Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I support authorizing the President to use military force in Syria (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  About stopping arms shipments... (4+ / 0-)

    Do you mean US arms to Syrian rebels? Among the many news articles I've read in the past few days, one (maybe WSJ) claimed that although Congress authorized arms for Syrian rebels, no arms had been delivered yet.

    About the strike being a violation of international law, that doesn't concern me because the structure of the UN Security Council means that the Council abrogates its responsibilities on issues such as this. Russia or China, both friends of Syria, can and likely will veto any motion for sanctions or strikes against Syria. And I would expect any statement by the UN General Secretary to be in support of UN rules, not the statements of a single member nation.

    Please note that I consider the UN a valuable organization except for the UN Security Council.

    I'm not attempting to address the first statement in your comment because it would take too long. I am leaning on the side of no strike against Assad.

    “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

    by SoCalSal on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 01:24:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The Council is OK in theory (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, seanwright, ronnied

      However, when the veto is held by a government of thugs that represents organized crime, then the Council system becomes inoperable. In that situation, it is reasonable to look to regional security organs like the Arab League to set the agenda.

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

      by FischFry on Fri Sep 06, 2013 at 02:02:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site