“If the U.S. unilaterally bombs Syria, it can’t possibly be an act of neutral justice in response to a chemical attack. Why not? Several reasons. (1) The U.S. has supported anti-Assad (anti-Syrian) rebel forces against Assad for several years. (2) The U.S. has not been a neutral presence in that region since 1919. [..] (3) The U.S. has selected immediate violence as a response without taking the time to pursue other remedies. (4) The U.S. is threatening to act on incomplete information. (5) The existing framework of international law doesn’t allow for unilateral bombing by the U.S. or any other state. (6) Any attack may kill and wound innocent Syrians. [..] ”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/bombing-syria-is-not-an-act-of-justice/
Related posts:
Neutrality Toward Syria Is a Non-Aggressive Policy, But Obama Wants Assad Out
Atlantic Mag Shock: US No Longer Under 'Rule of Law'
Bill Bonner: A New American Century?
Why the White House Is Panicking About Obamacare
Dotcom Bites Back
Airlines Merger: Competition vs. the Great Trusts
Big Brother’s Digital House of Mirrors
Not Speedy + Not Public = Not Legal
Brazil's Central Bank Staff Goes On Strike Over Inflation
Ron Paul: Our Soldiers Kill Innocent Little Kids and Then Commit Suicide
FISA-Gate: The Plot To Destroy Our Republic
How, Exactly, Does A Travel Ban Keep Us Safe?
“Are You Willing to Die So That the CIA . . .
"Tax Justice” Report Provides Renewed Justification for Offshore Crackdown
Ron Paul: US Action in Mali is Another Undeclared War