happen, but it seems strange/funny/laughable that the same people that chanted
no blood for oil, etc will soon be supporters in another war.
Yet again without UN support, but this time without congressional support.
Lavrov said military intervention against the government without the approval of the United Nations would be a “gross violation of international law.”
He made the comments at a press conference only hours after Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that an international response to the Syrian crisis would be possible without unanimous U.N. Security Council backing.
I really don't care if the UN supports an action or is opposed, but after all of the problems
in the oughts, the only way we should fight a war is by having a vote of congress that
specifically says "War". The congressional vote supporting the Iraq war turned into farce
afterwards when most people that voted for it said "I didn't vote for war".
It might be the morally correct thing to do to destroy tyrants and avenge people killed by
WMD. I certainly thought so during the Iraq war. But our political system doesn't
support war to the knife that is not in our vital interests. Just bombing from a distance
is immoral, and if we don't have the will and resources to do the whole thing, then it's
better to do nothing. (the whole thing being the beginning and the aftermath.)
Armies break things and kill people. If we aren't willing to have things broken and killed,
even by accident, then we shouldn't use the army unless it's in our interest. The way that
should be judged is by a declaration of war.
That the opposition to the war in 2003 was just politics is shown by the same people
(democrats, French) saying UN approval isn't needed now, but it was needed then.