Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
Because the independent body takes weeks to verify something that multiple national agencies have already concluded, and in that time Syria only worsens.
"If USA and it's allies say X, that's good enough for me!!!"
Please, no.
Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
Apart from that though, treating China's diplomatic releases as sage advice, or as its actual position is silly.
It's not "sage advice" it's a realistic and pragmatic course of action. Verification if absolutely necessary.
Imagine if independent verification was considered mandatory in 2003. How many lives would have been saved? How many billions of dollars would not have been wasted? How many beautiful cities and how much scenery would still be in tact?
Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
The toothless UN that can do little thanks to Russia's presence on its security council?
Surely you can acknowledge that the UN is utterly useless in terms of actual military action. The US polices because the UN doesn't.
UN does a lot of good, and having voting is a good thing. I don't agree with the veto process, but I can see why it is used.
Seeing countries like USA or Russia abuse their positions is very bad. The UN should propose "If independent verification of banned weapon usage is attained, then should we perform an intervention?", naturally Russia will be forced to agree or face massive backlash.
I don't know why UN hasn't absorbed policing of various treaties already. If UN absorbed them, and countries were required to deploy according to UN requests, we wouldn't see USA slamming their dick all over random countries, and the world would be a much better place.
So yes, between waiting for UN verification, and having USA invade whoever they please, I'll pick the former.