Then again, Barack Obama is probably the only world leader worried about receiving the dreaded UN sternly worded letter.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday warned that any “punitive” action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last month would be illegal without Security Council approval or a sound case for self-defense.

The US and France have blamed Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime for the alleged Aug. 21 attack and are considering military action in response. Such a strike would almost certainly occur without the approval of the Security Council, where Russia and China have consistently used their veto power to block action against Assad’s regime. The Obama administration argues that a chemical weapons attack cannot go unpunished because of the council’s inaction.

“As I have repeatedly said, the Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security,” Ban said at a news conference. “The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter and or when the Security Council approves such action.

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/04/un-ch...uld-be-illegal/

Yes! Launch and illegal war. In the future they can drag him before the Hague./sarc



I have NEVER understood what constitutes a war crime in our present day compared to the past.

If Assad wants to kill people he will kill people. He can use chemical weapons directly upon them.

Or, he can hide the chemical weapons amongst them so that when an attempt to secure the weapons is launched by another nation he can draw out his opponent.

Isn't death, death?

I'm not saying that the Killing Fields or the Final Solution are not crimes against humanity.

I'm just confused about what is "right" and what is "wrong" in war.

Is the object to win with the fewest casualties? To win hearts and minds? To wage total war? To withdraw and let the country fall into a greater threat than it was before the war?

I don't think I understand modern war.

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #2

---

Yes! Launch and illegal war. In the future they can drag him before the Hague./sarc



I have NEVER understood what constitutes a war crime in our present day compared to the past.

If Assad wants to kill people he will kill people. He can use chemical weapons directly upon them.

Or, he can hide the chemical weapons amongst them so that when an attempt to secure the weapons is launched by another nation he can draw out his opponent.

Isn't death, death?

I'm not saying that the Killing Fields or the Final Solution are not crimes against humanity.

I'm just confused about what is "right" and what is "wrong" in war.

Is the object to win with the fewest casualties? To win hearts and minds? To wage total war? To withdraw and let the country fall into a greater threat than it was before the war?

I don't think I understand modern war.

---

Good thoughts Palinista

some things to ponder first and foremost war is Brutal period

As far as right and wrong in war that is as varied as who is fighting and setting the rules--When you take something and try to sanitize it as we do today with ROE's and councils who direct the war from afar it is no longer a war so to speak it becomes more political than one fought on the battlefield.

And yes war has always been political but it has also been decided on the battlefield but it has become more of a game of stratigo and rules of engagement than sheer power and might and I will kill more of you than you kill of mine--and victory will never be accomplished only wars that last 10, 15 years because there is no desire to inflict large scale death to your enemy.

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #3

---

Things are different these days.

This "war" if it comes off is intended to further the building of the New Caliphate by establishing another country in the region with full-on islamist control.

It will also contribute to the other goals of our world at the present:
- further enriching the connected parties of the Military-Industrial complex, and
- further driving up the debt obligations of the US and any other 1st world suckers that can be cajoled into joining the effort (thus hastening the ultimate collapse)!

See, I said that things are different these days!

Oh, and as far as "Illegal" goes, that word has virtually lost all meaning and connotation in our current world. My father used to say, "Illegal???? That's means a sick bird." I would change that to "a very sickened bird" at this point. (So glad that he passed on before he had to see what we see now!)

---

Quote: Eglman wrote in post #4

---

Good thoughts Palinista

some things to ponder first and foremost war is Brutal period

As far as right and wrong in war that is as varied as who is fighting and setting the rules--When you take something and try to sanitize it as we do today with ROE's and councils who direct the war from afar it is no longer a war so to speak it becomes more political than one fought on the battlefield.

And yes war has always been political but it has also been decided on the battlefield but it has become more of a game of stratigo and rules of engagement than sheer power and might and I will kill more of you than you kill of mine--and victory will never be accomplished only wars that last 10, 15 years because there is no desire to inflict large scale death to your enemy.

---