jared_7 wrote:No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
I wonder what Assad had to politically gain by using chemical weapons? If he'd just kept on barrel bombing there wouldn't have been any of this response and he would have been left to his own devices?
Why poke the international bear? Are we saying being evil makes him also stupid?
jared_7 wrote:No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
Who should do the official investigation? Maybe Assad's police force could take a look.
So far there seems to be no argument that sarin was found. The reasons for it being there grow impossibly far fetched once you take dropped from plane out of the equation.
Sandydragon wrote:
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
Who should do the official investigation? Maybe Assad's police force could take a look.
So far there seems to be no argument that sarin was found. The reasons for it being there grow impossibly far fetched once you take dropped from plane out of the equation.
The UN. I know it would be a foregone conclusion but that is the process. Just like at least putting it to vote on action is part of the process. It may only take a few days for confirmation and a quick investigation, but there are questions that need answering from people other than Guardian journalists.
I'm constantly told, on here, that our processes are what separates "us" from "them".
Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who drew criticism when she traveled to Syria in February to meet Assad, has reacted angrily to the news of airstrikes.
"This administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning," she said in a statement.
"It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia."
One thing is for sure. You just know Trump is ambling around like one o'clock half struck while other people are at work. Welcome to foreign affairs mother fucker.
jared_7 wrote:No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.
morepork wrote:One thing is for sure. You just know Trump is ambling around like one o'clock half struck while other people are at work. Welcome to foreign affairs mother fucker.
Since becoming the most powerful man in the world, he has struggled to impose that power until now. He has faced considerable opposition every time he has tried policy, but he has finally been able to weild real power now.
People have died because of him and I bet he's loving it.
morepork wrote:One thing is for sure. You just know Trump is ambling around like one o'clock half struck while other people are at work. Welcome to foreign affairs mother fucker.
Since becoming the most powerful man in the world, he has struggled to impose that power until now. He has faced considerable opposition every time he has tried policy, but he has finally been able to weild real power now.
People have died because of him and I bet he's loving it.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
He wasn't holding the reins for this one. No Bannon, no daughter or son in law involved. Just a fat old man keeping his mouth shut and watching the hawks swoop. Note the absence of any stupid tweets for ~24 hours...
morepork wrote:One thing is for sure. You just know Trump is ambling around like one o'clock half struck while other people are at work. Welcome to foreign affairs mother fucker.
Since becoming the most powerful man in the world, he has struggled to impose that power until now. He has faced considerable opposition every time he has tried policy, but he has finally been able to weild real power now.
People have died because of him and I bet he's loving it.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
He wasn't holding the reins for this one. No Bannon, no daughter or son in law involved. Just a fat old man keeping his mouth shut and watching the hawks swoop. Note the absence of any stupid tweets for ~24 hours...
No doubt his military bods did the persuading, but he is the one that gave the ok and that is probably all it took to convince him that he is the man.
Sandydragon wrote:
So is using chemical weapons against the civilian population. In an ideal world, the US should have gone to the UN and got approval, but in reality the Russians would have blocked it. And the delay would have undermined the response.
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???
Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.
jared_7 wrote:No one has an issue with he the violations of international law? The US has just unilaterally decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Isn't this what the US is for?
I definitely do. The previous administration pushed for the same course of action but was blocked by congress. The previous crowd also managed to go at Libya under the cloak of NATO, but cynicism for the action in both cases is warranted. Congress don't really give a toss for international law and care more about the pliancy of the incumbent president. The domestic obsession with Russia has now spilled over into deaths overseas. This is FUBAR. If stability in the region is the justification for intervention by all, why has this most recent episode of a depressingly redundant course of events suddenly become Cold War II? It's like a twitter distraction, but with cruise missiles. Trump has been swallowed whole by the very swamp he vowed to drain. I don't know who in the current administration, or opposition, has the requisite sophistication to construct a nuanced alternative to this shit.
jared_7 wrote:
Shoot first, ask question later. Got it.
At the moment, to me, it seems as though the crime hasn't been officially investigated and the response hasn't even attempted to get official sanction. Imagine if we ran our own justice system like that?
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???
Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.
What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.
There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.
And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.
Sandydragon wrote:
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???
Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.
What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.
There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.
And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.
How strong is evidence of the 2013 being attributable to Assad? Is it strong enough for the west to justify riding in like John Wayne and dispensing summary justice? Would you be comfortable with a comparable level of (circumstantial) evidence justifying a strike where you live?
Sandydragon wrote:
International relations isn't a court of law. A criminal investigation could take months or over a year. By then the war could be over and Assad once and secure, having carried out other chemical weapons attacks. The world aint perfect.
Who knows, but by then perhaps it might be discovered that Assad didn't do it???
Stranger things have happened, but the point is the US just jumps right in and starts firing missiles to stoke up an already tense situation.
What the US should have done is carry through on the threat made back in 2013 when this was a red line issue. Obama wavered and Assad got away with it. Assad will still probably get away with it, but if he stops using chemical weapons in the interim it will be a bonus.
There will never be enough evidence to convince everyone. But with evidence that Sarin was used provided by doctors and corroborating evidence from the ground, and potentially other sources, then there is little point in waiting for some courtroom proceedings to take place, which just won't happen. Not even the UN will provide anything close given the role of Russia.
And let's not forget that this isn't the first instance of Assad using chemical weapons. This shouldn't be a surprise for anyone.
And lets not forget this isn't the first instance the US and its brown-nosing servant boy the UK has rushed us into an illegal war on dubious grounds.
morepork wrote:How strong is evidence of the 2013 being attributable to Assad? Is it strong enough for the west to justify riding in like John Wayne and dispensing summary justice? Would you be comfortable with a comparable level of (circumstantial) evidence justifying a strike where you live?
Why are you bothering with such questions? He was riding into Iraq the moment George Dubya retardedly stuttered the words WMD, and has just said he would have rode into Syria long ago if it was up to him. The military is here to protect us and our freedoms, stupid.
Conversely, RT are running a story saying that the rebels are the only side to benefit from the chemical attack. I know it's RT but we already know news agencies will push their own agendas. They even use a British security/intelligence/terrorism analyst to back up the claims.
In terms of news, is it an any less viable piece of opinion than the piece in the Grauniad?
Conversely, RT are running a story saying that the rebels are the only side to benefit from the chemical attack. I know it's RT but we already know news agencies will push their own agendas. They even use a British security/intelligence/terrorism analyst to back up the claims.
In terms of news, is it an any less viable piece of opinion than the piece in the Grauniad?
It's a question I asked earlier and have seen many ask. The rebels have been on the back foot and Assad could have kept bombing to his hearts content with exact same outcome as a chemical attack which now carries international retaliation.
RT running with it will actually discredit the story because they are mouthpieces for the Russian government, which is a shame because anyone with two inches of brain would be asking themselves the same question.
