Reply to Re: World Police
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I don't understand why the US feels it has this duty to be the so-called World Police. Isn't that the UN's role? Unless the US controls or overrides the UN charter. From what I've heard in this case it's illegal to charge into a sovereign country such as Syria, yet there's a moral issue to get in and stop this regime from killing the people with chemical weapons.
The conundrum is actually getting in and finding the evidence - which the UN Security Council needs to sanction any invasion - without that act being deemed illegal. Hearsay and rumour isn't enough.
It's not illegal to defend one's country if it's under attack; so Syria (even though it's apparently ruled by a cruel warlord) is entitled to defend itself if the US (or anyone) invaded.
re Shevek: maybe as Afghanistan winds down, US arms suppliers need a new 'market'? NB Russia vetoes US action, so the US could have a monopoly on arms supplies. If it does escalate, then Syria could be a buyer for Russian arms. It's the cold war all over again, except it's not so cold.
The conundrum is actually getting in and finding the evidence - which the UN Security Council needs to sanction any invasion - without that act being deemed illegal. Hearsay and rumour isn't enough.
It's not illegal to defend one's country if it's under attack; so Syria (even though it's apparently ruled by a cruel warlord) is entitled to defend itself if the US (or anyone) invaded.
re Shevek: maybe as Afghanistan winds down, US arms suppliers need a new 'market'? NB Russia vetoes US action, so the US could have a monopoly on arms supplies. If it does escalate, then Syria could be a buyer for Russian arms. It's the cold war all over again, except it's not so cold.
