The Syrian Invasion

[Coito ergo sum]

French news assert that not a single French or US soldier will set foot on Syrian soil and it will all be done by bomb and missille.

Oh, o.k., then it's all o.k. then. As long as we aren't using infantry and armor, and we're just using air power, wars are fine. We don't even need a reason...

[cronus]

The great beast of the industrial military complex is hungry and must feed on a world leaders blood to be sated.

Love it! I need a new addition to my signature. May I (I already have)?

Yes, words came to me from the ether - wouldn't be surprised if I'd read them somewhere else before some previous conflict.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was wondering where the "meaningful public debate" is on Syria?

Huh... Iraq was a "rush to war" - no imminent threat....

Syria -- just gearing up...

No vote in the UN.

No coalition building.

No Congressional approval.

American planes are moving to Cyprus and ships moving to the Eastern Med.

Funny, how many of the requirements for war a few years ago are no longer requirements. We don't even have to ask the UN, do we? Why would we? There is an accusation, which Syria denies, that they have and have used WMD! That's plenty!

Isn't it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil

[Clinton Huxley]

£300,000 a pop, those cruise missiles. The Syrians should be bloody grateful if we use such luxury weapons on them.

[klr]

The Russians are right. This is gonna end bad.
...

It's already very bad, no thanks to Russia and China.

[pErvinalia]

This truly signals the UN is irretrievably broken. It's small coalitions from now on, I imagine. The US won't do this alone. The Brits are already gearing up for it. And I'd be willing to bet Australia is just salivating at the cock of the US to lend an SAS squadron (or whatever they are called) or two .

[Svartalf]

French news assert that not a single French or US soldier will set foot on Syrian soil and it will all be done by bomb and missille.

Oh, o.k., then it's all o.k. then. As long as we aren't using infantry and armor, and we're just using air power, wars are fine. We don't even need a reason...

We have a reason : We need to use that ordnance before it goes stale and make the Big Machine work by ordering more.

[Clinton Huxley]

Syria was a French Mandate, they should definitely bomb it first.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, the US is going it alone. Recall in 2003, even with Britain and dozens of other countries as part of a coalition, the US was "going it alone." It was going it alone, even though UN Resolution 1441 was voted on and approved to give Iraq a final opportunity to come into compliance on its WMD and to cooperate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences."

Here, with Syria, we have the US and the UK acting much more quickly in Syria, on an allegation of possession and use of WMD which Syria denies, and without Syria posing an imminent threat to any external country, and without any vote in the UN, and thus far there hasn't even been a move to get a vote in the US Congress.

[Coito ergo sum]

This truly signals the UN is irretrievably broken. It's small coalitions from now on, I imagine. The US won't do this alone. The Brits are already gearing up for it. And I'd be willing to bet Australia is just salivating at the cock of the US to lend an SAS squadron (or whatever they are called) or two .

The UN will do what it does best -- wait until it's over, and then vote to condemn anything bad and vote to praise anything good.

[Svartalf]

Syria was a French Mandate, they should definitely bomb it first.

Not with that balless sack o'pudding we have for a head of state.

[pErvinalia]

This truly signals the UN is irretrievably broken. It's small coalitions from now on, I imagine. The US won't do this alone. The Brits are already gearing up for it. And I'd be willing to bet Australia is just salivating at the cock of the US to lend an SAS squadron (or whatever they are called) or two .

The UN will do what it does best -- wait until it's over, and then vote to condemn anything bad and vote to praise anything good.

Remember, the UN (and more relevantly the security council) is nothing more than the countries that make it up. If the UNSC fails, it's a failing of the members that make it up.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure -- but, the UN security council can't be said to fail if it isn't tried. Has anyone proposed "Resolution ABCD - A Resolution to Demand Weapons Inspections of Syria to Determine if it Has WMD?" Or, "A Resolution to Authorize the US of Force in Syria?

The UN Charter says, "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."

Syria has not threatened any State, and it's unrest is purely internal. On what basis, then would the UK and the US use force?

And, wouldn't they need to bring it to the UN for a vote? If the answer to that is no, then what was all the hubbub in 2003 to 2008 about how the US did not get UN approval for the Iraq action....?

[cronus]

There's something they are not telling us with acting this quickly on something that's been happily ignored for years. Bibi probably told Obama Iran October mate...this is a cover op to justify a more flexible campaign in the aftermath of the Israel action on Bushehr and weaken interfence by China or Russia in the big one next month. Notice the Chinese cyber attack? That was either the US or us.

[pErvinalia]

When's the next US election due?