General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat's the point of having Arab League when they won't do shit militarily?
And refuses to do anything about it except whine to the U.S. and the U.N. about Syria and wanting an military action?
Hey Arab League, we'll do it for you for a cool $150 billion.
And then we'll just light a match and call it a strike and call it a day. Do it your damn self!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Billy Love
(117 posts)And that means Saudi Arabia would have to start using the billion of dollars of U.S. military aid that we've sent them for years....
Or cut them off entirely and tell them "Good luck, pal".
JVS
(61,935 posts)I can think of few things worse for Middle eastern peace than that. It's much better for them to go through the UN.
I cannot believe the criticisms I have read here because the Arab League did the appropriate thing and went before the UN
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If there were ongoing chemical attacks in Syria, the need for speed would be obvious. But as it is, it appears that we have the time to do this right.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,480 posts)What's the point of UNESCO when it doesn't send in the troops? And that WHO is damn lazy too - when was the last time it attacked a country?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Jesus
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)We are their military arm. Go ask Bandar Bush
Billy Love
(117 posts)I don't give a shit about that Bush loving moron.
Arab League needs to do their job, not make us do their job.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Then the more obvious question is "why has the league not done anything militarily on behalf of the Palestinians?"
The moment the Arab League starts preparing for military actions anywhere, Israel would shit bricks.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Perhaps they are just anxious to affirm international law on this matter:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/01/20280931-arab-states-call-for-international-action-against-syrian-regime?lite
The ministers also concluded that those responsible for the lethal chemical weapons attack should face trial just like other war criminals.
This is also very good for us and all those who care about international law. President Obama's decision to seek approval from Congress is shunting the pressure back on the UN, and if in the end the evidence is such that we have to act alone or with only a few partners, having this basis for the action along with the refusal of the UN to authorize action places us in a very different and much better situation militarily and diplomatically.
Whoever is responsible for the use of chemical weapons (and yes it probably is the Assad regime) committed an atrocity, and it's best for everyone and for the global future to have a multiplicity of countries repudiating it in the strongest terms.
Having the US just act without exhausting the international forums makes us look like military adventurers. Going through the process both makes the UN have to cope with the issue and then makes us the agent to carry out an international justice of a sort, even if Russia never lets a resolution through the Security Council.
I think there is no doubt that Congress will eventually pass some sort of resolution for action, even if it isn't open-ended. And giving the Obama administration time to talk to these countries and other countries in the UN, and for the entire world to evaluate the evidence, will almost certainly create a much better outcome. After all, if we want to deter other dictators from this sort of action, there should be strong international pressure and a precedent. Building that precedent is important.
Plus, it's just impressive to have the Congress of a democratically-based country debating the issue and evaluating the evidence. Perhaps more than anything else, this lays the foundation for a more successful intervention.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I hope
Why?
There is nothing wrong with this post.