Not correct. Russia holds the record for security council vetoes by a wide margin. (unless you're not counting Soviet Union vetoes as Russian vetoes, but that would no longer be an apples to apples comparison)
Yeah I dont count the Soviet Unions vetoes against Russia. Why would you? And even if you did the vast majority of Soviet votes happend over 50 years ago. Anything past the mid 80s and the US has quite a bit more than Russia\crumbling Soviet Union.
As for what points I disagree with:
- There is not 'every reason to believe' that the Syrian opposition gassed themselves. While it is not 100% certain that it was government forces that conducted the attack it is by far the most likely answer. If you look at Russia's record in the Security Council on Syria Putin's duplicitous statement here is nothing new.
This is a really minor point in the piece imo. A valid critcism but imo not worth fretting over.
- The idea that the Security Council would go the way of the League of Nations if the US engaged in a military intervention is obviously wrong as proven by...well... all the other times the US engaged in a military intervention without the UN collapsing.
I think his point is the UN would go the way of the LoN when it comes to having credibility to stop aggression. And I think he has a point. And you are proving it by pointing out all the times security member nations have disregarded the UN. And this point comes into play when certain nations are trying to acquire WMD. They dont have confidence the UN will stop aggressor nations(mainly the united states). So they are taking defense into their own hands.
- "We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law". That's a transparent lie, as shown by Russia's actions since 2011. The idea that the conflict is fueled by foreign weapons given to the opposition is 1.) also a lie. and 2.) neglects to mention that Russia is arming the Syrian government.
You chopped off the point of bringing this up. International law requires authorization for the use of force by the UN unless in self defense. Unless we get the security council to authorize our use of force. We are in violation of international law.
I am curious who you believe is funding\supplying weapons to the rebels? In the videos I have seen they are using rather sophisticated equipment for a poor rebel army. A lot of western equipment with western optics.
And of course now we have this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
- Most of the consequences he mentions (nonproliferation, etc) would happen with or without US intervention in Syria.
I could go on.
i think his proliferation is the strongest part of his piece. Iran, NK, and Syria. Two of the three axis of evil are or have developed nuclear weapons in the last decade? Why would they go about doing such a thing now? We like to believe it is because they want to funnel it to a terrorist organization to detonate on our home soil. Makes for a nice Tom Clancy novel. But what are the chances we will invade NK now? Once Iran goes nuclear think we dare step foot in their borders? Iran watching Iraq and Afghanistan go boom and now Syria about to go boom. It makes complete logical sense for self preservation to develope a nuclear weapon.
As for the spread of terrorism. What do you think people in the ME will think when seeing American bombs dropping on another ME capital unprovoked? Think they will run to join our side or the side of the nutjobs? How about after a drone kills their friends and family?
As for the rest of his piece. It is pretty spot on. Discusses civilian casualties from our bombs, the examples of our interventions killing so many and solving nothing(Iraq,Afghanistan), and our getting involved with civil wars that ends not so well for everybody involved.
As an anecdote. On the anniversary of Benghazi killing 4 US citizens, including a diplomat. A car bomb detonates in Benghazi.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/explosion-damages-libya-foreign-ministry-article-1.1451904
Mission accomplished!
