posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
This is how I see it.
There is the law: use of chemical weapons is illegal; and then there is what we tentatively term the "United Nations" - what most people regard as an
ineffective failure, suffering the natural effects of filibustering and gerrymandering between disparate blocs of nations with different interests.
When you have such a situation, you have a stalemate. Syria has indeed broken international law; it's use of chemical weapons is a clear no no. So how
come, if nations do not come to any agreement, can we all of a sudden determine that this is the moral course of action? 2 - 2 = 0. So long as there
continues to be these blocs of nations with opposing interests, it'll be difficult to ever enforce international law in any constructive way.
I understand in what your saying .. Obama has grown tired of some UN members dragging their feet over what to do in Syria .. instead of going to
congress he should be going to the UN with the intel he released yesterday ..Putin has even stated and I quote " I would like to see our American
FRIENDS show the UN council evidence of Syria using chemical weapons"
why didn't he release the information to Britain before they tried to get the ok through the house of commons ?
Obama's bluff has been called and he has been left wanting ....regardless of what happens in congress with out UN approval could cause the UN to
collapse without any credibility ..
regardless of who is right and wrong America is a member of the UN and should act with in its laws ..
instead of beating the war drums Obama should show the rest of the world proof then allow the UN to do its job
Here's an idea ... why not make WAR a crime ,murder is murder no matter what way the chosen method is.
IT could never happen of course because its impossible to control
the only way out for Obama now is for the UN to back track and give approval to save face to all involved ..if UN inspectors can prove the use of
chemical weapons then Russia and china will have to back military strikes
edit on 06/-05004/2011 by sitchin because: (no reason given)