Syria: US Involvement

Is the fat guy in that comic President Obama!?

That was brilliant andy. It shows how it really goes.

What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that chemical and biological weapons, and their use, was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol and a little something called the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. The Protocol was drawn up and signed at a conference which was held in Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations from 4 May to 17 June 1925, and it entered into force on 8 February 1928.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.

The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed. The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

WAIT WAIT WAIT... your telling me that banning WMD's does not keep them out of the hands of criminals, and they are still used on the helpless despite the majority of the world being against their use?

FraterDavid wrote: They don't need to be our friends in order for us to help protect them from further exposure to chemical WMDs. They are our brothers and sisters in spirit. We are all members of the same humanity. Plus, "never" is a mighty long time... no one can know that they will "never" be our friends. Not to mention that sometimes, politics can make for some strange bedfellows.

And, sometimes people dont want the help of others...

Sometimes, people want to fight their own battles...

Maxims wrote: Faith: To trust in the ways of the Force.

Although the ways of the Force may seem strange at times, a Jedi always knows their place and their role within it.

Maxims wrote: Discretion: To become invisible.

A Jedi knows there is a time and place for all things. They do not actively interfere in worldly affairs and refrain from overtly supporting or opposing other individuals or organizations.

Maxims wrote: Conflict: To know when to fight.

A Jedi knows the conflicting nature of the Force but they also know its peace and serenity. A Jedi never blindly enters conflict and always does so for the greater good.

Maxim wrote: Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required.

Basically, the whole list of Maxims could be quoted here...

Pick your battle, and fight it...

Either you trust the Force to resolve the issue, or, your trust the force when it tells you in your gut to get involved...

Its easy to sit here and judge the actions of those in charge... :huh:

You know how tribal nations deal with problems? Genocide. The middle east and Africa are still very much a tribal society.

What a pile of non-sense. Have you actually been there?

besides, nazi germany and the USSR didn't strike me as "tribal". The 3 million dead iraqi since the 90's following US invasions sounds very much like genocide to me. And why? to take out a guy convicted, after a "curious" trial, of illegally killing 120 rebels? It's not small communities that cause problems, it's the large ones. When things go wrong, it gets really, really nasty. small disorganized groups simply cannot carry out the systemic execution of any other particular large group. Just look at gang politics in the US.

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, Caste, religious, or national group".

Genocide
Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, religious, political, or ethnic group. The term was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II, to describe the premeditated effort to destroy a population (see Holocaust). In 1946 the UN General Assembly declared genocide a punishable crime. By this declaration, genocide by definition may be committed by an individual, group, or government, against one's own people or another, in peacetime or in wartime. This last point distinguishes genocide from “crimes against humanity,” whose legal definition specifies wartime. Suspects may be tried by a court in the country where the act was committed or by an international court (see International Criminal Court). An example of genocide more recent than the Holocaust is the slaughter of Tutsi people by the Hutu in Rwanda in the 1990s.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

There are countless pieces of documentation (countless is probably a bad word) that support this claim. And I would have to agree with this interpretation of several events throughout history.

As far as that comic, not speaking up in the past doesn't revoke your right to speak up in the future. There is always a point where it has gone too far and people decide it is time to speak out and intervene.

That said, I'd rather see us focusing on problems a little closer to home instead of throwing more money at wars we don't need.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: not speaking up in the past doesn't revoke your right to speak up in the future.

Right on...

Russia says it did not see US evidence of Syrian role behind alleged chemical weapons attack

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/30/russia-says-it-did-not-see-us-evidence-syrian-role-behind-alleged-chemical/


I wonder why?


[quoteU.S. Prepares for Solo Strike On Syria After Britain Balks][/quote]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042913385135196.html

After a week of U.S. saber rattling that raised expectations about an imminent attack on Syria by a U.S.-led coalition, the White House had yet to release details about the intelligence

I wonder why?

Lets see it if you want our support.

The US should not do this alone, if at all, restraint is called for.