I'm not 100% sure we should strike or not...
So I am open to convincing arguments either way. I am leaning towards staying out of it completely.
This doesn't help me want to go in...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ml?ESRC=dod.nl
I know we don't want to blow up chem weapons stockpiles. But if WE don't control them, and ASSAD doesn't control them, who does?
So we fire those missiles at what? Assad's troops, and war assets?
The risk vs. reward on this is screwed up, IMO. I've read the U.S. reports available (unfortunately, I don't have them on a tab right now to link) and they don't say much except WE know Assad (or someone he is ultimately responsible for) did the deed.
1,400 dead, or 350, let's not do this. I've read this thread, and I am still not convinced this is the right choice. And, it's a little late anyway, unless the goal is to force Assad's troops out of areas where we believe chem weapons are, or might be, in which case we give them to a large group of young, unemployed, angry, religiously diverse men and boys some of whom are sure to be linked to terrorist groups who hate our guts like nothing else on earth.
Let me ask this. What course of action is SURE to lead to no further action on our part? If we are talking strictly about chemical weapon deterrence. Because I don't see anything now but heavy involvement for some time to come.
"Russia uses the system where it is in their interest"
I'm shocked.
and, "Rick, hide me! Do something!"
Well, it appears Mr Putin made a quick decision to "do something" for his client ruler. And, John Kerry did it again; he was for the ultimatum, before he was against it. However, Mr Kerry may have to shift gears again, Obama Calls Russia Offer on Syria Possible ‘Breakthrough’ (NYT 9 Sep 2013).
And - "I don't believe they [Russians] complied with international law in Georgia ..." I thought (from reading this thread and its sister thread) that "international law" no longer exists, it it ever did exist. Apparently, it still was alive at the time of the Georgian conflict.
Regards
Mike
Cuz the P-5 didn't trust each other,
nor did they trust the lesser members, as Curmudgeon said.
Everyone gamed the system and they still do.
I ran into this in Googling whether Eric Stein (my faculty advisor) had anything to say or do about early UNSC voting. This cable was signed by Mr Dulles (John Foster), but drafted by David Popper and Eric Stein, The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France (29 Apr 1953). Here's a couple of telling snips:
Quote:
2. SC appears best UN organ since consideration by it will emphasize danger to international peace and is least subject to pressure for undue extension of debate by extreme anti-colonial group.
...
6. Although accurate prediction vote in SC not possible without consultation with other members, we believe 4 permanent members (UK, US, France, China) would vote for above resolution as would at least 3 non-permanent members (Greece, Colombia, Denmark). At least one of three remaining members (Chile, Lebanon, Pakistan) might also vote for resolution. Since this would be case under Chapter VII of Charter right of France to vote could not be challenged. Soviets virtually certain veto resolution so that SC will not be able take any effective action. However, large vote in SC despite veto would in our view achieve principal advantages outlined above.
and then (appears to be an addition by Mr Dulles):
Quote:
I talked to Bonnet yesterday recommending action in SC by Laos, but did not go into details. Bonnet stated French are afraid matter might get into Assembly and lead to political attacks on France because of its alleged imperialistic policies. Such attacks, he said, might well create a public opinion in France which would force complete withdrawal from Indochina.
We are, of course, aware likelihood matter may arise in GA. However, this possibility exists regardless whether matter raised in SC, and prior initiative in SC would, in our view, set narrower and more manageable framework for any GA consideration.
The UNSC in 1953 had 11 members; passage required 7 votes (with 5 P-5 affirmative; or if a P-5 abstained or was absent, an added non-P member). The game was to get 7 votes, knowing a P-5 would veto, and then go to whatever friendly media that could be found. See Chaper V Wiki.
Prof Stein died in 2011 at 98; a Prague JD, Czech army, a Michigan JD and US army (all between 1937 and 1945) - a very personable guy with a gentleman's genuine manners.
Regards
Mike