10 votes

What if it is "confirmed" that Assad did use chemical weapons?

Let's suppose that the UN inspection confirms that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Now let's suppose that a classified "intelligent" report is released that gives credence that indeed the Syrian government did order a chemical weapons attack.

The question is now what? I figure this is what really the debate will come to... leaving aside the trustworthiness of the various "intelligent" reports that are offered up by our government.

I hope that a majority of congress take the position that EVEN IF the Syrian government used chemical weapons that does not mean we must start a war with Syria by sending in missiles... indeed sending in missiles would be doing the opposite of what our government is claiming they want to do (i.e., preserve international norms and laws).

The war hawks are making the argument that Assad used chemical weapons therefore if we do not punish Syria by sending in missiles then there is no purpose to the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.

So they are claiming either we take military action or we are not upholding international norms and laws... however this is clearly false. Taking immediate military action would not be upholding international norms and laws. The international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons has a procedure of what to do in the event of a states non-compliance. I am not sure where all the relevant treaties are, however, I think we can be certain that NONE of the treaties and agreements say the next action is to make a military strike in the case of a states non-compliance.

There is a section of the articles from the convention titled, "Measures to Redress a Situation and to Ensure Compliance, Including Sanctions", it lays out a procedure which our government is not thus far even attempting to follow!

Here is that section from the "Chemical Weapons Convention":
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/art...

Leaving aside the real possible reasons why our government seems so desperate to start a direct military war with Syria... our government is nevertheless currently not even following the agreed on Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention even though they are pretending they are seeking to uphold the treaty.

The members of congress who oppose a war with Syria I hope make it clear that EVEN IF a case can be made that Assad did use chemical weapons then there are nevertheless a host of other options besides sending in bombs! By taking direct military action without even attempting to follow the agreed procedure our government would be proving that preserving "international norms and laws" is not at all what their concern is.

This seems to be an extremely important vote... to say the least... I hope we all continue to make our voices heard!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let's look at that

Peter Tomka Slovakia RUSSIA
Bernardo Amor Mexico USA
Hisashi Owada Japan USA
Ronny Abraham France USA
Sir Kenneth Keith New Zealand USA
Mohamed Bennouna Morocco RUSSIA
Leonid Skotnikov Russia RUSSIA
Antônio Trindade Brazil RUSSIA
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf Somalia RUSSIA
Sir C. Greenwood United Kingdom USA
Xue Hanqin China RUSSIA or USA
Joan E. Donoghue United States USA
Giorgio Gaja Italy USA
Julia Sebutinde Uganda RUSSIA
Dalveer Bhandari India USA

It look split to me if you want to look specifically at the judges and not put the Security Council in the mix, which the wiki article explained this is how it should be, but it's never been done before.

I have a somewhat different view.

I have replaced the USA with NWO since the USA is the major power enforcing the NWO. On this basis there are only two countries on this list that are not members of the NWO yet and this is why they have been targeted and why you view them as "the enemy". I have given the reasons for removing each country from the Russia column to the NWO column where you had so designated it.

If you have doubts about my decision then I suggest you read the wiki on each country to see why I made the change.

Peter Tomka Slovakia NWO...Slovakia is an EU member.
Bernardo Amor Mexico NWO
Hisashi Owada Japan NWO
Ronny Abraham France NWO
Sir Kenneth Keith New Zealand NWO
Mohamed Bennouna Morocco NWO...Morocco is an Islamic non NATO ally of the USA
Leonid Skotnikov Russia
Antônio Trindade Brazil NWO
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf Somalia NWO
Sir C. Greenwood United Kingdom NWO
Xue Hanqin China
Joan E. Donoghue United States NWO
Giorgio Gaja Italy NWO
Julia Sebutinde Uganda NWO...Largely Christian and UN dependent.
Dalveer Bhandari India NWO

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

If our government is not even

If our government is not even going to attempt to follow the international treaty and international "norms" in the event of a states non-compliance then they should not be using that as their main reason for starting war with Syria. Besides are you suggesting that the current international court is a majority of communists and Islamic backed nations?

From the current makeup of 15 judges, that does not appear to be the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#...

Regardless if one thinks we ought not even be involved with the UN, the fact is that our executive branch is once again giving contradictory and deceptive reasons to build public support for another military war.

IMO

The US is saber rattling, to show the American people stand with the Syrian people for freedom, and areoffended at Assad for shooting protesters, turning off communications, bombing hospitals, schools, infrastructor, historic places, making over 5 million Syrians who LOVE the US and Israel, refugees, and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, letting Jihadist come into Syria to bring a religious layer of mass murder of infidels, that reflects Assad's murderous principles (maybe all this is because his wife left him?).

The US isn't involved, though many have conspiracy ideas, greivances and no trust for their own government, have been getting YouTube RT/Press, conspiracy education, which renders them angry at their own governemnt too much to see when their own government is acting in their best interests..

What is happening in Syria is a genocide and the UN is gone.. What is happening to the civilians is not what anyone who stands for liberty would want happen to them. We see pictures here of road checks and police brutality and people get bent out of shape.. well Assad is all that multiplied.. and folks just turn their backs .. that ain't right. I'm not saying we should bomb them, but there's something here that is immoral.. and the thing is, it's happening all over the world, we're just not hearing about it.. like when Argentina had an economic collapse.. Most didn't find out until YouTube years after the fact.

