|
LookieNoNookie -> RE: What makes it a war crime? (9/3/2013 4:29:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
Please excuse my ignorance, but why is the use of sarin gas a war crime? Because it kills people? How does sarin gas differ from conventional weapons? For example, what makes sarin gas more terrible than napalm? Would anyone be rising concerns if napalm was being used?
There is no property damage. You wipe them out, bury them in a mass grave, walk away, you move in, drink their beer and watch football on their wide screen TV, life is good. There are no long term side effects like radiation. This suggests that sarin gas is an elegant weapon. Perhaps that is the concern. It is too elegant a solution. Because it is an elegant solution it is tempting. Before you know it everyone and their brother will be using it on their neighbors. Don't like the neighbors next door? Need an extra house?
Because it was outlawed via the Geneva Convention by all the known world powers at that time and is now (like a red octagonal sign means stop...regardless of the language used on same) considered to be one of the "world" laws, applicable to all world citizens, regardless of politics.
Because in a Democracy you need something more than it's the law. You need consent of the governed. This implies the need for a universally agreed upon rationale. World War I is now at the edge of becoming a distant memory. As such what makes the use of chemical weapons a war crime is no longer self-evident. It is a knee jerk reaction, it's the law. If we commit ourselves to war, shouldn't we at least know what we are fighting for?
Yes, but....this is a U.N. problem....NOT a U.S. problem.
If the U.N. decides it's something to deal with, then they have the power (and World authority) to demand that a percentage of those who signed the U.N. Powers Act to comply, in the EXACT percentage that they are a part of the U.N. compliance team, regardless of politics....for or against, they are obligated to comply...they are simply obligated to do so, and if they refuse, they can therefore be arbitrarily removed from the authority to act (unilaterally or otherwise), forevermore.
Let the U.N. decide what to do and then, as signatory, we....and others....will fulfill our (collective) responsibilities.
This is NOT a U.S. responsibility, regardless of how badly Saudi Arabia wishes it were otherwise.
I find it more than fascinating that the U.N., on this matter, has stood down.
I think that's more than rather telling.
|
|
|
|
