US declares war on Syria!

Originally posted by shavixmir
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7692153.stm

Well, they would if they had any balls. Which they don't, so they didn't.
They just sneaked in and killed some kids.
Just as well they didn't sign up to the universal declaration for children's rights... 'cause that would have made them hypocrites.

"American soldiers" emerged from helicopters a ...[text shortened]... s of the children's ages.


Gotta love our friendly, neighbourhood, yankees.

As Sarah would say, Now what kind of an omlette can you make less'n ye break a few eggs, right? Now don't you worry your pretty little head about that darlin', why not have another beer to go with that mooseburger? 😉

Originally posted by Eladar
If Canada was doing nothing about it and the citizens were continuing to attack, then we would have the right to attack them in Canada.

This is a common enough problem with Islamic countries. If they can't control their population, then they are open to attack.

You don't have to use the fictitious example of Canada.
In the 70s and 80s would the UK have had the right to drop a bomb on, say, Boston?
Whatever your views on the IRA (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter), they were viewed as terrorists by the British government. They also received considerable financial, political and material support from certain factions in American society. This would also have included harbouring known terrorists. So, bomb Boston and if a few innocents are murdered along the way, well what do they expect?
Or does American reasoning not apply to America itself?

Originally posted by Eladar
If Canada was doing nothing about it and the citizens were continuing to attack, then we would have the right to attack them in Canada.

This is a common enough problem with Islamic countries. If they can't control their population, then they are open to attack.

In 1837, such a thing did happen; a ship, the Caroline, which was ferrying arms and men to aid in an insurrection in Canada was attacked on the American side of the border by British forces. According to you, the British had every right to do so. However, the US strenously objected and gave these conditions as necessary to establish the justness of such an action:

Under these circumstances, and under those immediately connected with the transaction itself, it will be for Her Majesty's Government to show, upon what state of facts, and what rules of national law, the destruction of the "Caroline" is to be defended. It will be for that Government to show a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. It will be for it to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada,- even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all,-did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be strewn that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the "Caroline" was impracticable, or would have been unavailing; it must be strewn that daylight could not be waited for; that there could be no attempt at discrimination, between the innocent and the guilty; that it would not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel; but that there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her, in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some, and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current, above the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the living with the dead, committing her to a fate, which fills the imagination with horror. A necessity for an this, the Government of the United States cannot believe to have existed.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br-1842d.asp

These principles are now called the "Caroline Test" and are an accepted part of international law. How do you think the assassination in Syria would fare under them?