Meh, same intel that said there were WMD's in Iraq?
I'm taking this with a pinch of salt the size of Olympus Mons.
Also, do a bit of research on the Free Syrian Army, not very nice people either, murdering civillians too.
great job with the links but again, there is no legal obligation on specifically the USA to act. its UN legislation. also rather interestingly the USA is itself immune from prosecution.
Provisos granting immunity from prosecution for genocide without its consent were made by Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia
Just to add, if this is true it will by no means start another world war. This is what will happen Syrian use weapon on random country X. Eu and Usa blow it off the face of p the planet. If the EU or Usa even cared to send a force to Syrian the government would be over whelmed in no time (I am willing to say in under 24 hours if the condition is serious enough and the people in charge are willing to not keep casualties on both sides to a minimum) The only problem then is russia, but I dont think they're dumb enough to try anything like a world war, and tbh they'd be taken out in no time as well.
The worlds military might is with the USA they can stop any small scale (ie one of these countries) threats with ease, and with the EU on there side they have easy access to launch attacks.
That's what they said back in 2002-03. We are still in Afghanistan nearly a decade later.The worlds military might is with the USA they can stop any small scale (ie one of these countries) threats with ease
If i remember correctly, WP is not on the list of the CWC. Feel free to check out.
Media could be pretty histerical, like with the case of "uranium bombs" "cluster bombs" etc. Like dying from a well placed stomach wound would be any better.
Anyway, this whole "Syria ready to use.." nonsense is pretty much hysteria again - if a military is at least half-decent, it could use its inventory according to political will. Otherwise its inly dead hardware, hardly a weapon.
And making that decision would be suicide - not literally. For bluff, it backfires, i think. For desinformation, well... not that convincing. By occams razor i would call mediahisterobullshitbackedbyidiotgovernemntofficials.
Rebellion, revolution, civil war were never been a nice thing - one step less nicer than a "regular" war. Just think about the french revolution. Or a most recent, 56 Budapest: mass lynchings, many of the lynched wer actually innocents - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And Iraq were not about the WMDs, there were some serious legal backup for the intervention, however, neither the US government or the media felt that adequate, so the created some media hysteria again... nice work, really nice work.
Which nations? Rebels have traditionally been defined as a political group, ergo they are not protected by the convention. I can't imagine how any serious argument can be forwarded to define rebels as a national group, since they have no distinguishing characteristics from the government troops on national basis, only on political affiliation (except, obviously, in those cases where rebels rebel based on national identity - Chechens, situation in Rwanda, former Yugo, etc).
Prepare the invasion army!
What?
We're running out of invasion armies?
PREPARE THE METAL GEAR!
The UK and France, and I think a few others now too.
Not the US yet though.
Yes, but kinda old.
I think a few more have recognized it since then, all I know is that the USA still hasn't.