The question is not, “Should we intervene?” The question is, “should we honor our treaty?”

11 Sep

It is confusing to us that try always to be strong and stick to our convictions when the congress agrees to sign a treaty that has a clear intent to interfere when someone uses weapons of mass destruction against civilians, then turn the other cheek when the time comes to stand behind the resolution to sign the treaty and its many amendments.


The UN Security Council is, as always, a joke.  After concluding that the chemicals were used, it does not go forward honoring its own treaty.  England then followed the process by denying the support for the US that trying to follow treaty.  As usual Russia and China are on the other side with their usual objections to help anyone but themselves.  Come to think of it they may be Republicans. 


If we are not going to honor our treaties then we should not sign them.  I believe if a treaty is proposed and ratified by congress, it simply has to be kept.  The president only has to be certain in his mind that the weapons of mass destruction were used then give an order to stop it.


If the Representatives and Senators want to stop this action they must vote to be removed from the treaty with whatever repercussions that brings. 


This isn’t rocket science.  I can’t believe that 300 or so lawyers can’t understand the procedure or the consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: