Does the Bush-Cheney Iraq precedent allow Syria to attack our ships in the Red and Mediterranean

[HardTimes99]

Seas legally without a U.N. Security Council resolution? IIRC, under existing international law, countries that face a threat of imminent attack are legally entitled to attack in self-defense without getting prior U.N. approval.

If Syria becomes convinced the U.S. will attack (either before or after the Congresssional resolution), i.e., that the threat is imminent, will she attack us preemptively? Or will she just passively lie there and take her 'punishment'?

Let's hope that cooler heads than those of McInsane and Graham prevail on the Syrian side. Not holding my breath.

[doc03]

1. That only counts when we feal treatened I beleive n/t

[HardTimes99]

2. Saddam put up a "Beware of Dog" sign but had no dog. Syria actually

has à few dogs, I think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. You're blaming the Republicans when the President is begging them to sign on to his mistake?

[HardTimes99]

4. Oh, I blame the Republicans for most of what has gone badly wrong in this country since at

least January, 1981 (with assists here and there from sadly misguided Dems). But in this case, I think I'm trying to point out that Syria is under no absolute obligation to just sit passively and await our attack, not if I understand international law correctly. IOW, if Obama doesn't go the UN Security Council to get a resolution, Syria will be within her rights under international law to attack our ships and assets in theater preemptively.

[HardTimes99]

5. One self-kick for the mid- and late-morning crew. - n/t

[JRLeft]

6. It's a legitimate excuse if they follow the Bush Doctrine.

[HardTimes99]

7. I don't think Syria is required to wait for our attack to act in her legitimate self defense. But

far be it from me to rain on the war-mongering parade today.

[eissa]

8. Rules only apply to us, the rest can go scratch. n/t