Skip to main content

View Diary: Senators Heitkamp and Manchin float diplomatic alternative to military strikes on Syria (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I find this to be worse than an empty gesture (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    InAntalya, emal, Gary Norton, hesk

    It puts the US in a place where it is threatening to use force if a country doesn't sign an international treaty!

    People who are worried about setting bad precedents are applauding this?

    I'd much rather see the US mounting a vigorous response that penalizes the violation, rather than threatening an attack if the accused gov't doesn't sign on to the arms convention. This looks far worse to me as a matter of international law. Also, it gives the Syrians a chance to wriggle off the hook by submitting a piece of paper which will have no impact on their conduct of the war...and exacts zero punishment for the violation.

    What is signing the convention supposed to do? No one is holding back their support for an attack because they think Syria gets a pass for not having signed on to the convention. Nor is Syria maintaining they are using chem weapons because they believe they are not bound by the treaty or the international norms set by the treaty.

    Want to see Syria agree to something useful? How about the Syrian leadership agreeing to submit to international judgment of some kind, ideally a criminal prosecution,?

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 05:58:30 AM PDT

    •  The thrust (10+ / 0-)

      of the idea is what matters here.

      As I wrote the specific proposal need work, but the IDEA of diplomacy and international support is very much the right way to go.

      I think I was clear in my post that the specific proposal was no adequate.

      But I think the larger point is that military strikes are truly the wrong way to go without having made diplomatic attempts first.

      You ignore the fact that your preferred policy ending is being put in a terrible bind by the refusal to explore diplomacy first.

      Like Kerry, your type of thinking it your own worst enemy.

      •  Ah, the thrust... (0+ / 0-)

        You'll nitpick any argument I might make, but you'll applaud the "thrust" of this effort even if it's actually a flagrant violation of the UN Charter.

        No one has any problem with diplomacy. It's been tried for over 2 years and there are 100,000 dead, and the regime stands accused of using chemical weapons almost a dozen times..

        The only meaningful diplomacy would involve ending the war, and seeing the regime resign or subject itself to a truly free and fair election.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 10:40:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good points. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mkor7, Gary Norton

      "It puts the US in a place where it is threatening to use force if a country doesn't sign an international treaty!

      People who are worried about setting bad precedents are applauding this?

      I'd much rather see the US mounting a vigorous response that penalizes the violation, rather than threatening an attack if the accused gov't doesn't sign on to the arms convention. This looks far worse to me as a matter of international law."

      You just summed it up perfectly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site