[cryptome] Re: Syria

  • From: Andrew Hornback <achornback@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:42:52 -0400

Pardon me, but this is a little long, my response to the Op-Ed:

"... to deter further massacres" - that's code for let's crank up the
violence machine.

What does it honestly matter if someone is killed by the Swine Flu, a .45
round, a chemical agent, a nuclear blast or a laser-guided 500 pounder?
 End result is that they're still dead.  This kind of attack is sending the
wrong message in that it's perfectly fine with us (i.e. the US) if you want
to execute your citizens, but once you get into the "bad" weapons, you need
your hands smacked by way of an escalation of violence and additional

"... moral reasons for disregarding the law" - Does that mean that we can
disregard the sovereignty of other nations?  On the flip side, does that
mean that they can disregard the sovereignty of our nation?  How would we
feel about another country (or external NGO) commiting an attack on US soil
because they have a difference of opinion about things like abortion or the
death penalty?  That's quite the can of worms you've got there.

I think it's quite obvious that Kerry (and his State Department) is a rube
here - the only reason he became Secretary of State was because Obama
needed someone who could find the Middle East on a Mercator projection map
while Hillary went off, got some rest, worked on her tan and prepped for

Discussion as to what rules and international treaties Syria is bound is
garbage.  What realistically can we use them for in this situation?
 Capture Assad, bring him before the Hague and let them issue 5 slaps with
a wet noodle?  Or maybe simply look upon Syria with disdain for a period of
20 years?  Let's get real here.  This legal basis blathering is simply a
way for those opposed to any form of action to get their warm and fuzzy
about going in because of a "legal mandate" and after all, doesn't the
United States stand for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" ?
 Propaganda, pure and simple.

I love how Mr. Hurd brings in the idea of how Syria isn't party to the CWC
of 1993 but then turns around and uses that a a barbed stick to poke at
both the US and Russia.  What good does that really serve?  More smoke and
mirrors.  And follows that by bringing in the Geneva Convention in order to
blacken the eye of the UN Security Council.

“from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state.” - So, states have to sit idly by and
let things happen as long as the actions of another state don't interfere
in their own sovereignty, a form of forced non-interference.  That makes
pretty good sense - let countries take care of themselves, don't interfere
and prepare to defend yourself.

The eerie thing gets into "responsibility to protect" - who's responsible
to protect whom?  At the rate things are going in the US, are the American
people going to ask other countries to protect us from our own government?
 Wouldn't that be wild.

Then we get into the discussion about NATO in Kosovo and how the action was
illegal but legitimate.  I'm not a lawyer here, no fin on this back, but
just what can the UN Security Council do to NATO?  Levy fines (who funds
the UN and NATO again?) ?  Stern looks?  Again, it's smoke and mirrors.

As the final move, Mr. Hurd seems to think that the allies (essentially
NATO) should declare that international law has evolved and that the
Security Council doesn't matter any longer.  Take a minute to let that sink
in, especially "the Security Council doesn't matter any longer".  At that
point, honestly, they've destroyed the credibility of the United Nations.
 What's the next step, disband the UN?  I'm sure that would make some folks
very happy (anarchists, for example), but that brings a whole new exponent
to the amount of chaos going on in the world, in my opinion.

And this writer teaches political science?  Am I ever glad that I stuck
with engineering and computer science.

--- A

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM, John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> NYTimes alternate web site has the grotesque Op-Ed:
> http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/**28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-**
> it-is-illegal.html?from=**opinion<http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?from=opinion>

Other related posts: