to undermine the US and other western interests.
As you have noted, Syria did not sign the agreement on chemical weapons. Technically, it is not illegal under international law for Syria to use chemical weapons.
While they didn't sign the CWC Treaty, they are a party to the Geneva Protocol (
Link which prohibits the use of chemical weapons. There are also other treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, they are also party to. Further, there is the idea of
customary international law which doesn't require a country to have to be a signatory on a treaty to be bound by it in situations where certain behaviors are universally accepted as outside of the norm. So, in essence, Syria has broken some law, depending on which one you want to look at.
Yes, exactly.
The American approach to the solution of every problem is to bomb something.
One can always find something to blow up that will make the perpetrators change. If one of Assad's palaces is flattened, he will surely find religion and become a decent person. We just need to find the right things to blow up. The key to making angels out of devils is the bombing of the correct targets.
The point is not to change Assad. The point is to punish. We don't know what would be targeted, so the efficacy of it can't be argued. There have been diplomatic solutions pursued for years now, but thanks to Russia and Assad not wanting anything to change, that has gone nowhere. So at some point, when someone starts gassing their people, someone has to step in and use force to stop the intentional mass killing of civilians.
You mean, the same way Britain capitulated to Hitler because of the flattening of their cities in WW II?
The same way the Viet Cong capitulated to America because of the carpet bombing of their troops in the field?
The same way America capitulated to Al-Qaeda because of the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damaging of the Pentagon?
Blowing up stuff - even lots of important stuff - has an abysmal history when it comes to changing the behavior of people.
Well I will say that Hitler sure capitulated when we went in with guns and bombs. Al Qaeda sure did take to the caves when we went in to Afghanistan with guns and bombs. There is a place for weaponry and military tactics and they are successful when used appropriately. Attacking Vietnam because we were scared of Communism was stupid. Attacking Iraq because GW wanted to redeem daddy was stupid. Entering WWII was an absolute necessity to, in essence, save the world and an entire population of people. Entering Afghanistan was absolutely necessary to break up al Qaeda, pursue their leaders, and prevent them from growing stronger. Targeting a regime in Syria that uses chemical weapons on its own people is necessary to ensure the adherence to the ban on chemical weapons and to protect the human rights of the citizens of Syria who are nothing now but pawns to a dictator who has shown he will do anything to hold on to power.
