Question: If the Security Coucil, the Arab Nations, and China and Russian were ALL on board to...

[johnnyrocket]

...bomb Syria, would you personally be FOR bombing Syria?

I realize this is a big IF, but I'd like to know folks ideas on this.

[PDJane]

1. No.

Bombing anything is going to destroy infrastructure, kill yet more civilians, and leave the situation even worse than before. Why would anyone want to do that? I would point out that sanctions on civilian populations...things like medical supplies, food, etc., are only going to make the situation worse, too. Perhaps not supplying military arms in the first place would help?

[arcane1]

2. With all of them on board, our involvement would not be needed n/t

[cloudbase]

7. Indeed.

Let them handle it. We could perhaps share some intelligence, but that would be my personal limit to participation.

[JackRiddler]

3. No.

[bemildred]

4. No, but I would shutup about it. nt

[DearAbby]

5. If we had the entire world condemning this Atrocity

there would be no need for a military strike, global pressure alone would be enough.

[L0oniX]

6. No! n/t

[TheKentuckian]

8. Who would I be to stand in their way? The cast you outline sure could take the lead

Particularly since Russia is signing up, they should take the point along with the Arab Nations in making sure their client state complies with international norms.

See, your scenario would create a global movement not our ass blasting in with our dick swinging to make the safe the people by killing them just as dead often in just as despicable and torturous (or even more so) ways that just aren't on the magic list of indignation and wrath. Of course even if we violate the letter of the law and not just piss all over the spirit of it we still just move on with a litany of excuses and rationalizations mostly papered over internally by a different face in the White House. The world doesn't give a shit about our show transitions in power because it is far less meaningful than we pretend because much power is unelected and continuity is unquestionable.

[old guy]

9. No.

[Downwinder]

10. No, Take it to the ICC.

[Chan790]

14. It can't be taken to the ICC.

Syria is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. None of the four conditions required for a nation or its people to be subject to the ICC jurisdiction currently apply. The ICC has four mechanisms for starting an investigation in a country.

• The person under review is a national of a state signatory of the Rome Statute.
• The crime to be investigated took place on the territory of a member state to the Rome Statute.
• The UN Security Council refers a situation to the ICC.
• The state recognizes the ICC has jurisdiction in its territory.

Even if the UNSC approved sanctions or military action, that does not necessarily mean they would also make a referral to the ICC.

[Downwinder]

16. Can't the HRC and Security Council make referrals to the ICC?

Syria signed 29 November 2000

[Chan790]

18. Yes, the UN Security Council can.

They haven't yet though...and until they do, the ICC can't get involved.

[Downwinder]

20. I fail to see where the US has any jurisdiction over Syria.

There is no McD's, so can not claim national interests.

The US denies jurisdiction over Guantanamo as being in a foreign country.

[Chan790]

19. Did they sign...the sources that came up when I googled were explicit they were not subject to ICC.

Actually it seems to be a mixed bag that they signed but then did not recognize the authority of the resulting court.

http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-the-icc-prosecute-for-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria/
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/04/syria_and_the_icc
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/18/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE91H06920130218
http://theworldoutline.com/2013/05/why-the-icc-does-not-intervene-in-syria/

Sorry for the blue link list, it demonstrates that nobody seems to know whether the ICC has jurisdiction or not though.

[Downwinder]

23. Was using this page. Confusing

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/signatory_chart_Nov_2011_EN.pdf

[onyourleft]

11. No. n/t

[morningfog]

12. It would make it a "legal" war, but I would still oppose it.

[dipsydoodle]

13. No because civilian collateral damage would be impossible to avoid.

.

[oberliner]

15. What if anything ought to be done to prevent the current civilian loss of life?

Are there any steps that you would support as far as the US goes?

[dipsydoodle]

17. The insurgents need to do what they have currently refused to do

which is to join the Geneva 2 talks to find a way to resolve Syria's issues.

[wtmusic]

21. Yes, to destroy chemical weapons depots. nt

[ripcord]

22. You just have to wonder about taking military action

when the only nation willing to going with you is France.