“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:
Dot-Coms and Bonds Aren’t So Different after All
Ron Paul: "People Are Waking Up"
Bill Bonner: What if Mr. Summers weren't so brilliant, after all?
Would A Higher Minimum Wage Help McDonald's Workers?
Is the U.S. the World’s Moral Authority as Obama Thinks?
Bill Bonner: No Real Recovery Without "Hitting Bottom" First...
Sheldon Richman: Why Assad Isn’t “Our Son of a Bitch”
The Left’s New Attack on Self Insurance: Obamacare Sleaze?
"Why does Anyone in this City Need a Gun?"
Interview With Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor
Public Sector Pensions Are a National Issue
QE3: A Risky Ploy to Solve the Problems of Bad Fiscal Policy with Bad Monetary Policy
Timing the Bottom
Kafka’s America: Secret Courts, Secret Laws, and Total Surveillance
Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed