Syria next?

[Dinner]

Bolten is from New York which has the largest Jewish population in the US. Bolten is just talking tough on Syria so he can pick up a few more Jewish votes.

[GePap]

Thats is "almost" a paradox. The fact that they are so much less powerful does allow for some use: the thing is, none of the times it was used did it do sinificantly more damage than another method of mass killing would have, svae nukes, or the kind of bio-weapons that people dream about.

But again, hypocrasy over nukes sort of invalidates *****ing about chemical weapons. Now, bio-weapons are far more indiscriminate, or have the possiblity of ebing far more indiscriminate than either chemical weapons or even nukes (counting fall-out) so holding those to different standards might make some sense.

[GePap]

And you know what Sloww, the fact that the US did not even accept this only uindermines the admin. since it places them alongside Syria (who didn;t accept the ICC either). so that does not help your case.

What we are talking about is the Conventions on Chemical and Biological weapons as compared to the NPT. Syria is a signatory to the NPT but not the other two, so the US could claim Syria was violating its international obligations by trying to develop nukes, but I say we have no such ground vis a vi Chemical and Biological weapons and Syria.

[Dinner]

Gepap's right. There is great hypocracy when the Great Powers insist the small powers can't do the same things the Great Powers have already done. That said it's in the interests of the Great Powers to insure the runts keep doing as we say and not as we do so we should bring economic and political force to bare so that we desuade them from aquiring WMD. If they insist then our only real option is invasion but that really isn't a suitable option in most cases. That's why India, Pakistan, and now North Korea get away with it (and more then likely Iran will soon).

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Really? Then why is there a treaty banning chemical weapons, but only a treaty banning the proliferation of nuclear weapons? There is a personification that having chemicals is worse than having nuclear weapons. The idea is that only rogue countries have chemical weapons, while ordinary and some stand-up countries have nukes.

Jus cogens is sort of a super-custom. The custom in this area seems to work against biological weapons, but not nuclear weapons. An argument can be made that biological weapons are considered so horrid to even have that, according to natural law, even countries that have not signed the treaty should be bound.

Nukes are not tainted with the same brush as chemical weapons.

[SlowwHand]

You sound like children.

The USA can so why can't I ?

[GePap]

Really? Then why is there a treaty banning chemical weapons, but only a treaty banning the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Becuase by 1968 both superpowers and a few others had nukes, happened ot be the 5 permenant members of the UN sec. council and thus were able to codify into law their own monopoly. And having a monopoly on the most powerful weapons on earth, they had no problem going after still deadly but second tier stuff like chemical weapons.

The idea is that only rogue countries have chemical weapons, while ordinary and some stand-up countries have nukes.

Now this is just silly: by this reasoning, NK's program is no big deal once it is out of the NPT, since nukes are so OK. Only "rouges: go after WMD period: the thing is, great power hypocrasy over nukes invalidates them going after India, Pakistan and Israel for their arsenals given the discriminatory framework of the NPT.

Nukes are not tainted with the same brush as chemical weapons.

No, they are tainted with a much different brush. cant think of the last time I saw dozens upon dozens of books saying how the world would end in a terrible exchange of nerve gasses....

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gepap's right. There is great hypocracy when the Great Powers insist the small powers can't do the same things the Great Powers have already done...

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You sound like children.

The USA can so why can't I ?

So why can't they? you forget that usally the kid who can is some example of bad behavior or has rotten parents.

[Dinner]

Ollie: I acknowledge it's hypocracy but I still think we should make them tow the line.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
So why can't they?

The anwser is because I will hit you over the head if you don't and I will give you a $20 bill if you do. That's how we keep them in line and it is certainly in the world's interest, not to mention our own, to make sure as few countries as possible have WMD.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Becuase by 1968 both superpowers and a few others had nukes, happened ot be the 5 permenant members of the UN sec. council and thus were able to codify into law their own monopoly. And having a monopoly on the most powerful weapons on earth, they had no problem going after still deadly but second tier stuff like chemical weapons.

Yes... and so? Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons have been treated differently by the international community. It has attempted to ban chemical weapons, but merely limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Simply because the 'big powers' had nukes and made this happen makes no difference. A lot of custom comes from great powers.

So to summarize... chemical weapon banning is closer to be a jus cogens law than nuclear weapons because the custom seems more to favor banning chemical weapons while merely preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and it really doesn't matter why this has happened, merely that it has.

[GePap]

Of course it matters why, and it matters becuase this "international consensus" was a prodcut of the power balances of the time, and as power balances shift, so does the "international concensus". As is the NPT is falling apart little by little.

[lord of the mark]

well leaving aside legal arguments, the strategic situation is different

1. While Syria is an authoritarian state, it is far more moderate than Iraq was. The majority of Syrians who do not share the Alawite faith of the Assad family, are nonetheless likely to be just as hostile to US occupiers as to the Baathists. Syria is likely to BE the quagmire that Iraq was supposed to have been.
2. Syria has a record of being more rational in its international behavior than Iraq. All arguments that Iraq was "containable" aply a fortiori to Syria.
3. One of the reasons to go into Iraq was to establish a "democratic base" in the region. Once you have one base, you dont need another one. Remember some saying Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan - well Syria will be a distraction from Iraq.
4. The sequence is wrong - IF we can get regime change in IRAN, Iranian support for Syria would dry up, altering the power balance. The next target should be Iran, and the method should be internal change.

All in all, I think this is part of a game of pressure (we have a number of issues with Syria), not a foreshadowing of an invasion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it matters why

No, actually it doesn't. Not at all, actually. Why the custom arose is totally irrelevant. The fact that it exists is important.

this "international consensus" was a prodcut of the power balances of the time, and as power balances shift, so does the "international concensus".

But it isn't. The consensus remains the same, partly because I believe the custom has become so entrenched.