Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[BennyCake]

So the Brits aren't going into Syria. Cue a "terrorist" attack in the UK, that will make them change their minds.

[Count 10]

[seafoid]

pathological narcissism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8X3Uf-Do3Y

[Itchy]

So what should be done to a regime that fires chemical weapons at its own people in violation of international law and please avoid using whataboutery and Israel in the answer. Seafood says hold a peace conference so I know what he thinks. Maybe we should say a mass?

[Count 10]

America has backed itself into a corner....dammed if they do...dammed if they don't.
The West could go for a No Fly Zone. This would deprive the regime of its airpower, weakening it substantially. Such an option requires suppressing Syrian air defences, a major undertaking that would result in many Syrian civilian casualties - a problem for an intervention justified in the name of protecting civilians. While this course of action would change the balance of forces between the regime and its opponents, it would not on its own defeat the regime or deliver a positive outcome for the Syrian people.Rather, it would hasten the devolution of the Syrian civil war into an interminable fractional struggle, one that continues to spread outside Syria's borders and merge with other conflicts. It is unclear how such a result benefits anyone.
Soldiers on the ground is not viable after the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is little wonder that Obama and Kerry prefer to speak of high ideals and hide behind moral postures. To confront realistically the question of the future strategic relationship between the West and the world is too much to bear.

For whatever the value of Western ideals - from democracy and human rights to the laws of war - the West no longer has the capability or the will to impose them on others or even to significantly advance them. Serious strategic thinking, in the Middle East or elsewhere, begins with acceptance of this fact.

[seafoid]

So what should be done to a regime that fires chemical weapons at its own people in violation of international law and please avoid using whataboutery and Israel in the answer. Seafood says hold a peace conference so I know what he thinks. Maybe we should say a mass?

This is for you, Itchy

I know it's just a link and I haven't been involved in chemical weapons discussions at the UN but it's very interesting to see how the global power system actually works.


http://humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.ch/2013/08/attacking-syria-this-is-crime-of.html

"It is interesting that the United Kingdom (and the United States) seem to love couching their militaristic appeals in references to customary international law. The Attorney-General's advice begins by claiming that Syria has committed 'a breach of the customary international law prohibition on use of chemical weapons'.
If I had asked my students, in an examination on international law, to answer the following 'discuss the customary law applicable to the current situation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria' and they were to refer to the customary law prohibition of chemical weapons and not to the customary law crime of aggression they would get 50% and fail the exam. Because I am a generous fellow, I might be tempted to give the Attorney General a couple of extra points for neat handwriting.

The obsession of the United States and the United Kingdom with chemical weapons is intriguing. Why is this such a 'red line', given the humanitarian disaster that has been taking place in Syria for more than two years? For that matter, what about other humanitarian disasters in the Middle East, and elsewhere, that have taken countless lives in recent years yet have not inspired the United Kingdom, France and the United States to unilateral military intervention? What is it about chemical weapons that gets them so agitated?
In an earlier comment on this blog I noted the absence of a crime of use of chemical weapons in the Rome Statute. Many States wanted a general condemnation of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous harm, or that are indiscriminate. But some States blocked agreement on this because the language might then cover nuclear weapons. The result was that attempts at a specific prohibition on chemical weapons were also unsuccessful. It was argued that if the Rome Statute would not prohibit the rich man's weapon of mass destruction, it should not prohibit the poor man's weapon of mass destruction either.

I know that some colleagues are debating this elsewhere in the blogsphere. The argument seems to be that a broad construction of the notion of poison or poisonous weapons, whose use is criminalised by article 8(2)(b)(xvii) of the Rome Statute, might do the trick and encompass chemical weapons. It is fine for academics to make this argument, but it is a big trap for the United Kingdom, France and the United States and I doubt that they will fall into it. That is because if we consider chemical weapons to fall into the archaic category of poison or poisonous weapons, by some form of dynamic and evolutive interpretation of the Rome Statute, then we will also have to include nuclear weapons. What could be more poisonous than nuclear weapons? And London, France and Paris won't go along with that.
My hunch is that the real explanation for the excitement about chemical weapons is that the UK, the US and France think that there should only be one type of weapon of mass destruction in the Middle East (or elsewhere, for that matter). And that is the weapon that they, and their local surrogate, possess."

Any idea why the statutes on chemical weapons have not been updated since 1925, Itchy?

[Itchy]

I know I didn't ask you for your opinion Seafood, but I understand that you don't read anyone elses post nor answer their questions since you are in such a rush to post some article or the other. You are not the only one. Where I work we always frown at people that bitch and moan about everything but can't offer any potential solution to the problems they complain about. That's what this thread is like, a madman gases his own people and no one apart from "count 10" offers an opinion on what should be done. I know where the chemical weapons came from, I know us meddling and the rogue state that is Israelvhas caused many of the problems. I also know Assad could drop gas on civilians and maybe next time hell murder 10k men women and children. Targeted air strikes and no fly zone are required to force him to think twice about doing it.

[theskull1]

Make the UNREFUTABLE EVIDENCE publicly available and then  let that show up the nations supporting Assad. If this really is about right and wrong then all the righteous nations will rally against these evil empires who support such despotic regimes.

What's the chances?

[Arthur_Friend]

I wouldn't fancy living anywhere near one of those 'targeted airstrikes' you're calling for Itchy.

[Itchy]

No practical proposals from either of you lads. Skull , how will what u say prevent or do anything to prevent another air strike? Easy to knock others when you have nothing practical to add yourselves.

[seafoid]

No practical proposals from either of you lads. Skull , how will what u say prevent or do anything to prevent another air strike? Easy to knock others when you have nothing practical to add yourselves.

I would start off reforming international law and bringing depleted uranium, white phosphorous and nukes under the prohibited weapons treaty.

What about you , Itchy?

[seafoid]

I know I didn't ask you for your opinion Seafood, but I understand that you don't read anyone elses post nor answer their questions since you are in such a rush to post some article or the other. You are not the only one. Where I work we always frown at people that bitch and moan about everything but can't offer any potential solution to the problems they complain about. That's what this thread is like, a madman gases his own people and no one apart from "count 10" offers an opinion on what should be done. I know where the chemical weapons came from, I know us meddling and the rogue state that is Israelvhas caused many of the problems. I also know Assad could drop gas on civilians and maybe next time hell murder 10k men women and children. Targeted air strikes and no fly zone are required to force him to think twice about doing it.

Show us the proof Assad ordered it, Itchy.

[give her dixie]

Killing people to teach them that killing people is wrong is just the US way of doing things. They sure are the champions of humanity......

[Itchy]

Dixie- that is not a proposal. Come on, surely you have some suggestion or is it just a case of empty vessels making most noise here. Seafood your proposal is fine and noble but it is medium term at best and chemical weapons are being used NOW. What would you do NOW. I assume you would do nothing and let Assad do what he wants.

Your second question is just conspiracy theory bull. Who else but Assad or his allies would gas his opponents. Say Israel and I'll start to cry.

[seafoid]

Dixie- that is not a proposal. Come on, surely you have some suggestion or is it just a case of empty vessels making most noise here. Seafood your proposal is fine and noble but it is medium term at best and chemical weapons are being used NOW. What would you do NOW. I assume you would do nothing and let Assad do what he wants.

Your second question is just conspiracy theory bull. Who else but Assad or his allies would gas his opponents. Say Israel and I'll start to cry.

Itchy

Tell  us who the good guys are