“I would guess since the all these “revolutions” are manufactured.”
I don’t doubt the revolution was “manufactured”, but that doesn’t preclude chemical weapons use. Both can be true.
It’s too perfect an excuse for intervention, IMHO, to be true, i.e., it’s too convenient.
The “evidence” I heard was ridiculously flimsy, i.e., “traces” of a substance found.
All I hear out of Euro and American news sources is constant propoganda, women and children hurt, mass terror from gov’t troops, bomb hit hospital, etc. When I hear similar chants from news sources every few minutes for weeks, it tells me it’s not a real story. The sky is falling, big emergency, we need to intervene ! Pffff.
Not only in Syria, but ALL countries with these revolutions.
Fake human rights stories, chemical weapons stories - that’s what’s used to justify using US/UK/FR military to provide a key knockout punch.
IMHO, every government would put down a revolution - including the US. No one made us, the UK, France, etc., ruler over the King of Syria, where he only serves as long as we want him to serve.
The whole international “responsibility to act” idea neglects to worry about a crucial question - what if the revolution is caused by factions from outside the country in revolt ? What if it’s actually connected to the “intervening country” ? That’s basically an internationally-sanctioned, coup d’etat of external origins, or an act of war. I don’t support the US President taking it upon himself to jump into foreign wars or rebellions without a Declaration of War.
The necessity for a Declaration of War in the US is basically out the window with the rest of the Constitution.
Nothing in our Constitution says that if a foreign government uses a certain weapon in putting down a revolt that the US President is then automatically authorized to use the US military to jump into the revolution on the side of the rebels.
Just my HO...