Italy insists on UN mandate for any Syria strikes

[morningfog]

ROME — Italy is insisting that any military strike against Syria for its alleged chemical attack on civilians must be authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

Briefing Parliament on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Emma Bonino called the chemical attack a "war crime" but said the government wouldn't support military action without Security Council authorization.

She said: "Italy will not take active part in any military action ... beyond the context of the Security Council, which for us is and remains the only point of legal reference that cannot be ignored."

Read more here: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2013/08/27/3187793/italy-insists-on-un-mandate-for.html#storylink=cpy

Good on you Italy. At a bare minimum, this should be the US standard, too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Not going to happen

Russia is busy selling weapons to Assad; they're a permanent member of the Security Council and have a veto.

[morningfog]

2. Which is why I think we should wait for a UN mandate.

It would prevent us from entering this war. It is a mistake.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Sorry, but that's foolish.

Wait for a UN mandate? Which isn't forthcoming because Russia is going to veto any use-of-force resolution that comes up. There's broad agreement among NATO countries that action needs to be taken. Three of the five permanent UN Security Council members are in agreement (US/UK/France); Turkey and other regional powers are either in agreement with the proposed military action or not publicly opposing it.

[morningfog]

6. I suggest that because it isn't forth-coming. And the agreement among

NATO is not so broad. It may not even be a NATO action. This is not our fight to take on.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. You've probably heard the one about power and responsibility.

The USA doesn't get to be both the most powerful nation on earth and completely isolationist; it doesn't work like that. If the international community can't step in to halt the slaughter of civilians with weapons of mass destruction, then there isn't any point to the UN, or NATO, in the first place.

[morningfog]

11. Our power is a mirage.

Regardless, I have not suggested we be "completely isolationist." I just don't think that military intervention will result in anything positive for anyone involved.

In Syria, there is slaughter of civilians from and by all sides. Us contributing to the slaughter will not halt the slaughter. It will escalate the slaughter.

[cali]

7. every person who supports U.S. military intervention

should take responsibility for what happens if it all goes south; if it ignites a wider conflagration in the region, if genocide is committed by any of the rebels against the Alawites or ethnic cleansing against the Christians. It's on your heads if greater death and destruction follows in the wake within a year or two. It's on your heads if Israel is attacked. And on and on. The likely fallout here is of great magnitude.

Douglas Carpenter has posted over and over again:

"Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave".

Ponder that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. It's really a question of what the least worst option is.

Is the least worst option for the US, UK, France, et al to turn a blind eye to Assad's actions because he may be a vicious bastard who'll do whatever he has to to hold on to power, but at least he's secular and modernising, unlike whoever would probably replace him? Even if he is killing thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, in the process? Is it to take out Assad's military capability and see him hauled to the dock in the Hague to answer for crimes against humanity, and his government replaced with pro-Iranian Islamists? There are really no very good options here, but "let's not do anything" isn't a good option, either.

[cali]

14. we've "turned a blind eye" over and over again

let's start with "First, do no harm".

[newfie11]

15. +1

[PowerToThePeople]

3. They know what it is to have fascist overlords and then be free.

They understand.

We knew what is was to be free. Now we have the fascist overlords.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. lol.

A lot of Italians would have Mussolini back if they could. And they never really got rid of the fascists. (See: Berlusconi.)

[PowerToThePeople]

12. At least they have socialists in the system to balance.

(Disclaimer - I do not know much of Italian politics, just wiki)

That is Better than we can claim.

But our current election system leads to the two party answer. That leads to major problems accurately representing the public.

But, the US Gov does not represent the people of the country, it represents the MIC and Banks/Corps.

[The Straight Story]

9. UK Parliament recalled over Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23851292#TWEET869607

And:
Syria accuses Kerry of lying, disregarding UN
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/syria-accuses-kerry-lying-disregarding-un

Also:
If it comes to action, albeit limited, the British, French and Americans are likely to fall back on a number of arguments to legitimise the use of force.

Among them are the breaking of the Geneva Conventions, various treaties reacting to chemical weapons which date all the way back to 1925, and a concept known as R2P - Responsibility to Protect.

In 1999 US President Bill Clinton justified the bombing of Serbia on the ground of the moral responsibility protect large numbers of civilians.

He assembled the Nato countries to give "international cover" on what was a US-led operation.

In 2005, the UN adopted R2P as an "international norm" but there is fierce debate about whether it can be invoked without a UN Security Council resolution.

http://news.sky.com/story/1133677/syrian-crisis-morality-of-war-and-jungle-law

[The Straight Story]

13. WH says congress has been consulted

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Monday that Congress has, in fact, been consulted, but he would provide no details.

Update: White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Monday that Congress has, in fact, been consulted, but he would provide no details.

“Members of Congress have been consulted and those consultations will continue – we don’t want to read out specific consultations,” Carney said.
When asked which members have been consulted and whether the president would seek Congressional approval, Carney said: “Members of Congress with a particular interest in this matter have been consulted. I don’t want to speculate what Congress might do.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-obama-has-obligation-to-consult-congress-on-syria-meets-with-white-house/article/2534711