War is the Answer. What Was the Question Again?

Back in September, Obama Administration officials said that Syria’s chemical weapons represented a grave threat to the United States and that they could never be eliminated without going to war. Now it’s November, and Syria is meeting its obligations to do so…yet the U.S. never went to war. Could it be that war is not always the answer?

8 thoughts on “War is the Answer. What Was the Question Again?

  1. Wonder when the US, which acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention back in 1997, is finally going to get rid of all its chemical weapons. Not in my lifetime is my wager, but I fear I’ll have a hard time collecting when events prove my prophesy correct….


    • Henri, if the U.S. can redefine “torture” and call water-boarding (which was “torture” when our enemies did it) “enhanced interrogation techniques,” why should they adhere to any other treaties or agreements?

      The U.S. government has ignored treaties made with the Indians (“Native Americans”); they have ignored the Geneva Accords/Conventions; they have used illegal weapons in recent wars; they have done whatever-the-hell they felt like doing, knowing they could get away with it.

      Even the protests across the world decrying the illegal surveillance of our allied friends hasn’t had much of an effect, other than shock value.
      Additionally, if you haven’t read John Yoo’s memo to the Bush Administration, you cannot fully appreciate that the United States was near the brink of declaring martial law. 🙁

      • Why should they, indeed ? Of course, «derlehrer», it’s not primarily a question of logical inference ; i e, US government representatives do not, AFAIK, appear in international fora and state that as we have succeeded in defining away torture, we shall also do so with regard to our obligations under the treaty or convention at issue there ; rather it’s a question of impunity. Given the fact that the US has been devoting more money to the military than the rest of the world combined ever since WW II, no one has the moxie to force it to live up to the agreements it has signed, no matter what international courts may decide. Thus we see that these budgets, like those of the bloated (in)security apparatus, are not only about despoiling the poor for the benefit of the rich (the «military-industrial complex», as Eisenhower famously called it), even if one can argue that that is their main objective….


      • @ Henri –
        Off the top of my head, I seem to remember that Belgium attempted to bring the officials of the Bush Administration before the World Court for their war crimes. It went nowhere.
        Then there was a lawsuit filed in California against the war criminals of that regime by an Iraqi (?) victim, as I recall. What happened? (I don’t have the initiative to do the necessary research at the moment.)

    • I wonder how much impact the U.S. Government had upon Chile’s Allende and his suicide. (?) “Might makes right!”

      Round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows.

Leave a Reply