Syria next?

[SpencerH]

I was watching C-span yesterday with John Bolton the Department of State Undersecretary for Arms Control talking about the US policy toward Syria in front of some house committee. Although the particular details were not so interesting the tone of the discussion was.

The first thing I noticed was the hawk-like NY democrats who were very anti-Syria (I guess no surprise there).

But the main thing that struck me was Bolton's demeanor. I think Syria are really on the knife edge. They're pushing too many buttons instead of keeping a low profile, and whether (when) we strike will depend on the strength of the intel against them.

[BeBMan]

No chance as long the situation in Iraq remains mildly expressed problematic.

[Chemical Ollie]

So you promote military invasion in any country that keeps a high profile in making suggestions for UN resolutions (like Syria did yesterday)?

[BeBMan]

OTOH I think a new invasion would bring more life to Poly´s OT

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
No chance as long the situation in Iraq remains mildly expressed problematic.

well yeah, but then Syria knows that, which gives them an incentive to do what they can to see that the situationin Iraq remains problematic.

[SlowwHand]

I think you assume too much on this, BeBro.


Also, I'm glad someone else is thinking ahead.
WTG, Spencer.

Now I don't feel like

[Solly]

Go on. TV's getting a bit boring.

[GePap]

Not a chance in Hell (or Texas, same thing). Congress may pass a new set fo sanctions against Syria, but that will be the bulk of it.

Another thing that gets me: the admin. states that Syria having Chemical and biological weapons is some sort of crime: but Syria has NOT singed on to ANY treatis banning aquiring them, so I do not see what legal ground the admin. can stand on, anymore than we have no ground to insist India, Pakistan and Israel get rid of their nukes, since they never signed on the the NPT.

[Edan]

Ooops, missed. Better aim and try again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

OTOH I think a new invasion would bring more life to Poly´s OT

We must do it for Poly!

the admin. states that Syria having Chemical and biological weapons is some sort of crime: but Syria has NOT singed on to ANY treatis banning aquiring them, so I do not see what legal ground the admin.

Well the administration may argue jus congens. That it is an important custom that you cannot get out of, because of the principles of natural law. I'm not sure if that would work or not, but chemical weapons are definetly close to falling in that catagory.

[GePap]

And nuclear weapons are not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, for the simple reason that chemical weapons are considered worse. Nuclear weapons wouldn't fall under jus cogens in any way because countries continue to acquire them and they are useful for deterrance purposes. On the other hand, chemical weapons are almost universally reviled.

[GePap]

I am sorry, but I have never heard anyone (well, except you) say that chemical weapons are worse than nuclear weapons, for self-evident reasons.

That state continue to aquire nukes is based solely on the fact that the big powers were able to make their nuclear monopoly part of international law, and by their hypocrasy invalidate most mentions they could make over nukes. But sinc ethey get to have nukes, why bother with the weaker stuff like Chemical weapons?

There are plenty of folks that would sue the same arguements and do already) against mines and cluster munitions: but certainly they won;t get any such legal framework built.

[The Mad Monk]

Actually, it's true, in that many states feel they have the ability to use chemical weapons with relatively few consequences compared to using nukes.

They're worse because they're actually used.

[SlowwHand]

While the idea of an International Criminal Court was, in general, accepted by almost all delegations, debates showed that their positions and approaches differed widely. The non-inclusion of nuclear weapons in the list of serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international conflict was deplored by many. However, the Statute was seen by all as a good instrument for later perfection and, for that reason, national positions had been put aside in the spirit of flexibility and compromise.

Straight from the beloved U.N.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/1998/issue3/398p10p.htm