This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
The latest Washington Post pro-war screed headlines "The UN's unworkable plan for Syria," saying:
Peace and diplomatic initiatives accomplished nothing. New ones won't do any better. They give Assad "time and cover".The regime has no intention of capitulating".bloodshed will continue and probably worsen.""The fighting in Syria will end only when (Assad) is forced to stop - or he succeeds in killing his way to victory."
Comments like these endorse direct intervention. The Post itches for more war. It inverts truth as justification. It blamed victims since last year. It ignores US-sponsored death squad invaders. It calls self-defense wanton killing.
It suppressed information about NAM countries declaring support for Syrian sovereignty and opposition to Western hegemony. They condemned unilateral US sanctions. They violate UN Charter provisions and other international law principles.
They oppose any form of outside interference into the internal affairs of other nations. Doing so is blatantly illegal. International law is clear and unequivocal.
They're against Western forced no-fly zones or safe havens in Syrian territory. In mid-August, Law Professor Francis Boyle emailed this writer saying:
"Without authorization by the United Nations Security Council and express authorization from the US Congress pursuant to the terms of the War Powers Resolution, for President Obama to establish any type of so-called 'no-fly zone' over Syria would be illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable."
The same goes for safe havens in Syrian territory. They constitute ground-based no fly zones. Either or both assure war. Libya's experience proved what's incontrovertible.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
