- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Whose lives? Why do you want to expend our blood and treasure when we have no dog in this fight?
What is our vital national interest? Are you really that willing to take actions that could result in killing our Russian friends? And what happens when they respond by sinking the warships that fire the cruise missiles?
If we take this idiotic action so the idiot in the White house (and you) can feel good about yourselves are you telling me that there will be NO MORE KILLING?
Of course there will still be killing. This is a job for the United Nations, not the United States. The government using chemical weapons on it's citizens breaks international law established by the UN in the Geneva convention.
The U.S. has no legal basis for its action in Syria, but that won’t stop us from going in anyhow. - Slate Magazine
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which Syria ratified) and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 (which Syria has not ratified) ban the use of chemical weapons, but do not authorize countries to attack other countries that violate these treaties. The United States has no more authority to attack Syria for violating these treaties than it does to bomb Europe for giving import preferences to Caribbean banana producers in violation of international trade law. At one time, countries could use military force as “countermeasures” against treaty violators, but only against violators that harmed the country in question—and Syria has not used chemical weapons against the United States—but in any event, that rule has been superseded by the U.N. Charter.