Russia would veto it so what would be the point in going to the Security Council? IMO if he is going to do it, he should have just done it instead of going looking for political cover or co-conspirators. It feels like he knows this will be a huge mess but wants support so he doesn't get the blame for it. As long as it took him to authorize the assault on Bin Laden it shouldn't be a surprise that he is an unsteady hand on the helm.
We should be glad if we're able to step back from this abyss and avoid violating both domestic and international law.
Russia would veto it so what would be the point in going to the Security Council? IMO if he is going to do it, he should have just done it instead of going looking for political cover or co-conspirators. It feels like he knows this will be a huge mess but wants support so he doesn't get the blame for it. As long as it took him to authorize the assault on Bin Laden it shouldn't be a surprise that he is an unsteady hand on the helm.
That is not how it will play out. We will bomb under the pretense this is a limited warning; nothing will change; we will suddenly be told of the further use of chemical weapons, and therefore Assad must go, at which point we will be bombing and arming like a boss; Assad will eventually fall, and the entire country will be teeming with militant Islamists who will be running arms to the West Bank to use against Israel and be carrying out terror throughout Europe and Syria is the geographic keystone between them and the West.
1. It's something which USA itself valuated the most. The balance in voting.
2. Russia always used veto and will always use in every request of USA.
3. If Obama can't be like Bush in making an attack legal even when it is illegal, I don't get why he keep moving on the same track he've been doing wrong all this time.
4. If British & UN didn't support him, they did it for a big reason.
1. It's something which USA itself valuated the most. The balance in voting.
2. Russia always used veto and will always use in every request of USA.
3. If Obama can't be like Bush in making an attack legal even when it is illegal, I don't get why he keep moving on the same track he've been doing wrong all this time.
4. If British & UN didn't support him, they did it for a big reason.
Unilateralism is the American way. The double veto of Russia and China prevents any consideration. While I, personally, value the opinions of the UN in general, one must also realize it is a politicized world institution, and as such, it will have its own biases. In a perfect world, UN approval would have been sought, and had that been a real option, I would think President Obama would have done so.
"Syria is bombing itsself.. we must intervene by bombing Syria" -- Obama Logic
He was the peace candidate who became a war president, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has regularly ordered executions by drone.
I view the UN as little more than a dog and pony show and think would should have left them a long time ago. That said I think we should stay out of Syria and mind our own business as unamerican as that notion has become.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?