It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
This is how I see it.
There is the law: use of chemical weapons is illegal; and then there is what we tentatively term the "United Nations" - what most people regard as an ineffective failure, suffering the natural effects of filibustering and gerrymandering between disparate blocs of nations with different interests.
When you have such a situation, you have a stalemate. Syria has indeed broken international law; it's use of chemical weapons is a clear no no. So how come, if nations do not come to any agreement, can we all of a sudden determine that this is the moral course of action? 2 - 2 = 0. So long as there continues to be these blocs of nations with opposing interests, it'll be difficult to ever enforce international law in any constructive way.
Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
And where exactly did you read that? Umm, I'm speaking of the UN as an existing reality; so long as it exists, it'd be best that it's direction be dictated by democratic countries, and not China and Russia. That is all I meant.edit on 31-8-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
If you want to know why we're about to go into Syria, just like we did with Iraq