Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama says he will make case for Syria attack on Tuesday from White House (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  no, apples and apples (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, tardis10, snoopydawg, JVolvo

      the President said:

      a "grave threat" to "global peace and security." He said failing to attack Syria in the wake of its use of chemical weapons would lead to unraveling of international norms against the use of chemical weapons. "The question is: 'Do these norms mean anything?'," he asked.
      I'm saying, this is not the first use of CW, and in fact, when  Iraq used them, we assisted, what happened to the norms?

      Well nothing happened to the norms, since the President is claiming the norms are still there now.

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:14:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chem Weap convention was signed in 1993. (0+ / 0-)

        This also presents a problem in that Iran is watching this VERY closely. I believe there was some colored line associated with them as well.

        •  more info for you (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo, JVolvo
          Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a strong supporter of military strikes, echoed that argument on Tuesday. She noted that as far back as 1925, nearly 40 nations had joined together to ban the first use of chemical weapons when the Geneva Protocol was signed. (Her mention of 170 countries appears to refer to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which seeks to prohibit the production of chemical weapons and mandates their destruction; Syria has refused to sign the treaty, though 189 other countries have signed it.)
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
          But there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people -- during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. Dobbs noted that Iraq’s chemical weapons’ use was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: ”The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.”
          and yet, according to the President, the norms are still there, because he says they are.

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:22:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again. We are not in 1980s. Ronald Reagan is (0+ / 0-)

            no longer our President, and those advocating that we should act (if there is conclusive evidence and some type of international support) aren't pretending that 1988 was all well and good.

            This implication that people who genuinely believe that the use of chemicals weapons should not go unpunished are hypocrites because we supported Iraq is rather ridiculous.

            •  again, you are missing the point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              move on

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 08:52:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your point is what? The "Saddam used CM in (0+ / 0-)

                the 80's and it didn't violate international norms then and it wasn't a threat to global security".

                One, yes it did violate international norms then. We just had a fucked up President who didn't mind violating any and all international norms.

                Two, no it didn't undermine global security then, but that doesn't somehow mean it can't now. You don't think millions of refugees crossing borders threatens global security? You don't think that Assad's potential to get more aggressive could undermine global security? You don't think that Iran might be emboldened if Syria can defy red lines as they please? The situation re: global security is completely different than what it was in 88. So yes, in insinuating that it will turn out the same way is comparing apples to oranges.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site