Targeted, Precision Drone Strikes & The Responsibility to Protect Act.

Don't alway believe what wikipedia says:

Note the language in the very last sentence of #3 below. I did not change change the fonts of the quote....they are bold stright from the RtoP website.

https://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-rtop/learn-about-rtop

In closing, it can be said that any reference to RtoP as means for just cause to use American military force without UN authorization is null and void.

 

 

So,

After reading most of what has been written about the potential strike.

The plan is to

-Obviously not hit the chemical stores

-Not kill Assad,

-Not directly engage military targets "necessarily"

-No boots on ground

-Codify the aid to the Syrian rebels (which is already being sent).

 

I think that is the point.  THey are talking about just dropping bombs in non-inhabited/ non-military zones. Just to deliver a "shot across the bow". 

The real reason they are pushing so hard is because they are currently illegally (without congressional oversight or approval) giving guns and material aid to Syrian rebels (some known al Qaeda affiliates),  like McCain'[s buddy who eats hearts. 

They need legal cover to legitimize their illegal actions. 

And people are getting doped right into the game again.  supporting strikes on ......... well.......... nobody knows. 

 

Sometimes the truth is undeniable

I agree rick, we cannot simply bomb a stockpile but we also cannot leave the stockpile at assad's disposal.. how do you think not doing a thing is a god idea.

But you are right, that there is a strategic way to go about disintegrating a chemical weapons stockpile. It has to be done strategically with a planned objective.

Furthermore, I never said taking Assad would be right move, but destroying his chemical weapons carefully and having an impact that using chemical weapons will not be tolerated by US is the right move here, idly standing by and letting assad do as he pleases is absolutely the wrong move.

I just saw about a group of 50 or so protestors last night in the city, and it was despicable. I can't get over the fact that people don't support a 2 day strike.


Additionally, I saw a segment on the news with Fareed Zakaria, and how he thought that it would have been a better idea to have just acted and then told the US public that we prevented assad from using these weapons the way Bush W. did in the middle east.

The point is the rally-around-the-flag effect would have had much more support if Obama and his senior intelligence advisers had acted swiftly a months ago instead of dragging this out, because right now, it seems we have given the enemy way to much time to move the stockpiles, plan, orchestrate a retaliated effort.

Eliminates the element of surprise, which you know about, you were in the military you understand this concept but Obama is dragging this out and now it seems really weak that we the US couldn't reach a verdict on a mere 2 day bombing campaign.

Lords, your point is moot, yes we are supposed to use a collective effort in order to enter a sovereign nation but if that sovereign nation is not competently securing their most vulnerable and defenseless populations, acting with France, Israel, and some Arab League Nations, but lets face it China and France continually block and vote against essentially every single piece of (legislation) that reaches the UN, however thank God we have France on our said.

Just because a nation in Russia who has an absolutely despicable leader in Putin, who is allied with and selling military weapons to Iran, Syria and nearly the entire middle east doesn't support a 2 day bombing campaign to secure its own capitalistic interests is pathetic to say the least, China is almost a purely isolationist nation when it comes to foreign affairs. However what really confuses me is these asssholes in GB who were some reason do not support this strike. If we had had GB's support I think the American people would have seen this different;y perhaps, but we still have support from the French and other various european nations who do believe we should take action but whether that action involves the military is something different.

Great article by a Columbia Professor

"We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence," former President Clinton proclaimed to survivors of the genocide in Rwanda. Yet, here we are again - at the crossroads of another human tragedy, this time in Syria. And yet again, Syria is tainted by failures in Iraq, just as Rwanda was shadowed by missteps in Somalia.

The country is different, the context is not exact, but the end results are still the same: the mass destruction of a large group of innocent people. This is why to me, the issue in question is not necessarily whether chemical weapons were used - though this is certainly significant - but what the intentions of Assad's regime is, what has happened thus far to the innocent, and what is likely to happen in the future.

We have all heard the arguments against intervention, including the blunders made in Iraq, the unknown reasonable likelihood of success of intervening, we-did-not-intervene-in-Congo-so why-should-we-intervene-in-Syria, and the need for global multilateral consensus, to name a few. Even hearing all the sound reasons "no," I still can't turn my back on the 110,000 who have died and the six million more who have fled their homes.

Working with Syrian refugees in Lebanon this past year, which is now home to the largest population of displaced Syrians, I have seen their suffering, I have heard their stories, I have held their hands. And, after bearing first-hand witness - from the survivors who were lucky enough to escape, anyway - I still believe that the strongest argument with US intervention is built on humanitarian grounds.

Military intervention should not be for punishment of Assad for the use of chemical weapons or the atrocities of the past two years. Its main purpose ought not be for sending a message to any other country planning to use weapons of mass destruction. It must not be used to show the US's prowess in the Middle East. If it is for any of those reasons, then the critics of President Obama's decision are right and we absolutely should not act.

Military intervention very much should be to stop the mass killings of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions - to stop crimes against humanity. It should be because conservative management has been tried for over two years - and has failed.

