While US Bangs Drums of War, United Nations Twiddles Its Tiny Peace Pipe


War is the health of the beltway

All afternoon, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have been trying to make the case for a military strike on Syria before the Senate (we've been live-tweeting the debate at our Reason 24/7 Twitter feed). The discussion seems to be weighted in favor of war (not that the president actually feels bound to respect Congress' authority to declare war anyway). In the meantime, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is trying to warn against action.

From the Associated Press:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is warning that any "punitive" action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack last week could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in that nation's civil war.

Ban also cautioned nations such as the United States and France that may be considering such strikes that they are legal only in self-defense under the U.N. Charter or if approved by the U.N. Security Council.

Ban is underestimating the ability of our various leaders to make anything sound like a threat to the United States — remember when using drugs helped fund terrorism? If America attacks Syria, it will be claimed as "self-defense" no matter how thin the argument is — so thin that it is transparent.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Poll: Majority Oppose Strike on Syria

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If America attacks Syria, it will be claimed as “self-defense” no matter how thin the argument is ? so thin that it is transparent.

    The most transparent administration in history.

    1. Transparent like a grease-soaked fast food napkin.

  2. So Obama’s even lost the UN. I mean, if Bark at the Moon isn’t on Obama’s side, who is?

    1. Every media outlet and every TEAM BLUE pundit dipshit?

      1. Okay, so Obama has lost most of the U.S. and the entire rest of the world, but he still has the media and the morons.

        Tell me, why does he want to win that?

        1. You go to unilateral, unauthorized war with the morons you have, ProL, not the morons you want.

      2. and academia and hollywood and the environuts

    2. He’s still got the Nobel Committee.

      1. so does Arafat and Kissinger

    3. Well clearly Obama’s intelligence is so stellar that no one on planet Earth can fully realize the sheer depth and perception of Obama’s thinking.

      /Thomas Friedman

  3. …could unleash more turmoil and bloodshed in that nation’s civil war.

    Considering the lack of consideration given to the ultimate effects of passing Obamacare, I don’t think we’re generally overly concerned about the consequences of our fixes.

  4. They’re already claiming that it’s necessary to deter North Korea, and thus related to American security. That was on the CNN site a few hours ago, but it’s gone now. You just can’t make stuff like this up!

  5. Congress, if you’re reading this, and I know you’re not, vote against this stupidity.

    Then grow a pair and start impeachment proceedings. They’re long past due.

  6. The discussion seems to be weighted in favor of war

    It’s time to bring back the guillotine.

  7. It seems like the U.S. is always having to defend itself against some third world country. Hell, if it weren’t for our military budget being nearly equal to that of the entire rest of the world, we would probably have been nothing more than a speed bump in Somalia’s plan for total world domination.

    1. “Somalia’s plan for total world domination”

      but..but, but ROADZ!

  8. Are we really going to war with Syria? Let’s see, we missed Iran, who is developing nukes, in favor of Iraq. We missed Saudi Arabia, host to most of the 9/11 bombers, in favor of Iraq. We missed…you get the picture.

    Syria? Another Ba’athist shitshow?

    1. I wonder where all the anti war protesters are? Why isn’t there some huge march like we saw before Iraq?

      1. Per Slate, the Democrats/liberals abandoned the anti-war effort just as Obama was elected in 2008. Go figure.

  9. I like to correct people when they even joke about the military being warmongers that in fact the military doesn’t send itself to war. A great many of us actually would avoid conflict unless it comes with proper rationale and clear objectives. And even though the services and DoD in general are civilian led, I refer to secretaries as part of “the military” too. So it troubles me when the SecDef is in front of anybody making the case for war. It’s not his job. He’s told when to go to war and figure out how to win it. Would’ve been nice if he’d resigned in protest in this case instead of joining this marketing campaign.

  10. There ain’t no international law. It’s totally illegitimate. Obama is going to say Namaste to Assad very soon and there’s nothing nobody can do about it.

    I say we citizen arrest Obama after he does it. Seriously, Nick Gillespie should make a citizen’s arrest on Obama at some cocktail party.

  11. While military action with Syria is a mistake, any action that serves to further weaken and delegitimize the UN can’t be 100% bad. The notion that an attack on Syria would be illegal without UN approval is bullshit, plain and simple.

    1. That first sentence should read “While military action against Syria…”

    2. Yep, international law is bullshit. Kabuki law.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.