Excellent question!

[markpkessinger]

Tweeted by Kevin Jon Heller, Professor of Criminal Law, University of London, SOAS:

[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"](1/2) If the US gets to attack Syria to vindicate the fundamental international rule against chemical weapons, doesn't that mean other -- Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) -- September 4, 2013

[blockquote class="twitter-tweet"](2/2) states get to attack the US to vindicate the (even more) fundamental international rule against the illegal use of force? -- Kevin Jon Heller (@kevinjonheller) -- September 4, 2013

[markpkessinger]

1. kick

[99Forever]

2. A very good question, indeed.

Limitedstrikemongers?

Step up to plate and take a swing or two.

[markpkessinger]

3. And note the deafening silence . . .

. . . from the war apologists!

[99Forever]

4. I've tried repeatedly to get answers out of the ...

... "limited strike" sales personnel at least a half dozen times. I get nothing except dumbassed diversion attempts. It's exactly the same crap game played by the Idiot Son's minions in the lead up to the Iraq debacle.

Strange coincidence, eh?

[HardTimes99]

5. Syria gets to attack our ships and other assets and personnel (Incirlik) under the right

to self-defense in the face of any imminent military threat.

I wonder if Kerry and his lickspittles will call it 'war' after one of our ships is sunk.