Here are the speeches after the Syrian Resolution veto in the United Nations from “the other side”. I know that we are not told what is happening behind the wizard’s curtain but the argument for the sovereignty of a country has merit. The Obama administration’s right to protect is not part of our country’s founding principles, Constitution or Monroe Doctrine in this case.
So let’s play the Ron Paul game by switching the scenario to our country.
1, The American people rise up to restore our nation back to the rule of law and ensure freedom for our children.
2. The Administration crushes us from the top down using Obama’s civilian force equal to the military. (We will see this top down, bottom up, inside out shortly with the American Spring)
3. Foreign nations come into the United States in order to “protect” us.
More likely, the United Nations will be called in to help the administration put down what they will call an insurrection. This is why I do not like hypothetical scenarios since the ambiguity reduces the point of the argument. So the real question is who is responsible for the rights of the people in a sovereign nation?
The people of their own country must be responsible for earning and maintaining their rights and freedom. Freedom unearned and unappreciated is soon replaced by the rule of men under the guise of the government’s “protection”. How can you tell when the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of men?