A significant achievement of the human race: It succeeded in banning chemical weapons.

[TM99]

9. From all of your posts on the subject

you appear to be someone who takes very seriously this convention. You consider it a very important international law. You seem to want it to be enforced assuming that if it is not, then it will not be an effective deterrent to future abuses.

So you sound, I guess I would say, legalistic about it.

So then why do you support a unilateral attack on Syria by the United States which also would violate an international law? Unless attacked, we have no legal standing for this attack. Unless given authorization by the UNSC, we are in violation of international law, yet again, for attacking a sovereign nation.

If we are going to follow the rules of international law, then shouldn't we do so not selectively as it serves our own national interests but rather uniformly and with respect to all of the international laws that come to bear on this and other situations involving WMD's?