Technically the Speaker of the House supports strikes. Whether or not The President and Boehner together can get the whole House to agree on it is another matter. If I'm not mistaken Congress is on vacation until next week, so a full vote will take some time.
Not to derail the thread, just a minor rant. I love the way this article wraps Agent Orange (which killed 400,000 people and caused half a million birth defects) up in the nice little tag of 'herbicides' and doesn't give numbers for how many people that 'herbicide' killed. Cuz, y'know, that's totally not as evil. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Yeah I wasn't thrilled about that either. I guess the technical distinction is that we were using it as a defoliant primarily, killing all those people was just a side effect. Probably something like Agent Orange didn't violate the letter of the Hague Convention or Geneva Protocol, only the spirit. Shitty and stupid.
I'm not sure about Syria, and I can't think through the consequences of getting involved well enough to say with any certainty what we should do, so my uninformed opinion is to err on the side of not going to war. That said, if anyone is ever in Vietnam, spend an afternoon in the war museum in Ho Chi Minh city. The photos of people exposed to Agent Orange are... I'm not even sure how to describe them. I'm not a particularly sensitive soul, but I left that exhibit and waited for my friend outside, watching people stream out in tears all the while. Chemical weapons are some evil shit. Almost as evil as getting involved in wars you don't belong in.
I don't know about wholesale intervention, but I wouldn't mind a world in which countries had the following thought process; "You know, Vice-Dictator Steve, I'm not sure the USA will blow us up if we kill some of our civilians, but I sure as shit know they'll start in with the damn missiles and bombs if we toss out some Sarin. So... let's avoid that at least."
Let me play the devil’s advocate for a second: I think attacking a sovereign nation for behaving in a way you disagree with sets a nasty precedent. The US does a lot of shit which upsets a number of nations around the globe, doesn’t mean they should feel justified to strike you on home soil, if they do it is justifiably seen as a crime. This is where someone chimes in with “but chemical weapons are evil!” Dead is dead, and starving to death because of economic sanctions or being butchered by a faction backed by the CIA is the same shit under a different banner. If I had the choice of being hacked to death by a machete or gassed with sarin, I dunno, flip a coin. Chemical weapons are scary and make headlines, because of these headlines a whole bunch of knee jerk, emotive twonks have taken note of the Syrian cluster fuck for the first time and are screaming shrilly for blood. The politicians have to be “seen” to be doing something even though I suspect their advisors are making it clear this is a no winner. Also a blast from ancient history, Kony. Didn’t take long for all those fucking slactivists to move on did it, this is the same. Just be glad you were born in the country you were and spare a thought every now and then for those poor bastards who weren’t, but realize saving them from themselves is about a likely as stoping a fat bloke from eating bacon.
Pretty good blog that gets into the details of the military side of things in Syria: <a class="postlink" href="http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/</a>
The US is not 'attacking a sovereign nation for behaving in a way [they] disagree with'. You're over simplifying the issue. They are enforcing a UN agreement ratified by 98% of the countries in the world. It's unfortunate that the UN cannot act for itself and that the US has to be the one to do it, but if these standards aren't enforced and countries get to do whatever the hell they want, you might as well scrap the entire concept of the United Nations.
This is precisely what the US is doing. It is up to the UN to enforce it, and while enforcement is done through member countries, the UN has not authorized the use of force. If and when the UN decides to pass such a resolution (which it won't) - the US is NOT acting under any international authority. It is acting on it's own. So yes, the US would be attacking a sovereign nation for behaving in a way they disagree with. The US was not granted the authority to act as the World Police (Fuck Yea!) on it's own whim. I know we're used to acting that way, but let's be 100% clear, the US has no authority whatsoever (at the present time) to enforce the ban on chemical weapons which is in effect. From this article: In a statement after Wednesday’s vote, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “We commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security. We believe America is stronger when the President and Congress work together. The military action authorized in the resolution would uphold America’s national security interests by degrading Assad’s chemical weapons capability and deterring the future use of these weapons, even as we pursue a broader strategy of strengthening the opposition to hasten a political transition in Syria.” The resolution being considered is couched in terms of US national security interests. Why would it be couched that way? Because there is no authority for the US to act to enforce the ban on chemical weapons absent a UN resolution. But hey, don't take my word for it: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon suggested Tuesday that any American intervention in Syria would be illegal under international law absent approval from the UN Security Council. “The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense,” Ban said during a news conference at UN headquarters in New York, “or when the Security Council approves such action.” Oh, by the way, Syria never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. So, yeah, let's throw that little nugget in there as well.
Yeah, about that. Dictators aren't so great at the whole "knowing how far you can push the US" thing. See: Hussein, Saddam. Yep. In the long run, most Americans have nothing to lose by our government dropping bombs on another country. So it'll happen, even though nobody really wants it, because "we have to do something!!" Basically, there's no consequences for us going "bomb em #yolo" - and that's sad.
I don't really want action in Syria, but honestly who gives a fuck what the UN says? They're not going to do anything. Russia and China are going to veto no matter what and the organization as a whole is a ruse to make the member states feel civilized. It's powerless and doesn't even enforce its own laws. Is anyone surprised that rogue nations thumb their noses at it? As for us, Obama fumbled the ball (again). Don't draw a red line if you aren't prepared to act. He was incompetent before, now he just let the world in on the secret. It's worrying what the future implications are going to be because of all this. And Im not laying this at Obamas feet or blaming him entirely, but just in general. We're staying out of it since we just finished up a couple of wars, I get it and agree with it. But tyrants will now feel galvanized because no one is willing to stop them. Huh, sounds familiar...
Japan wasn't a signatory to the 1929 Geneva Convention but it was still prosecuted under it for war crimes after WW2.
Excellent point! It is well known that Japan's violation of the 1929 Geneva Convention was the basis upon which the United States declared war on Japan in WWII and commenced military hostilities thereon. Or was it? See the difference? Because it's a major difference. One country, in your example, had unconditionally surrendered to, and put itself under the legal authority of the other country. Not quite sure that Syria has done that, but maybe France has surrendered to Syria, thus giving the US unconditional legal authority over Syria. Or something like that.