And the next time Assad kills 500 kids with WMD?

[moondust]

And the time after that it's 650?

And intelligence reveals that North Korea is starting to stockpile nerve gas?

Not our problem?

[HooptieWagon]

1. Assad is Russia's problem.

North Korea is China's problem.
Unless you're suggesting Obama should send in the drones and kill 500 additional children. That won't solve the problem, but I guess it makes you thrilled.

[mike_c]

2. nope....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Possibly the first trial for waging aggressive war is that of Conradin von Hohenstaufen in 1268.[1]

(snip)

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (edit-- this quote is attributed to Robert Jackson, Nuremberg prosecutor and U.S. Chief Justice). Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

(snip)

The relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is Principle VI.a "Crimes against peace", which was based on the provisions of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post World War II war crime trials. The Charters provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are:

Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 33

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.[13]

[geek tragedy]

3. Nope. Not our problem.

And when the war turns against Assad and his followers, and they start dying in similar and even greater numbers, that won't be our problem either.

[Tx4obama]

8. So, would you say Hilter wasn't our problem?

[NuclearDem]

10. Wow, that didnt take very long.

The US turned away boatloads of refugees. Hitler only became our problem when he declared war on us.

This crap about WWII being some anti-genocide crusade is revisionist bullshit.

[leftstreet]

11. The US didn't think so for years

But you already know that

[geek tragedy]

12. He was expansionist and ergo our problem.

"Never again" is a lie.

Justice/retribution will be a local affair.

[MADem]

26. This is a thread worth bookmarking, I think. nt

[LittleBlue]

4. 100,000 are already dead

by conventional weapons. What does it matter if they die by gas instead of bullets? Dead is dead.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. That's what I've been wondering.

[Link Speed]

34. Yeah, but Raytheon isn't getting any action in Afghanistan

and they have missiles to move, profits to realize.

[liberal N proud]

5. Does killing more Syrians because they killed Syrians make any sense?

It's not an eye for an eye anology, it's more like you poked on eye, let me poke the other one.

[Tx4obama]

14. The use of force, as I understand it, will be against the military aircraft and the stockpiles...

... of the chemical weapons.

No one is talking about going in a killing a bunch of Syrians.

[neverforget]

15. No, we're not going to hit the chemical weapons stockpiles. Bombs tend to disperse the

chemicals they are intended to destroy. The delivery systems will be slightly degraded as Assad will have scattered the targets to avoid them being destroyed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?_r=0

A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.

The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.

An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets.

Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site, a far more limited unleashing of American military power than past air campaigns over Kosovo or Libya.

Some of the targets would be “dual use” systems, like artillery that is capable of firing chemical weapons as well as conventional rounds. Taking out those artillery batteries would degrade to some extent the government’s conventional force — but would hardly cripple Mr. Assad’s sizable military infrastructure and forces unless the air campaign went on for days or even weeks.

[Tx4obama]

39. I don't remember the name, but a military guy on CNN yesterday said...

... when conditions are right the gasses can be destroyed/controlled without it affecting people.

That's all I heard.

[liberal N proud]

17. Do you not think there will be Syrians at thos sites?

Not to mention collateral damage.

[kestrel91316]

6. Not until and unless Syria is part of the United States.

It's one thing to fire a targeted attack against known nerve gas stockpiles, and another thing altogether to invade and try to depose Assad.

Wars of such aggression are a violation of the Geneva Conventions, IIRC............Bush's violations notwithstanding.

[Warpy]

7. Maybe the Arab League will act

It's more their problem. "Help" coming from us that would wreck more of the country and kill more of the people is not productive.

After all, how many Syrian kids is it acceptable for the US to kill in a bombing raid?

[NuclearDem]

9. It's not our military's problem.

If we would ever get it through our heads that every injustice in the world warrants a bombing campaign, we would understand that.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Let us know when you're willing to assassinate Assad ...

instead of his people.

