When we are discussing the issue of Syria bombardment, it is a good idea to address these questions separately:
1. Justification (legal and moral).
-a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons?
-b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value?
-c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN?
2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large).
-a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments?
-b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties?
1. Justification
1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved.
1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1]
1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2]
During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN.
Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this).
If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3]
As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution.
2. Consequences
2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."
And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4]
2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict?
There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation.
From Medialens.org:
"As we have discussed, many of the alleged horrors said to justify Nato's assault - Gaddafi's use of vicious foreign mercenaries and Viagra-fuelled mass rape, his planned massacre in Benghazi - were sheer invention. The violent chaos that has befallen Libya since Nato's war, however, is very real."
You have a non-extremist link that shows Gadaffi to be a democratic humanitarian? :-)
Ahh, I forgot... all the large media with the best reputation (NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc) are in on the conspiracy!
The only countries supporting the horrible regimes of Libya and Syria are non-democratic (let's face it, Putin can't lose an election). Are you proud of the company?
Nobody said Gadafi was a humanitarian, he was monstrous as far as I know. The point was that the attack was justified using several unsubstantiated but widely-publicized-as-fact claims.
1. What says it was your hated USA that lied and not the locals? (In Syria, US, France and Israel agrees.) The first thing that dies in a war is the truth -- e.g. the Internet is full of people arguing exactly the same conspiracies as only brutal dictators. Like you.
2. It is really easy to go to a muslim tribe society with honour killings and ask people if they or their relatives were raped a year earlier.
pipy, you ignored my answer and jumped in much later. Please use one account. :-)
Some general notes:
A. You are [also] not going to acknowledge how straight out evil the mass murderers, rapists, torturers and thieves are in the junta?
B. You ignore that French and Israeli intelligence corroborates the chemical attack from Assad. France is seldom in lockstep with the USA...
>>As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime.
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
I don't believe you are intellectually honest here. These obvious points slaughter your argument that it is better to let mass murdering torturers get away with it.
And about USA...
The foreign policy of democracies are about as much realpolitik as the foreign policy of dictators (and they also lie about it), except for two things:
1. When the home opinion cares. This is getting larger with time, especially after the Cold War.
2. When it doesn't cost money or influences badly on important interests.
But... the USA has argued/pressured for the democratization of the Middle East a long time. (See TFA, which has an old example.) It is just stupid to argue as if they are pure evil. ("Pure incompetent/stupid"? Maybe.)
(A note: If you think Pinochet was one of the worst dictators you're confused. A few thousand dead, a few tens of thousands tortured. Go check the really bad dictators... like the Assad clan. Supported only by non-democracies. And people like you. How does that feel?)
I will reply in the coming days. Too much work, no time for research today. The one thing I'd like to say is that I haven't yet found the documents that would support your thesis about the human rights record of Bashar Al Assad, especially the numbers of his victims.
Also, too bad, US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes. At least, I haven't found any documents that support this. If you and US government are so sure that the bombing of Syria is for the better, I think that you should provide documented arguments in support of your position.
(Also note that the present dictator isn't the first one in the family to use artillery on cities...)
>>US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
Again: I just don't think you're intellectually honest.
First, I would reiterate some of my points and supplement them with new information. Then I would comment on your concerns. The last part of my message will be my response to your ad-hominem points.
1. Lack of evidence.
>You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything.
The members of US Congress who have seen the classified evidence about Syria gas attacks and say that it fails to prove anything. [1]
The BBC article that you've linked to has also no proof whatsoever, just allegations from Mr Cameron, who, by the way, has just failed to convince the House of Commons. If you would take the time, as I did, and randomly scan through the discussion in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [2], you would hear yourself that the same arguments that I have already made in this discussion were voiced by many of it's members. I guess, that now you've got to accuse the US Congressmen and the members of the UK House of Commons of being intellectually dishonest and pro-Putin shilling?
2. Lack of humanitarian project, disregard for consequences, lack of a clear humanitarian objective.
I already have provided the argument that the number of civilians killed during the three weeks of bombardments of Kosovo was higher than the number of Milosevic victims, that were supposed to be the cause for bombardments. And that doesn't even include the number of Serb civilians that were killed by various organized Albanian groups afterwards.
The bombing of Syria has no humanitarian goals whatsoever. There is no assessment of potential civilian casualties, no roadmap for resolution. [3]
3. You seem to claim that keeping Bashar-Al-Assad in power is somehow worse than allowing him to continue being in power, but there's no evidence that supports this.
The mere idea that you seem to infer that you should first take action(bomb a country, kill people), and weight the consequences of the action after you've already made it, defies logic.
The most authoritative document on Syrian death toll provided by UN suggests that there is total of 92,901 dead, predominantly males (as of June 2013). The number includes combatants and non-combatants. [4] The document also states that the current data makes it hard to make a distinction. There is no data on the number of victims of Bashar-Al-Assad that would support that he is worse than Pinochet. The document by HRW that you've provided states that the Assad regime has made about 25,000 documented detentions (as of June 22, 2012) [5].
