Should the UN intervene in Syria.  Obviously, as some have pointed out about the situation in Libya, the Syria leader is a dictator.  He is brutal in repression of his people.  He has torture chambers.  He has decimated cities.  The reports so far are numbering above one thousand innocent civilians killed, thousands more arrested and whole urban populations surrounded by the Army.  Yet, no Security Council resolution?  No French and British, Canadian and USA demand for NATO bombs and USA Cruise missile attacks?  So, let’s see!  The Libyan situation was worse?  I think not.  Or, the Libyan dictator was more brutal.  No?  Oh, it must be that the Libyan civilian population is more worthy of foreign intervention via NATO and the Syrians are not? (Are Syrian civilian dead less valuable than Libyan civilian dead?) Or maybe there is no ready-made French and British dominated government in exile residing in London or Paris?  Or maybe the foreign oil companies are not interested in Syrian oil fields?  So, what is it about selective foreign military intervention that makes the Libyan foray legitimate and any other is suspect?  Some would say that the UN which is a peace keeping institution has to first okay foreign nations who want to war against other member nations?  Does that make UN a world government?   What about the rule of law.  Does the rule of Law apply to War between the sovereign governments ( that usually includes dictatorships< surprise surprise>!) or does the rule of law apply only to some countries and not others?  In the case of the USA, the silence of the Congress on the deployment of USA military assets into the war against Libya is troubling. Estimates are the war cost the US taxpayers one billion dollars.  What did it cost Canada?  What did Germany pay?  What about Russia, or Australia?  Is only the USA the moral policeman and the beleaguered US taxpayer the only ones who must pay up for wars to free the poor down trodden people of  South West Asia (the USA military designation for the areas involved).? The moral case can be made for UN intervention in many places. This writer is completely in favor of the defeat of brutal dictatorships wherever they are to be found.  None the less, the argument made in these posts concerns the serendipitous pursuit of illogical and capricious foreign policy.  I am a citizen of the USA so my opinions regarding Sarkozy and Cameroon are those of an outsider, although under the rubrics of critics they would be allowed under the concepts of one world order.  However, the main concerns are:  US foreign adventurism by the USA administration; the lack of USA Congressional authority for the deployment and use of USA military assets in the obvious pursuit of war by one sovereign State against another, (the UN does not have authority to okay US deployment of weapons of Mass destruction ( that is not only nuclear bombs but includes Cruise Missiles, A-10 anti personnel aircraft); UN mandate or no, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance fare exceeded the UN resolution 1973 when it (as the Brits said) “…pursued the obvious extension and logical conclusion of resolution 1973…which is the defeat and destruction of the Gaddafi Government…”  By the way this writer was in the US Army for thirty years and has witnessed the lethal nature of bombs, missiles and the A10.  These are not exact (pin point) weapons.  When they are used they may indeed hit the target but the blow up effect is wide and in the case of the bombs and missiles anyone within thousands of feet to the impact area would be killed or at the least very seriously injured.  Since the UN okayed the effort and NATO launched at least five hundred missile attacks and thousands of bomb runs and thousands of strafing attacks, are we to suppose that zero civilians were killed?