Has Syria attacked us? That's the only legal reason to attack them...

[Comrade Grumpy]

...without the imprimatur of the UN.

[polichick]

1. Apparently our "leaders" think American exceptionalism means...

the rules don't apply.

[atreides1]

3. It's not only our leaders

Read some of the threads here on DU...many support an attack. And it doesn't matter to them if more people are killed, because they can justify in their minds that this is all Assad's fault!!!

[polichick]

4. You're right - it's not just elected officials.

[atreides1]

2. No it hasn't, but that doesn't matter!

It seems that a lot of people here on DU don't really care about that...they just want to see a dictator punished!

[davidn3600]

5. They haven't even threatened to attack us

[DontTreadOnMe]

6. Ignorance on how government works is not a good way to go through life

The adults in the Whitehouse and Congress are moving forward, without you. Just stay home and yell at the tv. Because no one else is listening to you.

[morningfog]

8. You focused on the poster and avoided the valid points raised.

That tell me you have no argument.

What is the legal justification for a Syrian strike? Not a moral justification, a legal justification. What is it?

[NuclearDem]

9. Funny how you think democracy works by removing ordinary people from the equation.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. "The criminals in the Whitehouse and Congress are moving forward, without you."

Fixed that for you. As OP stated, it is against international law without UN approval.

Someday, we will not be the worlds leading power. Maybe some day real soon at the rate we burn non-existent funds on enriching the MIC. When we get called on our BS over the last 60 years by the world, it will not be pretty for those who lead the way.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. I am reading that a sarcasm, a wry comment

which might be missed by other readers.

[Harmony Blue]

7. Ego has been attacked

[HardTimes99]

10. Syria will be fully entitled to attack our ships and other assets in the region, even before

the infamous cruise missiles are launched, under the theory that she has a right to self defense in the face of an imminent attack. That is, unless there is a U.N. Security Council resolution.

[truedelphi]

12. Why is an attack on Syria not legal ???

After all, the Constitution says that the only valid reason for war is to respond to a strike upon our nation.

And why does it state that in the Constitution? Because the colonists who wrote the document were clearly aware of how the King would continually engage the nation of Great Britain in war, so as to have the ability to have kickbacks from the National Treasury whenever this happened. This perpetuated the debt that the average citizen owed.

Our Founding Fathers wanted the citizens of this new land to avoid that indebtedness.

[h2][font color=red]Please someone explain how we are to pay for this? We still have not paid the Six Trillion Dollars for Iraq II and Afghanistan!![/h2][/font color=red]

Raiding Social Security is only going to get the One Percent and their puppets some 2.4 trillions of dollars. Does anyone think the Chinese are going to keep lending us money to fight wars, and in this case, fight their ally?

[Sanddog42]

17. "After all, the Constitution says that the only valid reason for war is to respond to a strike upon"

That's interesting. Where does the Constitution say that?

[truedelphi]

18. Article One stipulates the powers of Congress -

Article Two stipulates the powers of the President.

The framers of the Constitution offer Congress and only Congress the ability to declare war.

Why is that? Because there was a great fear on the part of the framers of the document that the President's office might, over time, degrade into the power spot such that it would come to resemble the British monarchy.

And these same men knew that the monarchs had throughout history gone and declared war, for whatever purposes they needed, including simply the right to demand more in taxes and therefore add vast sums to the treasury (Which as kings they were in charge of overseeing.)

By putting the matter of war into the hands of the Congress, there would be more public input into the situation.

And the theory of these men held up for almost 160 years. Until our entry into the civil war in Korea, the only wars that this nation fought had to do with our being attacked. (The attack on the Lusitania and one other ship, events that caused the lives of American passengers, along with a great deal of propaganda about thee events, led to our entry in WWI, on the side of Britain and France.)

However, the massive and intense hold that the MIC/Surveillance State has over both the Legislative Branch and the Executive branch has led to the many war and military actions that we have embarked upon since the Korean War. Eisenhower warned us of the coming endless wars, with his speech of Jan 1961. As an experienced Army man,he saw that what was happening was that those who were running big defense firms had the ability to buy the needed wars, so that contracts could be drawn up and so that profits could be made.

[Sanddog42]

19. Oh, okay.

So the Constitution doesn't actually say that the only valid reason for war is to respond to a strike upon our nation.

[truedelphi]

20. Just as the legalese surrounding the ability of police to enforce

Stop signs and stop lights might not mention the need to deter accidents.

And some might argue the only reason for the stop lights and stop signs is so communities can fleece drivers with fines when they forget to observe them. (Since the legalese will mention the fines and penalties, such as jail time.)

That argument doesn't destroy the reason for the stop lights and signs for existing in the first place.

[Sanddog42]

22. True. You mis-spoke, but that doesn't diminish your point.

[HereSince1628]

13. Depends...Who is "US"? Perhaps, people with whom we share a universal right?

We would at least have membership in the same rights club.

I am not much for U.S. military action. But I'm really opposed to military action whose objectives can't be stated as something that brings a value in redeemed universal rights to the Syrian people who belong to the class that has been harmed and may be harmed again.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. By using chemical weapons in violation of international law and norms

Syria has become a threat to the international community. It's in our national security interests and the security interests of the rest of the world to see that the use of chemical weapons is punished. Syria has not attacked America; Syria has attacked the idea of a peaceful international community.

I'm fully aware of the recent revelations of America's complicity in Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. Someone should be punished for that. I fully support America destroying all chemical weapon stockpiles we have and becoming signatories of the land mine treaty. I would support these actions being a prerequisite to an attack on Syria. But I also see Obama's point.

[truedelphi]

21. Funny how the UN's finding that Israel used Chem Weapons against a

Palestinian refugee camp is not brought up by our President right now.

Just as it was totally ignored by Mainstream Media back in 2009 when the report came out.

[malaise]

16. Don't you know that your government is making up the laws

since 9/11