US changes it's stance on Assad

Not at all, under International Law we have the concept of "pre-emptive self defence", which in this case would sensibly apply justifying the use of force against DPRK by the US (South Korea and Japan).

Kim has explicitly indicated his intent to attack the US (South Korea and Japan) repeatedly, it appears he has previously attempted to attack the US (South Korea and Japan) with nuclear weapons.

It would be reasonable to invoke the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence to attack DPRK and eliminate any capacity Kim may have to attack the US (South Korea and Japan). Nothing criminal in attacking DPRK.

 

I'm not sure what the specifics are now, but the Camp David Accords long ago set up a scheme whereby Egypt received exactly the same dollar amount in US financial assistance as was issued to Israel. No doubt there are conditions, but badically that's the deal now.

 

Not incorrect ... but in a grey zone of being OK or not...

A preemptive or preventive war is a military attack that is intended to attack an attack that is alleged or actually threatened by an opponent, ie, an offensive with a defensive intention. Modern war international law allows only defense wars. This also includes preventive action when an attack is imminent, the demarcation is controversial.
Reason is that attack wars were sometimes in history propagandistically issued as a preventive war.... for example the German attack on USSR in 1941 was called to be preventive, but what was not true.

 

No- we do not. War itself is illegal. War in self-defence is, of course, legal but must never be a war of aggression in itself.

Again- attacking NK would be illegal. Firing missiles at Syria was also illegal.

" I have seen the enemy- and it is us "

 

The kidnapping by NK of japanese citizens off of their beaches was an act of war, as was the sinking of the Cheonan naval vessel. NK has ALEADY committed acts of war, if seoul was in the south of SK out of reach of the NK mortars, NK would have been obliterated decades ago.

IMO, SK should have moved its largest city to the very southern tip of the country, out of reach of NK artillery, and then struck NK with everything they had (the Japs and the US would not doubt have helped).

 

The author writes like these events were secret. They weren't. KSA and Egypt seem to have reconnected in the past 4 months.

 

I never said Egypt would side with the US.

The Suez Canal is only about 24 meters/80 feet deep. The Russians could launch anti-ship missiles and sink ships in the channel, creating blockages, rather than damaging the Canal itself.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is no statute of limitations for any one of the 1,243 hostile acts carried out by North Korea against South Korea. The US could initiate action based on the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010.

 

Hello??? Are you kidding now?

Do you really think that Egypt will do nothing when Russian military bomb / attack their Suez Channel? You can't be serious to believe such BS!

 

Not a bad weekend really. What's the ' US ' stance on Assad today ?
I haven't seen any tweets from the orange schizophrenic.

 

You should consider all possibilities. And let Egypt try to do something.