04-08-2017, 03:02 PM
(04-08-2017, 12:08 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: In an ideal world it should be by a coalition but getting 50 leaders who have their own interests in mind on the same page isn't always obtainable in diplomacy. That's a lot of leaders and we could be spending a lot of time sitting on our hands waiting for leader 50 to approve something that needs immediate response. After thinking about it more that's actually a pretty bad idea. Why own your own military if you need 50 leaders from around the world to vote on how you get to use it even on the most minor of scales? We're not talking about dropping an atom bomb that causes mass destruction to the habitat or anything.
It has nothing to do with throwing your junk on the table and saying "We're #1" it's between right and wrong because no one else will or is able to do it. Do you always lean on your peers to form your opinions? I doubt it. I'd bet there have been moments in your life you were in the minority on something you felt was wrong. There's nothing wrong with forming your own judgements as long as they stay in the realm of reality.
Also there is always the fact that other leaders have their own interests in mind. Why would you spend a dime to help the U.S. send a message when you have your own economy to worry about which likely isn't near the U.S in strength? You may be with them morally but that doesn't mean you are willing to spend the money and answer to everybody back home about how the money was spent.
Helping us with what? The message has already been signed, sealed and delivered.
April 11, 2014 is the first chemical attack I'm referring to.
The US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whose job it is to maintain international peace and security IAW international law. The US is completely hypocritical to attack Syria for violating international law when the US isn't following the UN charter regarding the use of military force they are supposed to enforce as a member of the UN Security Council.
