The most frightening part of all the discussions re Syria

[malaise]

is the failure to observe that any attack is a violation of international law.
I hope Obama is fully aware of this - indeed he used the word .norm. because he knows the truth.

[shenmue]

1. Uh, no

There is no international law that says no one can ever go to war with Syria.

[malaise]

2. Huh? n/t

[PCIntern]

3. It's OK: we just make shit up around here...

we don't know 5% of what the inner circle knows, like it or not. Yeah, it's no good news either way. I got that. But we are not making any decisions with reasonably complete knowledge of the true situation. Not by a longshot.

But, hey, that is what anonymous message boards are for.

[HereSince1628]

13. Lack of trust is very high. If we knew 95% of what the inner circles knows

we likely wouldn't trust much of that to be an honest representation. THAT is the Bush-NeoCon legacy.

The more it is argued to US that the US can't share the information because it would reveal sources and methods, the less we trust it.

We're in the vortex of doubt which like fear has a strong self-reinforcing feedback.

Arguments to assuage doubt end up having the opposite effect, they simply reinforce the notion that we are being propagandized by cherry-picked information releases.

[mike_c]

4. do WHAT?!

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the U.N. Charter? Wars of aggression?

[Myrina]

5. What frightens me is that, again, the US

Is trying to overthrow a (legitimate) gov't that it "doesn't like". We have funded, trained and armed the "rebels" (some of whom who may or may not have been trained at SOA and/or employed by any one of our foreign mercenary groups like Blackwater) in an attempt to overthrow Syria's sitting gov't.

Would we let another country do that to us simply because they don't like "who's in charge"?? I doubt it.

[malaise]

7. Nothing new under the sun

which is why the decision in Britain was so profound. Truth be told - it's time to rein in US power. It's out of control.

[Myrina]

9. Agreed, I just don't get why nobody calls us

on it.

[malaise]

10. I suspect that is changing

after the spying real or perceived.

[pnwmom]

11. Obama is not trying to overthrow Assad. That is part of the difficulty of his position.

It would be much simpler if he wanted to do that, but at this point in time there is no successor that would be an obviously better choice. So he is merely trying to establish that chemical weapons -- which are banned by international treaties signed by governments under which 98% of people live -- cannot be used without consequence.

Both he and Kerry have said there is no ultimate military solution to Syria (like overthrowing Assad). There is only a political solution.

[Myrina]

15. You're kidding, right?

SMH

[ladyVet]

12. Agreed. nm

[iandhr]

6. I do not think attacking Syria is a good idea.

But I am perplexed by people who think intervening is more outrageous and violates international law and have nothing to say about gassing your own people.

[malaise]

8. Who used depleted uranium in Iraq?

Who used agent orange in Vietnam?
Who nuked the Japanese?

I believe in the rule of law - nothing in international laws makes attacking Syria legal.
Just follow the oil money - and the law.

[MNBrewer]

14. I'm curious why you use the phrase "gassing your own people"

as though somehow that is the crime. The violation of international "norms" is gassing... PERIOD. "Your own people" is a rhetorical trick designed to engage the emotions and drag us into war.