General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS Not Waiting for UN to Respond on Syria
STATE DEPARTMENT The United States says it will not wait for the United Nations to respond to the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria. The Obama administration is building an alliance outside the U.N. as it considers possible military action against Syria.
Deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the president is not waiting for the United Nations to decide what to do about Syria. "We are making our own decisions on our own timeline, and we believe that the U.N. inspection has passed the point where it can be credible," she said.
That inspection of last week's attack outside Damascus is meant only to confirm the use of chemical weapons, not to determine who is responsible. Washington has already determined that President Bashar al-Assad's forces are responsible so Harf said they must be held accountable.
She said Obama is deciding how. "The president has a range of military contingencies on his table regarding Syria for when and if he would ever need to use them. Again, we're not talking about boots on the ground. We're not talking about no-fly zones at this point."
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-not-waiting-for-un-to-respond-on-syria/1739187.html
Any attack without the UN Security Council will be an illegal war.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Knock wood.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)This was posted a couple hours ago at Foreign Policy - The Cable, which has been on top of things: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/state_dept_admits_it_doesnt_know_who_in_the_syrian_govt_ordered_chemical_strike
Amonester
(11,541 posts)up up up it goes
the sky's the limit
the economy is...
drip drip drip
the warmonging advisors don't care, but...
jsr
(7,712 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Wrong clip before
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Hmm?
delrem
(9,688 posts)First, this new found speed is based on a pretext.
Second, the idea being presented is that of a "spanking", a "punishment for a moral failing", but the country speeding to do the "spanking" is the same country which lied itself into a self-justification for an illegal war of aggression against a state that didn't threaten it, and which broke international law in very bad, bad ways. Which openly committed a war crime at Fallujah, and whose leaders openly admitted to overseeing torture.
Third, the second point should make the US wary of presenting the first point as justification for new adventures in military crimes.
Fourth, but this elementary reasoning, understandable to anyone of the age of reason, doesn't factor into the current plans, into that new found speed to quit the pretense of "leading from behind" and commence direct US bombing. On the contrary, the administration which is contemplating just this week absolved the previous administration for war crimes.