This is an excellent, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READ, from the Jerusalem Post. Check it out!
Creating a case defending Western intervention in the fight against Assad | JPost | Israel News.
The article examines the legal justification for international military intervention in Syria.
For me, the legal basis looks a bit flaky, so it will be interesting to see how the US, France and the UK strengthen the case for military intervention.
Any thoughts?
Coat of arms of Syria — the “Hawk of Qureish” with shield of vertical tricolor of the national flag, holding a scroll with the words الجمهورية العربية السورية (Al-Jumhuriyah al-`Arabiyah as-Suriyah “The Syrian Arab Republic”). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Related articles
Dr Alf's Blog 
There is no legal case whatsoever because the Assad regime enjoys the confidence of 2/3rds of his people and the violence originally came from outside using American, British and French special forces to arm and train assorted Muslim fanatics financed by Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are hardly models of democracy and tolerance.
Effectively we are attempting to invade Syria using proxy forces and mercenaries to usurp a nasty but legitimate Government that stands in our way of bigger geo-strategic objectives, namely controlling Eurasia.
The case strengthening that Dr Alf refers to is only possible if Bashir Assad commits so many war crimes that he loses his mandate to govern and his people decide to overthrow him.
Regardless of what he has supposedly done, that has not happened so Syrians must be left alone to determine what happens in their own country.
What will happen in practice is that the case will not be strengthened but we will pretend it has been on the basis of fabricated evidence as happened with Iraq and Vietnam, 20 years ago and 50 years ago respectively.
The Jerusalem Post needs to consider its own position about rocket attacks from what is now left of Palestine which used to be much bigger prior to 1947 than it is now due to many of its people being forcibly removed to make way for new Jewish settlements and then made to live as refugees. The justification for this is that God gave this land to them as part of a covenant. Of course, it is not God that prevents Israel slipping into the hands of others but American military power and the American taxpayer. This has been going on for years to the point where no American President can be elected without the rubber stamp of the Jewish lobby, APAC and newspapers representing their interests.
Israel’s policy on Syria is that it wants it to be removed as a potential threat, hence the need for the Assad regime to be “taken down” and the country broken up into Balkanised warring factions.
NATO was able to enter Kosovo because the forces that stood against it were not sufficiently powerful.
We do not like the regime in Communist China or North Korea or for that matter Russia but NATO at the moment chooses not to invade any of those countries but chooses to leave well alone whilst engaging in the occasional bout of bellicose rhetoric and longer term encirclement in a new form of Cold War.
Why is that?
Answer,they all have nuclear weapons and in the case of China we want their money and have put ourselves in a weak position by making ourselves and our businesses too reliant on cheap imports and their cheap and plentiful labour.
Technologically the Chinese have caught up with us in 4 years when our rulers and their advisors imagined that this would take 20 years.
Pingback: A Hard Look at Western Military Intervention in Syria: John Gelmini « Dr Alf's Blog