I'm saying the UN in majority communist and Islamic (closer to Syria than the US and no one is standing for freedom, not the ICJ..which thank you for that wiki icj link..

When Bush was in office, he had a simular issue, terri schiavo.. Bush had no business thinking about getting involved, but I appreciated how he still , even symbolically, stood for Teri Schiavo.

And I agree that Obama should say how appauled he is..we all should be appauled and standing with those who fight for freedom.. instead it's about money..

So I am a bit confused what

So I am a bit confused what your saying... if you don't think US should follow a UN procedure because the judges are a majority of communists and Islamists... and if you are not necessarily suggesting that the US should bomb Syria in this situation but are claiming that we should not turn our backs...then what do you think our government should do? I don't think hardly anyone is arguing that what's going on over there is right... on either side.

And not sure what mean by claiming that the "US is not involved"... it is a well known fact that the CIA is directly working to train and arm the rebels.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/23/syria-rebels-us...

Looks like some of those trained are on their way to the battlefield now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...

By the way... keep in mind that the weapons given in the 1980s by the CIA to Afghanistan "freedom fighters" were later used by the Taliban... how will these weapons we are sending into Syria right now be used in the future?

Sending in more weapons almost seems certain to only escalate the civil war... do you think it is moral for the US to be arming and training the opposition? Do you think the US involvement is partly responsible for the escalation of the civil war or not at all?

Also... your writing as if the Assad government is the one doing all the killing... that is not true at all... look at the estimates of death tolls on both sides... it is a aweful ongoing cival war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

And speaking of genocide... what do you think the US government should of done when the Egyptian military was actively murdering thousands of unarmed protestors? Keep in mind also the extent which our government armed and trained the Egyptian military... and they are the ones who overthrew the first democratically elected president in Egypt's history... shortly after they used their military against the peaceful protests.

So what are your suggestions then? Preferably concrete suggestions if you have some....

No

I'm not saying we shouldn't follow one. I'm saying there is not one to follow.. the court has not been used the way we would want to use it right now, and one reason there are so many genocides taking place globally.

I think Obama and Kerry are right to show that America is completely opposed to what is happening in Syria, and the "saber rattling", shows how opposed we are, not that we are going to do anything. We won't.. not until Israel askes us, because they are our allies, they would only ask us to help if they were attacked.

It is well rumored who we have given arms to.. and from the scenes I've seen about Syria.. the US hasn't done sqwat. If CIA is part of Al-Qauda, as I've read that it is.. then it would be helping the Jihadists, who are not there to help the secular Liberty Movement Syrians, but to clean up Syria for Islam.

I don't see us providing arms.. Arms and training from the 80s, it could be those troops who saw how great America was, don't forget and won't shoot at the4ir own people.. and looks to me, they are making the best of it.. it's going to take a miracle.. and if the fire for Islam does not go out in Syria.. it will continue to spread as it is already burning in Egypt and Libya.. blaming Americans is not the correct answer.

Americans are giving response.. not orders.. Islam is giving the orders to eliminate the infidels.. media won't broadcast it that way.. but that's what I'm seeing.. a religious war to kill the liberty movement, the atheists and christians alike in Syria.

I see the freedom fighters defencivly fighting for their lives. They are Syrians, their preident has turned on them, and they are fighting for their lives.. they didn't expect this.. they were protesting.. just like we protest.. then Assad starting shooting and rounding people up, cut off the net and communications outside, and blowing Syria up.

I think the US is right to stand opposed to Assad and for the Free Syrian Army, and I think it would be good if they could get China or India to step up to the UN ICL.. I think we should offer some Amnesty to refugees, and humanitarian aid, or make it easy for Americans who want to help, to get that help there.. not this flotilla non-sense.. it would be good if NATO would step in, and this is what worries me is that NATO and the UN are staying out, and to me, that means they condone this. None of them are making a move to end it.

I believe Egypt is still fighting.. I'm pretty sure Sudan is going through a genocide.. I just hate to think it's all freedom lovers..

Makes me feel helpless.

Most Islamic backed nations

Most Islamic backed nations are Sunni and not best buds w Iran Granger
In fact, Israel and Saudi Arabia have more on common on this issue than does Iran And Saudi Arabia.

Given amateur homemade

Given amateur homemade chemical weapons for Al-Qaeda to use and were funded by Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda should be de-funded.

Bashar al-Assad has only professional manufactured chemical weapons that are much more devastating and would leave a much more obvious signature. Those weren't found.

That being said, Syria is not my civil war and I'm not paying for it.

Endanger 8 BILLION to avenge the lives of 1,300?

Seems like pretty bad math to me.

I have a suggestion for "useful idiots" John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Peter King. Punish ALL war criminals, including those already found guilty, including George w. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld AND Barack Obama, then prosecute members of Congress and the British Parliament as co-conspirators.

You forgot Hitlery...

and Holder...and Clinton, and daddy Bush, and Boehner, and Feinstein, at al.

------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

I don't think this Syria business

has anything to do with Assad, the rebels, or a civil war. I believe it has more to do with Petro dollar dominance. Syria is working with Iran and Russia on pipelines and gold exchange for international trade. The chemical weapons, civil war, etc is a planned excuse to control yet another country getting out from under the petrodollar tyranny.