[El Supremo]

30. + 100

[former9thward]

18. Why are you unwilling to wait for the UN report?

Or do you think our "intelligence" is incapable of making mistakes?

[reformist2]

19. It's actually Brazil's problem. Or Mozambique's. Or maybe it's Estonia's next time?

See how ridiculous it is to make one random country the policeman of the world?

[NuclearDem]

20. Maybe Latvia.

If you ever need a country to come in and set up tables and chairs, Latvia's on it.

If you need us, we'll be in the back with the cheap cognac talking about how much of a dick Russia is.

[reformist2]

21. Actually, the world could use a small country to do a Colbert-style parody of the US.

What *IF* Latvia tomorrow announced that the actions in Syria could not stand, and that they were unilaterally going to take action?

[NuclearDem]

22. To which the world responds:

Latvi-who?

Well, as long as it's happening, bring the Dutch along and get a real coalition of the windmilling.

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. And you'll be sure to notify us of your deployment date...

[backscatter712]

24. The recruitment office is thataway, chickenhawk.

You want to see murder so badly? Go do it yourself.

[rug]

25. How many do you think a U.S. strike will kill?

Not to mention the reaction and the aftermath.

[bunnies]

27. And the next time the USA kills 30,000+ kids like we did in Iraq?

Should we bomb the fuck out of ourselves?

[idwiyo]

28. WOO HOO! Another member of 404 Chairbound Keyboard Marine is ready to hit the ground in Syria!

You go Tiger! Show them!

[quinnox]

29. Whoa, so you want to take on North Korea?

That would be quite a conflict, and result in thousands of American soldiers being killed. You seem rather cavalier about using military force and the human costs that would be involved.

[Crimson76]

31. I am sorry, but this isnt our fight.

1) We have no idea who committed that attack, for all we know it could have been outside agitators(cough,Saudis,cough), 2) This is a civil war, where everyone who is fighting it, sucks. 3) I am not willing to risk more blood and treasure. 4) What happens after the attack and Hezbollah launches attacks inside Lebanon and commits missile attacks into Haifa, do we strike Lebanon?

[Link Speed]

32. And who should retaliate against us for invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or for destroying an entire generation of Vietnamese men?

Or...

just pick 'em

Assad is killing his own countrymen.

If anything, it is Russia's dilemma.

[Little Star]

33. They have been in a civil war there for years. Not all countries signed onto..

the what ever it's called treaty. Those WMD are considered conventional weapons in many places and Syria is one of them. Not saying that's good just saying it is what it is there.

Assad was our guy, we said he was a secularist just like we said Saddam was before we wanted him out.

Their civil war from what I understand was about Radical Islamists/terrorists trying to over throw a secular government. Once again, we for some reason, want them to succeed.

The school of "boys only" (madrasa??) "if" gassed by the Syrian Govt. is the kind of places where they teach young boys/men to become Jehadists, no? Maybe that's why it was gassed? I am just speculating on that part because I really don't know if the school was a madrasa. If that is true and that's a big guess on my part, I could understand why it was gassed. But that is why the pro- Assad people would find it understandable during a civil war. They would want and fight to remain a secular country not one run as a theocracy.

Every civil war is horrendous and many innocents are killed in each and every one of them including many, many children.

We need to stay out of Syria's civil war, imho.

I know none of it is good but it happens all over this world and always has including here during our own civil war. Do you think any other country should have joined in on one side or the other during ours?

[malaise]

35. Who killed the million plus people in Iraq

What about the depleted uranium?

[GoneFishin]

36. Those who killed 4000 of our guys with lies about IRAQ WMDs should come first.

[Doctor_J]

37. I feel like it's 2002 and I'm at Freeperville

help!

[kiranon]

38. Tell Congress. n/t

[David__77]

40. Maybe quit supporting the insurgents.

Peace can return to Syria. US policy is helping create a massive terrorist training ground. The solution certainly isn't to degrade the command and control of the Syrian army, increasing the likelihood that terrorists can their mitts on dangerous weapons. US national security is paramount.