As we also know, the US, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey all have been pouring weapons and foreign fighters into Syria for a number of time, which is to say that they must be held accountable for their fair share of a total death toll.
Let's suppose that the Bashar-Al-Assad is worse than Pinochet, just for the sake of the argument. How come would it justify bombing Syria into oblivion? There is no such thing as being partly pregnant. If you know anything about military, there is no such thing as `limited strikes`.
4. Why is US disregarding the peace talks and doesn't push for ceasefire?
We oppose any foreign military intervention in Syria under any pretext, because it does not serve the Syrian aspiration for freedom and justice. Instead it will exacerbate the crisis, and push the parties of the armed conflict to escalate their armed actions, and push them to use the worst of weapons. А statement made by part of the Syrian opposition. [6]
5. Your posts contain ad-hominem attacks and too much of hand-waving instead of informed arguments.
You have already accused me of 1) paid shilling, 2) having multiple accounts, 3) intellectual dishonesty.
And your strongest argument for bombing Syria is that "OMG, Assad is a really, really bad guy and he uses WMD!" (I concur that Assad is a very bad guy, but bombing is really not enough for a plan to solve Syrian problems).
Please forgive me for the one ad-hominem attack in return to three of your's. Here's the difference between me an you: in 2003 I have participated in protests against the war in Chechnya, for a large number of years I have taken part in criticizing Russian regime. An you are engaged in blind warmongering on behalf of your ruling elites.
To quote the Bible:
“Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye? You fake, first get the log out of your own eye, and then you can see about getting the splinter out of your brother’s eye.”
I wish you all the best and, first and foremost, to do your own research instead of blindly believing your very own government.
To quote Vladimir Lenin, "if you're not interested in politics, sooner or later, politics would be interested in you".
I hope this won't be the case for you and your loved ones, and that you're life won't be taken neither in any new imperialist war waged by your government in your name, nor in any of the terrorist fallouts that usually come afterwards.
I wrote an answer, but removed it. I repeat my only argument regarding motivation from the GP comment, for the THIRD time. You seem to have missed answering it?
This is hardly new for you. Almost the same argument is presented by the Obama administration whenever anyone there gives an interview.
(I'll post my original comment when/if you finally talk about my answer to your position.)
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time.
You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it...
(Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.)
Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bombing it? Not up to me. What do you want me to oppose? The case that has never been made?
Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again:
1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action)
2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it.
3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals.
During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal.
There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it.
No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated?
I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal.
I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment.
After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments.
BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization.
1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration).
2. You write about everything else.
3. I ask for an answer time and again.
4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument.
5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me!
6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer.
Isn't the above true? Well, finally answer the argument:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
----------------
And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories:
>>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America
So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad.
(And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)
Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. That's why: you and US propose an action with an obscure goal and of obscure scope. Actually, not even an action, but a first step of an obscure sequence of actions the second step of which is unknown. Furthermore, there is no concrete statements or documents that allow us to link the proposed action (however obscure it may be) to the proposed goal (however obscure it may be).
It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person.
What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place.
My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case.
!!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!!
As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future.
-------
I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.
>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all.
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
>>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case
You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support.
Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write:
"So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad."
I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write!
For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough.
(I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)
I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time.
There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text.
a). You're a troll.
b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory.
c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality).
I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c).
So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep.
(I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.
What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it?
Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :)
At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts.
I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.
>> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.
>>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion?
pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way):
>> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such.
(The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.)
I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment:
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
[And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]
You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1].
You keep calling me a liar, when all of my statements are supported by extensive footnotes with verifiable evidence. You keep calling me a Putin and Assad shill, when in fact none of the footnotes that I've provided point to pro-Russian, or pro-Assad sources.
At this point discussion with you becomes pointless, since it is the basic logic itself that you don't follow.
On the point of your note about calling the police: IMO, this is a hilarious, `fahrenheit-451-esque` statement. Or, I should say, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
>> You see, all of the "trivial points" that you mention in the link above are all assumptions on your side, but not facts [1].
I've answered similar garbage repeatedly, so I'll just quote myself:
"As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!"
>>basic logic itself that you don't follow
I answered that before too, another quote of myself: "That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better."
The admins seems to have stopped me answering pipi. I have already written the same answers repeatedly to the troll's "points" about why he doesn't need to answer mine/Obama's motivation for bombing.
1. Justification (legal and moral).
-a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons?
-b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value?
-c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN?
2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large).
-a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments?
-b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties?
1. Justification
1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved.
1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1]
1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2] During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN.
Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this).
If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3]
As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution.
2. Consequences
2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."
And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4]
2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_c...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-st...
P.S.
There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation.
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321200