Subscribe to Mic Daily
We’ll send you a rundown of the top five stories every day

For those of you who just got out from under your rock, headlines have been buzzing about how President Obama now has major figures in Congress supporting his plan to attack Syrian forces for their alleged use of chemical weapons. Now, there are already multiple articles on PolicyMic that tell us why this is a bad idea, but none of them have had the level of aggressive anger that this issue calls for.

I'll be frank: The United States is slowly becoming a nation that believes not only that it is the world enforcer of international law, but also that it is exempt from international law. While many (including myself) are outraged by the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, President Obama and members of Congress seem to forget that the breaking of the Geneva Protocol, while it most likely happened, still does not allow for the invasion of a nation. That would also be a grave violation of international law. Despite what interested parties want you to think, there isn't much of a real legal case for attacking Syria (lawyers are still searching for a case to make). The case for attacking the country is a purely moral one.

But really, the United States shouldn't exactly be the country making the moral argument. President Obama recently asked, "What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" But what message will the U.S. send by further violating international law? What message will the U.S. send when it selectively punishes the regime's forces but ignores the opposition's apparent use of sarin gas? Why should the nation that has gotten away with torturing children in the past 15 years be the one to punish other people who have killed children? The current United States government, like those in the past, has supported war criminals, tyrants, and violators of international law, and continues to do so (Meles Zenawi, and Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo both come to mind). Indeed, as previously mentioned in another article, the United States even covertly supported Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the 1980s. It's clear as day that not only does the United States lack the legal justification for invasion — it lacks the moral justification too.

The large number of atrocities that the American government has committed and its grave violations of international law, tell me that the United States of America cares not for international law. Given its lack of real justification for an attack, and the fact that the American government had been secretly funding opposition to undermine Assad's regime since 2006, it's clear as day that the United States' real goal is to depose a dictator that isn't supportive of American interests, and that the U.S. doesn't really care about the obvious instability that will sweep the region afterwards. This idea seems all the more likely considering that the United States is fully positioned to attack Syria before the United Nations publishes the conclusions of its report on Syrian chemical weapons.

Remember when the United States violated international law by attacking a nation without UN approval, on the basis of protecting the nation's people from a dictator using weapons of mass destruction? Better yet, do you remember how those claims were later found out to be lies concocted just to depose said dictator? We called that the "Iraq War". Obama, regardless of who perpetrated the chemical-weapons attacks, is copying his predecessor.

America has become an international tyrant, abusing its superpower status to break international law when it sees fit, and press it upon others with little opposition To me, it goes without saying that the United States poses a menace to global peace and security — one far greater than Al-Qaeda could even dream of. That, fundamentally, is why I and many other people in foreign nations are angry with the United States.

Oh, and that's without even mentioning the spying.