But instead said that congress would reconsider the issue in the event that Syria didn't sign the convention.

I mean that I think these guys and ladies in Congress are serious, but I also think Syria will give them the finger. I wouldn't blame them either. You give Israel an ultimatim to sign the nuclear weapons ban and there might be some talk but don't threaten me. That would be my response to the ladies and gentlemen in Congress. Go ahead and consider your issue, but threatening us will get you no where. If I were the Syrians, that would be my response.

If this is what passes for "diplomacy" in DC, we are all doomed.

Gunboat Diplomacy: In international politics, gunboat diplomacy (may be referred to as "big stick diplomacy" in U.S history) refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power — implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.


Modern Contexts

Gunboat diplomacy is considered a form of hegemony. As the United States became a military power in the first decade of the 20th century, the Rooseveltian version of gunboat diplomacy, big stick diplomacy, was partially superseded by dollar diplomacy: replacing the big stick with the "juicy carrot" of American private investment. However, during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, conventional gunboat diplomacy did occur, most notably in the case of the U.S. Army's occupation of Veracruz in 1914, during the Mexican Revolution.

Gunboat diplomacy in the post-Cold War world is still based mostly on naval forces, owing to the United States Navy's overwhelming seapower. U.S. administrations have frequently changed the disposition of their major naval fleets to influence opinion in foreign capitals . More urgent diplomatic points were made by the Clinton administration in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s (in alliance with the United Kingdom's Blair government) and elsewhere, using sea-launched Tomahawk missiles, and E-3 AWACS airborne surveillance aircraft in a more passive display of military presence. The term "gunboat diplomacy" has been superseded in many circles by the more euphemistic "power projection".

Democrats are the nurturing mother figures. Fathers, the strict authoritarians.

Except that some mothers are "mommy dearests". "Do as I say or you won't have to wait until daddy gets home, you little asshole."

and that's why we sent 200,000 troops and a few armored divisions into Damascus three years ago...

Oh, wait. We didn't do that.

Pres O knows what he is doing. GOPers will vote against it in the house if the passes the senate just because. Ya'think GOPers care? Yeah right.

Such a resolution would essentially give the President a blank check to launch a war after a 45 day waiting period, during which all sides would be able to prepare for full retaliation (more so than they already are right now). Such a situation could actually be more explosive and worse than if Congress passed a resolution to strike next week, which is fraught with terrible risk to begin with.

Although he has broken the Chemical Weapons treaty anyways, and as some here states its the rebels doing the gassing (which I don't think so) then what best evidence in showing it was them huh.

Why would Assad not sign such??????? Plus it would send a message to other countries who would consider gassing their own people, and please don't tell me another incident like Syria won't happen somewhere else.

before issuing ultimatiums.

But instead of bombing, impound Assad and his cronies' swag parked in various banks

.
.
.

So one country doesn't get to rule the World?

USA/MIC/PNAC et al has sure let their military power go to their heads.

"Fuck the "United Nations" - we got the power!

And were gonna use it!

(sigh)

CC

Arm the world and damn the consequences.

To my mind the big weakness for the Syrian government is that it is one of the few countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (ironically one of the the others is Egypt a country about who the west has gone strangely silent after the recent military coup against its elected government ).

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/status-of-participation-in-the-cwc/

The first item on any list of demands being made by Obama and Kerry should have been that the Syrian regime becomes a signatory to this agreement so that its stockpile of munitions can be subjected to inspection by international monitors and eventually destroyed. As both the Assad regimes main allies Iran and Russia have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention they are going to find it hard to argue the case why Syria should not do the same. Quite why it has taken quite so long to raise the issue is beyond me. I can only assume that they were less interested in preventing the spread and use of these vile armaments and were more interested in finding some excuse to blow the crap out of the Syrian military so the rebels including the Saudi backed Salafist militants would win the civil war. What would happen to those weapons if they fell into the hands of some of the more extreme rebel groups and who they might be used against in the future I will leave to your imagination

Of course, a refusal by the Syrians to sign the Convention is in itself is not a pretext for war as no similar sanctions have been threatened against the other major non signatories Egypt and North Korea. However, it would be a an appropriate issue to take to the UN security council. Who knows it might even offer an opportunity for all parties to save diplomatic face and provide a way of avoiding military escalation which would only cost more lives and further destabilise the already precarious situation in the Middle East

you are probably ignorant of the information, why Syria refuses to sign any treaty concerning WMD. It is a lesser means of WMD, than the Nuclear Weapons issue, which Israel refuses to sign and the U.S. refuses to force Israel to commit to. If you are going to give one side, then you should give the whole picture.

This is the same case with the nuclear issue in Iran, but the Iranians have declared, they don't need WMD to defend themselves, but Israel and the United States, certainly makes double standard arguments, to allow Israel to build up her armed forces, sell her advanced weapons, and looked the other way when espionage was committed against the U.S. in obtaining nuclear weapons. The U.S. has also shared nuclear capability with India, and Turkey.

The other excuse our Government sells also is their leaders are unstable and monsters, that murder their own people. The balance of Power is already upset in the Middle East, thanks to our Government. Yet some Americans continue to see things through their own bias lens, just like the Zimmerman verdict. Our whole history is based on prejudice, violations of Human rights and so forth. Israel learned it from us, as far as ethnic cleansing. Some Americans say the same about Arabs, they claimed about savage Indians and Africans. We had our criminals, thieves and murderers too. I once heard a British citizen claim, we sent our extremists to America. The day the U.S. sanctions Israel, let me know. Until then, forget it. I tell you what, offer Israel's nuclear weapons for their chemical program and see what the U.S. claims.