“Nancy Pelosi suggests that the U.S. should bomb Syria to save children. Does the U.S. have a right to defend children in Syria by bombing government installations? Even if some international lawyers devised some new sort of argument in support of U.S. bombing by basing it on some humanitarian rationale, the U.S. would still have a very difficult case to make. The U.S. has basically forfeited even such an imagined or hypothetical right by its earlier actions of supporting the rebel side. If it bombs Syria now, it is part of a pattern of having chosen the rebel side.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/do-humanitarian-concerns-give-the-u-s-a-right-to-bomb-syria/
Related posts:
Committing War Crimes is a Duty; Reporting Them is a Felony
How Heartless, How Cold Is Lindsey Graham?
Glenn Greenwald: What Foreign Policy “Debate” Means on “Face the Nation”
Bill Bonner: Aiming for Aristotle’s Head
The Real New Hope for the Global Middle Class
A century bond? Just think what can happen in 100 years
Nine Reasons Why Bombing Syria Is Not an Act of Justice
FT 'Explains' the Decline and Fall of the West
Continued EU Weakness Gives Rise to Two Inflationary Trends
Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria
Why “Tapering” Will Not Go Smoothly — and What That Means for Bonds and Stocks
Government Tattoo Statists of America
German Study: Tax Competition and Fiscal Decentralization Limit Income Redistribution
Personal Retirement Accounts Are Great only if You Can Stop Confiscation
Peter Schiff: The real fiscal cliff