I vehemently reject the idea that we can't use force without UN authorization. As a sovereign state we retain the authority to decide when to use force in our interests. You'd think that the fact that wars take place from time to time without any UN authorization would kill the idea that war can only take place under UN authority.
But fans of the UN want it to be true, and hope that by saying it enough, states will act as if it is true. Britain and American have a common basis of our law, yet in Britain victims of a home invasion cannot resist the aggressor breaking into their home without risking prosecution for resisting the home invasion. So from time to time we get stories here of how home owners are advised to sit quietly and wait for the intruder to finish and leave. Lie back and think of England, I suppose.
But here, we can defend our homes. And abroad, we can still defend our interests. Unless we foolishly decide we must lie back and think of Turtle Bay.
But I digress (as I can).
Clearly, given the silence of the president's base over bombing Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons in stunning contrast to their yapping under Bush regarding Iran's development of nuclear arms, I was not far from the mark when I predicted--in contrast to Bush's obstacles--President Obama's freedom of action to deal with Iran:
Of course, the bright side of our elections could be that the Obama administration won't face this public relations problem. Heck, he could get the Nobel Peace Prize for preemptively nuking Iran.
The world is funny that way.
Obviously, I should have said he'd get another Nobel Peace Prize. But other than that, I think I was spot on.
