Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

Former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson has issued a statement regarding potential U.S. military intervention in Syria. It is a much stronger statement than Rand Paul's. Here is the full Johnson statement:

No one disagrees that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is despicable, and the results tragic. However, those facts alone do not make going to war either justified or even a good idea. And while the Administration can parse words all day long, launching missiles or dropping bombs constitutes going to war.

There is no clear U.S. interest in what is, in reality, a civil war on the other side of the globe. Likewise, there is nothing to indicate at this time that intervening in that civil war will benefit anyone -- either here in America or in Syria.

The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.Source

The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification..

The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification..

I never imagined this would deliciously end up making Cameron look like such a dickhead internationally.

I think it's quite telling that the two democracies who are talking about military action, are those who don't need parliamentary approval to go ahead, France and the USA.

It's the Labour Party that the Yanks will be miffed with.

It could be mere days until President Barack Obama orders strikes on Syria in response to the apparent use of chemical weapons by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad last week.

Some lawmakers say Obama can’t legally use force without a vote, as was the case prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. But it’s looking increasingly likely the president will act without waiting for authorization from Congress, just as he did in Libya two years ago.
So what, exactly, is the law?

Constitutional expert and American University professor Stephen Vladeck calls this “one of the more perversely gray areas of U.S. constitutional law.”

snip

While support from the British and from NATO would help make the case for attacking Syria in the court of public opinion both in the United States and abroad, there’s no legal requirement that Obama have international support for an attack.

Vladeck said, “So long as President Obama is complying” with the War Powers Resolution “which includes reporting to Congress within 48 hours of the onset of hostilities, it’s an uphill battle, at best, to argue that the use of force in Syria would be unlawful until and unless the War Power Resolution’s own constraints kick in.”More

Why do we have to be miffed with anyone?