Bazz, I think your reply should read America do not care about or honor the law of sovereignty of other countries unless it suits their ultimate goal (whatever it may be in the current situation).

They will do and have done in the past whatever it takes to achieve regime change or other agendas.

Marine Le Pen at the European Parliament on Islam and terror http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO29xfBJ6KQ

Jay of Melbourne;
That speach of Marine Le Pen was very interesting.

One of the commentators down the page said;
“Islam made me do it” is no more credible than “The devil made me do
it.” If Islam is the enemy, then each Muslim is off the responsibility
hook. At Nuremberg, "I was just following orders" was an inadmissible
defense.
Each Muslim must be held accountable for allowing himself to be attached to Islam.
end quote

This I think is a valid argument. If a moslem says they do not
support what has been done they should leave Islam immediately.

Phillip S, there is no sovereignty in Syria, the Syrian government no
longer controls its land. Sovereignty is a non issue.
The residue of government around Damascus is not being attacked
except by the rebels and even parts of Damascus are occupied by the rebels.

The Syrian government would disappear tomorrow or the day after if
the Russians went home.

Hey Bazz,
I've been thinking about your argument that "it is illogical for a government that does not control its country to either grant permission or deny permission."
Maybe at some level you have a point, I want to try to argue the merits of it fairly.

Firstly, what if it was our country?
What if foreign jihadist nations put our country in their sights and somehow bumrushed our borders, overwhelmed our security measures and got a foothold in our nation, wanting to raise the IS flag?

Would you say it was ok for a foreign power to bomb our towns and cities without our permission?
What if that foreign power also opposed our government and sought to change the leadership of our nation?
Would you still think it was ok bomb our nation?

Another way...
What sort of precedent does it set if you allow nations to stop observing international law?

Say we ignore these points...
What if this ends up leading to WW3?
When the nukes are dropping, would you then admit that maybe your thoughts were misguided and that following international law might've been better - in hindsight - hypothetically?

If foreign countries stopped interfering this war could be over in a few months, the alternative is potential nuclear war.

Here's a recent interview with Assad.
http://sana.sy/en/?p=63558

Philip S
There was another alleged US airstrike in Syria yesterday killing 26 civilians.
http://youtu.be/Xj_TF73FnKA

Jay of Melbourne
Nice video. Good on her for standing up and saying what others are to gutless to say and for caring about her country...
- Even though much of her rant was probably politically incorrect in today's world.

Finally, How do you guys see this conflict eventuating?

I'm worried that as soon as coalition forces start bombing Syria properly, a British, French or US plane will get shot down (false flag) and Russia and Assad will get the blame, and the Western powers will retaliate militarily.

I can almost bet this is going to turn bad.
Neither side is going to compromise on Assad.

OTB, Is Mise and o sung wu, America has the kind of guy that would appeal to you. His name is Donald J Trump, all for guns, a redneck and the best thing politically ISIS has going for it in the US. Doing a great job of dividing the country, alienating the moderates, and the piece de resistance, when he gets into power he will start WWIII for you, as I said... your kind of guy!

AC, it makes no difference, if you cannot enforce your sovereignty
then it does not exist.
There must be dozens of cases around the world where countries lost
sovereignty of part of their country and never got it back and it is now part of another country.

Sth Sudan comes to mind.