Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
Didn't the head weapons inspector say yesterday that it would take a month for them to definitively say if chemical weapons were used? and that he was recommending that they wait before taking action, lest we end up with Iraq WMD part 2.
|
Yeah, to me though it was typical UN Felbercarb. At this point there's no question that Syria has chemical weapons. We just had a large lump of people killed, and the potential for these weapons to be used again.
If you had some kind of stable peace in Syria then great fab wait a month. But because its not stable then lives are at risk.
I'm not necessarily a proponent of going in or Western power interference, but the UN has strange ideas of how responses should be happening, and that time has every meaning here.
Its just like the head of UN saying that they need more time for diplomacy. Diplomacy didn't work back then. And it isn't going to work now because the UN has been basically used and laughed at by Asaad and the Russians and the Chinese because they don't take decisive action in the name of peace.
What they should have done is dropped a special forces team into the site with the equipment and camera they needed to get every sample as quickly as possible.
They shouldn't have accepted Asaad's delaying tactics where they made the inspectors wait while tanks rolled into that town and secured it until the gas residue broke down and every piece of physical evidence was cleaned up.
Its like letting the mafia control a crime scene and access to it after a murder.
The UN doesn't work, there's no sense of urgency, the security council is always under lockdown due to the Veto law, and it just doesn't work.