Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. Are you implying
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:51 AM
Sep 2013
For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665

...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"?

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

Wesley Clark

<...>

As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)

Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.

<...>

At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Will it be the "least-untruthful" language he can share with Congress? nt MannyGoldstein Sep 2013 #1
What are you talking about? Leahy is rewriting the authority. n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #2
Uh huh. It always starts this way. woo me with science Sep 2013 #3
Yeah, ProSense Sep 2013 #4
Vigilance and pushback are important. woo me with science Sep 2013 #5
Are you implying ProSense Sep 2013 #6
Deja bullshit. woo me with science Sep 2013 #7
Are you implying ProSense Sep 2013 #8
Kick! n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #9
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Open To Narrowing L...»Reply #6