This hands-off approach was reasonable, given what happened in Iraq. "Diplomacy should be given a chance and peace given a chance," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But all that has happened is more horror and more tragedy. Yes, military force is never the first, nor is it ever the perfect answer. But in the case of Syria, it may be necessary.

The slippery slopes of military intervention are plenty. Will the US find itself entangled in the establishment of a new political order in Syria? Will the US have to intervene in every civil war in the world in the future? Will the US and other countries simply use humanitarian intervention as an ideological disguise for future exertions of power?

But while we continue to argue these points amongst ourselves, civilians continue to die in Syria. For every day spent trying to reconcile the inconsistencies of American foreign policy or fretting the lack of the perfect exit strategy or waiting for the consensus of other nations, is another day that the killings of innocent Syrian are allowed to continue.

We must remember that military intervention is not a solution - it is one action to stop crimes against humanity. It does not replace other forms of conflict resolution or peace-building strategies. I do not know what exactly that intervention would look like, but given what I've seen and heard amongst the Syrian refugees in just Lebanon alone, I do know what a non-intervention would look like.

Echoing Clinton's words, President Obama pledged "to foresee, prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities." Now in Syria may be the time and the place for the US to do just that - to speak up and act when the rest of the world fell silent and did nothing. This is not about chemical weapons. This is about humanity.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-ouyang/why-the-us-should-interve_b_3869698.html

My point is you have been saying RotP, RotP over and over but you really didn't know what RotP was about.

You also keep claiming a 2 day war..........very, very naive statement.
Ill disect the rest of your stuff later.

You also say how you

lords, if you think I know nothing about this you are a joke...
 
RtoP is NOT an International law.... It is a custom, standard, emerging doctrine.... Get it....???

Those 3 principles are not set in stone

It is an emerging doctrine that we have sponsored and co sponsored along with other nations..

Not only do I know exactly what RtoP is you just demonstrated you do not know the difference bewteen international norms and standards (customary law) VS Strict International law (UN Charter, Geneva Convention, ICC) etc.....

Please don't attempt to school me in something you don't know the difference between..

The point I am making is that, as a precondition for sending in our ground troops.  The only way you can secure chemical weapons (75,000) estimated, and probably another 125,000 support behind that (estimated).  

We should withdraw from the United Nations. 

We should put an ultimatum to the United Nations that if they do not act on this, then we will do it, but find no value in having an international governing body that will not act. 

That works twofold. 

1. you put the UN on notice that it is put up or shut up time

2. you at least appear to not be relying on the United States every single time something goes wrong in the entire world.  

Yes, I get the fact that you didnt even know the 3rd principle you quoted, not once but twice was WRONG.....get it?? Check your facts before you copy and paste and claim you know something

Besides, I never said in violation of international law there smarty......it would be in violation of the thing you have been standing on your soap box going on and on about......R2P, we have to bc of R2P, R2P......give it a rest already......you are wrong and the more you go on about this isnt a war its a short term conflict then say it will be a 2 day war, use of humanitarian weapons (thats an oxymoron) just goes to show that you have listened to news outlets and talking points but really do not know jack about this subject.

I will dissect your other BS points later.

 

These are chemical weapons rick, whats the threshold, some news outlets put the death toll at a few hundred to about 1400 individuals who died at the hands of chemical weapons...

What if that number was 50,000 or 75,000...

At what point do you feel that a strike is necessary to protect an innocent, defenseless population...

I certainly don't support standing by and watching some piece of shiit scum (whether its Assad, or the rebels, but since this occurred in Assads nation he is ultimately held responsible) kill women and children



Oh God..... I specifically chose NOT TO post the RtoP sites 3 principles...

We used RtoP in Libya and both China and Russia abstained....

If we the US had GB's support here on this issue (which really infuriates me because I'm not sure how those morons over that do not support us and France) we would bypass China and Russia again like we did in Libya...

So again, this is not a strict law that has practice, something you don't understand... Might it be selective and politically motivated, sure...... But that doesn't mean it completely disregards an attack because you seem to think this is strict IL....

You know 0 about IR... just leave my thread and go back to the whining about our two party system.. It is what your best at..

Maybe you should go an take to the penalty box your petty whining and bickering ...

You can go fuckk yourself

I have yet to hear how you intend to use our humanitarian weapons (drones) to secure the chemical weapons.....no reply about that I see.

You posted the 3 priciples at least twice in this thread and mentioned RtoP.......and I cleary replied about it not be IL but you seem to be hung up on that now

 

 

 

Huh, did you just get upset and tell me to go F myself?

 

You cant get that angry

see ya

 

Angry hahahaha more like you're the one whining like a baby girl about me in a separate forum....

Either way once congress approves this strike which I'm confident they will..... You and others can whine some more!!

Until then enjoy your day and God bless

Still waiting to hear you explain what the plan is with the chemicals.

Gloat all you want-I have yet to see, hear or read any plan on what our fearless leaders have in mind for the end game on this one.
No one respects Obama anymore except those like you who follow blindly.

Please tell me what his and Kerry's ultimate plan is with Syria

God is a character in a history book

There are no good options for a strike. 

