Posted on 04/28/2013 4:08:38 PM PDT by haffast
Is the use of chemical weapons that outrageous? Killing innocent people with chemical weapons is definitely a grave war crime, but causing the death of more than 80,000 is definitely a bigger war crime. Why then does the type of weapons used in massacring people determine when to intervene?
US President Barack Obama has said potential use of chemical weapons is “going to be a game changer” in Syria, where repeated calls for intervention fell on deaf ears for more than two years.
The US and major powers have so far weathered calls for intervention for several reasonable reasons. Except for Turkey, Britain and France, all of whom called for tougher measures against the Syrian regime, those reluctant to intervene cited possible uncertainty after the fall of the Syrian regime, risking emboldening radical groups in Syria and causing more bloodletting if the intervention is mishandled. Are these concerns now mitigated by the use of chemical weapons? If the use of chemical weapons is so deeply immoral that it makes the case for intervention, is the death of tens of thousands of people the tolerable situation?
The key to figure out the rationale behind this odd move is to understand when states decide to intervene. One thing stands clearer than others: States intervene when they see the military balance on the ground start to change against their favored side.
Two recent examples clearly show that interventions take place when one side starts losing. The first example is the Bosnian War of the early 1990s. For four years, Western powers stood by as atrocities unfolded in Bosnia, including the infamous 1995 massacre of nearly 8,000 civilians in the town of Srebrenica. The intense air campaign against Serb fighters came shortly after this massacre, but it made little, if any,.....
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at todayszaman.com ...
In a nutshell, the use of chemical weapons is not a decisive element to make the case for intervention. It is only an excuse to intervene at a time when military involvement has become more necessary than ever.
A Turkish perspective on Syria.
Or perhaps when they need the news people to refocus from getting oral sex in the Oval Office.
This resident could sure use another distraction.
Or we could just stand by and let one faction of Muslims kill another faction and vice versa.
Obama is trying his own “flypaper” strategy. Get the US mired down in yet another unwinnable sectarian nightmare in the middle east while he’s out golfing and Michelle off on another european fashion shopping spree for their next WH extravaganza.
Seconded.
I’m amazed this country.. with two quagmires in the past 11 years .. would give more than a nanosecond’s worth of consideration to intervening in Syria. Muslims are not worth a single drop of American blood.
Let me take a stab at this,
More hoops and less golf???
If the Turks feel so strongly about this, maybe they should intervene. After all, they’re right next to Syria.
If this guy thinks an armed rebellion with 80K casualties on both sides is a good reason to intervene, I wonder whether he thinks the Armenian genocide was practically a written invitation for the West to invade Turkey way back when.
Russia put special forces into Syria to assist/advise Assad, for all we m ow they are probably manning Syria’s anti-aircraft sites. If someone (Turkey, US or some coalition) is going to intervene and Russians are going to die, they need a good rationale => hence, the chemical weapons fear. Just speculation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
