Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Noah Chomsky: US attack on Syria without UN approval would be a war crime [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)5. Chomsky believes every U.S. President is a "war criminal"
President Obama is consulting with Congress, which has the power to authorize this action.
Congress, be careful what you wish for
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580699
Crash Course: A Guide To 30 Years Of U.S. Military Strikes Against Other Nations
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/crash-course-a-guide-to-30-years-of-us-military-strikes-against-other-nations.php
Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Wesley Clark
<...>
As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)
Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.
<...>
At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.
But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/
Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Noah Chomsky: US attack on Syria without UN approval would be a war crime [View all]
David Krout
Sep 2013
OP
Americans also don't know it's a crime to even THREATEN another country with a war.
Spitfire of ATJ
Sep 2013
#20
The exception being discussed is if the UN Sec Council authorizes it. Then it's not a war crime.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#36
Whether or not you support a war is a different question than it's legality.
morningfog
Sep 2013
#57
The more interesting statement is that even Chomsky potentially sees the need for something
BeyondGeography
Sep 2013
#6
Based upon his belief that "the credibility of government claims" has "collapsed"
bhikkhu
Sep 2013
#8
"What is "United Nations support"... like that is some final moral high ground."
Precisely
Sep 2013
#10
You keep changing the topic.. so responding to you has become meaningless.
DontTreadOnMe
Sep 2013
#29
Why should we care about what Obama thinks about punishing war crimes elsewhere
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#14
If the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapons would it be a war crime? nt
David Krout
Sep 2013
#34
Hell, what one more? There are no repercussions for BIG crimes anyway. Rich must get richer. nt
valerief
Sep 2013
#27
So many interests in this military strike, defense contractors, fossil fuel industry, AIPAC, and
JRLeft
Sep 2013
#31
Why is it so hard for people to realize that there is nothing that makes the US supreme?
Spitfire of ATJ
Sep 2013
#32