We do not have good targets, and a direct strike at Assad is beyond lunacy.  You would essentially give all of those chemical weapons to radical Jihadists.  You might as well just sign the death warrant for every Christian in the middle east.

White house says they are not going to strike the chemical warehouses (thank god they at least have someone to tell them how stupid that is),  and they have said that they are not directly targeting assad. 

So we are just going to lob a billion dollars into the desert?

No thanks.  Time to hit the drawing board. 

Stiln I do not understand what you think is going to take place but the strike has been drafted and redrafted more than 50 times. 

It is a bad idea. Period.

putin is the greatest world leader--and a real man to boot

Rick what I think Stiln wants the US to do is use our drones. He said they are humanitarian weapons and if we don't use them here then the whole drone program is nothing but pork.
By that logic we might as well lob a nuke or two since we have them just sitting around being maintained year after year.
I know I am confused on what our end game is on this and I am waiting for Stiln to explain it to me as he says he has 100% faith in Obama and Kerry's leadership.

Drones vs. Chems = Chems kill thousands.

Drones vs. Assad = Obama won't do it.

Drones vs. arbitrary and nebulous possible targets that have not been disclosed to the united states people, nor the international community, based on intelligence that is now weeks old, and probably no good anyway + a rider that justifies all of the illegal arms dealing of the CIA to Al Qaeda in the region  = 

Funnty how it seems we have many hawkish lefties all of a sudden. Nothing like following the talking points of the party and believing eveything they leak to the media.

I also hear now its going to be a THREE day conflict and then thats it.

Message sent, nothing to see here anymore, lets move on.......such a joke of a policy/plan.

https://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-3-days-attack-syria-092116189.html 

I've said now for the their 3rd time, there is a specific way to go about disintegrating chemical weapons, there was a former military captain on CNN two days ago explaining this in detail. I'm not a military expert of a chemist of of some sort but he made it seem like incineration and neutralization were the best options, incineration of which being the option that US commanders and military inspectors will most likely choose.

2 day 3 day....  Whatever floats your boat. I've heard all the outlets clarify that it was a two day strike with naval warships in Mediterranean sea which do not appear to be using drone strikes.

And that is what confuses me since drones are much more targeted and concise hence, (the ultimate humanitarian weapon because that can pin point targets and lessen any collateral damage)

This has to do with our credibility as well though, and how Americans can't see that is staggering because why would we have intervened in Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, sheeeeeiiiiit even Iraq.

Point is, if countries died to use these heinous forms of weapons (chemical warfare) we will have an impact and prevent further use because they are violating the laws of war and international humanitarian law. 

I've never said that we should drone assad but that we should have an impact in his nation letting him know that he uses these chemical weapons on his own populations and tries to sweep it under the rug, we will ultimately intervene and percent any more lives from being lost.

I agree though, it is not in our interest to take out assad because the rebels don't necessarily support us either (jihadists, al qaeda, etc...)



I will say this though, and I heard fareed zakaria on CNN talking about this, how if Obama had simply done a covert mission in Syria months ago and didn't even let this get to this point, without congressional approval, which imo is not violating the constitution, because we're dealing with IL but the fact that he's delaying this extremely limited strike, has given time to the assad regime to relocate wepaons, plan etc...

This indecisiveness with syria has been handled so sloppily. If Obama and other key advisors had taken care this behind closed doors, I can absolutely tell you with confidence that the rally-around-the-flag effect would have triumphed and the american people would have supported our efforts to prevent any more loss of life but because most of the american people are naive and don't understand that more than 100,000 people have died over 1,000 at the hands of banned chemical warfare devices, how can the US the most powerful nation in the world stand by and let this man get away with something like this


The fact that all of us do not have top secret security clearance levels is enough to know that we do not know nearly the same level of information as senior foreign policy advisers etc.... But since we know chemical weapons were used I do have faith in these political leaders that it is a very limited military strike with a clear objective to incinerate the weapons send a strong message to assad letting him know this kind of shiiit will not be tolerated.


IF anything..... We should put Assad in front of  the ICC and prosecute him for crimes against humanity. That seems like the most reasonable way to go about dealing with the aftermath of these chemical weapons attacks....


But again I think it is extremely reasonable to say that if we are not going to help our own citizens in the US with ideally universal health care,  not dealing with the problems of poverty in detroit etc...



Lastly I will say this, that this is the ONLY time I will be on the same side as AIPAC... which is honestly a disgrace, I cannot stand maintaining the same platforms at these despicable interest groups especially AIPAC, who has one objective which is took look out for the interests of Israel, at the expense of the US tax-paying dollar...  But so be it... we here to prevent any further innocent syrian lives from being lost, not to further israel's interests in that region..

no such thing as an innocent syrian

If its truly about credibility we should be dropping bombs in alot more countries than Syria.

And we wont be bombing any chemical sites to incinerate said chemicals. The risk of expelled posions is quite large and many of the exposed sites are near large civilian populations. I can guarantee you that we will not be hitting any of the chemical depots.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQ2oOx4FZU

I Am Not Going To Fire A $2M Missile At A $10 Empty Tent And Hit A Camel In The Butt