Uh, chemical negotiations notwithstanding, we are at war with Syria. Let's not forget that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

We are not a disinterested "honest broker."

We are supplying training, funds, and arms to kill people in Syria and wage war against the Syrian government. It's official now, but who know how long the CIA has been doing it (Benghazi, anyone?).

Your tax dollars are going to kill people in Syria, which, Obama's tortured logic notwithstanding, is in no way a threat to us.

We ARE intervening military in another country's civil war. We don't have a good record when it comes to that.

[Junkdrawer]

1. the Iraq War Resolution passed in Oct. 2002. The Iraq War started March 2003...

Anyone who thinks the Syrian Drama is over is fooling themselves.

[DirkGently]

2. Correct. Thus the push for war is not a moral issue on Chemical weapons.

We're already in it as we were at the beginning of the Vietnam conflict. Advisors and weapons. And there's not signal from the WH that such will change if an agreement on CW is reached.

Maybe someone -- I don't know, a journalist? -- should ask that question.

If the CW go, are we going to stop arming and training rebels who are fighting with Al Quaeda and other radical groups?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Technically wrong. Aiding one side in a civil war is not actually being "at war".

However there are plenty of posters here beating the war drums for actually going to war, to get that war going that just got postponed.

[grahamhgreen]

6. "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will."

-von Clausewitz


Fills the bill.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I agree it is a minor point.

However as far as international laws and our treaty obligations are concerned we can pursue our objectives in Syria via proxies in their civil war without violating our treaty obligations. We cannot directly attack Syria, as was recently proposed, without committing a war crime at least as heinous as the alleged chemical weapons attack that allegedly was motivating such an act of war.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. If Assad sent Hezbollah to bomb our US armed forces trainers in Jordan, that's not war, either?

[Warren Stupidity]

11. If hezbollah used resources within Jordan, as in people living in Jordan, no.

Not as far as international treaties are concerned. Proxy wars were conducted throughout the last half of the 20th century using forces within countries without technically violating the UN charter. Of course it helps if you are a nuclear armed power conducting the proxy war, because for sure the target of your affections is going to be massively upset.

If hezbollah militias literally were sent from for example Lebanon or Syria, into Jordan, that would be an act of war, just as our sending missiles into Syria would be.

Again, it is a minor point. I only bring it up because We Stopped Complying With Our Treaty Obligations to not conduct overt war against other nations outside of a explicit UN authorization to do so.

Aiding the sunni jihadists in Syria is, to me a separate issue from overtly attacking Syria. I'm against both of them, but from different reasons.

[bvar22]

8. Wargasm Interruptus.

DURec for the OP.

[Taitertots]

4. Can a country be committing acts of war but still not be at war?

Arming opposition forces is an act of war. I think it means we are currently at war.

If they did it to us would we call it war? Yes, so we are at war with them.

[grahamhgreen]

5. No. "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will" Von Clausewitz

[Jester Messiah]

7. Dunno why we have to stick our nose into every freakin' conflict on Earth.

There's no reason why this should be any of our business at all. Wish Obama would just pull the plug on our involvement in the whole mess, but I suppose that wouldn't play well with the Military-Industrial Complex.