First US special forces to be deployed in Syria

[Publicus]

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla

Link to international law please

Done.

no, a link to the actual law. Not more drivel from a newssite

The posts and links present the various aspects of international law. This is in contrast to rightwing law which is primary school clear, absolute, precise, exact. fixed on its single point, unchanging, unchangable.

Anyone who wants to read the literal text of international law verbatim can Google it or hire a professional reader of law..

In the meantime there is also this: http://www.readwrite...hrough-139.html

[FritsSikkink]

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria, the Iraqi government requested support from the US Coalition to counter the Daesh invasion of it's territory and assist with reestablishing border control. A component of the effort would be to destroy Daesh in situ in Syria. I believe the legal justification is based upon the assistance requested by Iraq.

"The idea of establishing the rule of law internationally is that states are primarily responsible for controlling violence within their own borders, but that international law provides means for addressing threats to international peace and security when that fails".

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ungoverned-space-us-request-to-join-fight-in-syria-carries-legal-risk-20150826-gj7wxm.html#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

bla bla bla

Link to international law please

Done.

no, a link to the actual law. Not more drivel from a newssite

The posts and links present the various aspects of international law. This is in contrast to rightwing law which is primary school clear, absolute, precise, exact. fixed on its single point, unchanging, unchangable.

Anyone who wants to read the literal text of international law verbatim can Google it or hire a professional reader of law..

In the meantime there is also this: http://www.readwrite...hrough-139.html

So you can't find this law you keep refering to. No surprise here.

[Publicus]

el, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan administration about the [u.S.-Turkey-Saudi-Qatari-backed] rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’.

http://web.archive.org/

Seymour Hersh’s News Report Banned in U.S., Is Finally Confirmed in Turkey

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

It is a blog and it may not have happened exactly as Hersh describes but his version is more believable that what the MSM has spread.

there are plenty of side links if you are interested.

Some rightwingers need to expand their limited ground of interests to include above all else reality. You would also need to provide the consequence of the rather unstable religious fanatic Erdogan's communication to Gen Dempsey (now retired) and the then SecDef Hegel. As for Seymour Hersh, he is highly controversial as not much that he has published over the past 20 years has much panned out in the final analysis.

So let's go on with facing the music over there on the far out fringes.....

The first link testifies concerning why Putin came to the rescue of Bashir Assad and his badly fractured regime, thus overshadowing Iran which had been Assad's only crutch.

Assad had been pleading to Tehran to roll over an overdue $3 billion loan Assad used up for food and electricity etc while begging Tehran for another $6 billion of loans to support his dwindling army which had shrunk to 80,000 from its 300,000 of four years ago. Tehran offered $1 billion more which didn't cut it. That is another factor that caused Vlad the Bomber to step in, also at the urging of a beleaguered Tehran.

The first link..........

Tide of Syria civil war turns against Assad as rebels make sweeping gains

Bashar al-Assad's regime, reduced to dependence on Iran, appears to be fracturing under the pressure of recent defeats

16 May 2015

http://www.telegraph...ping-gains.html

ISIS do not have my support but here's how close it and other rebel forces were in Damascus to Assad's palaces:

Isis is now just three miles away from the Syrian President's Presidential Palace

http://www.belfastte...s-31125422.html

Here's some more about Assad's palaces in Damascus under rebel seige:

A Syrian rebel group known as the Army of Islam launched a rocket attack against Syria’s capital of Damascus. It was the worst strike against the city in over a year, killing seven people.

The rockets came from the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, a rebel stronghold. Activists claimed the rockets landed in several neighborhoods, including Malki where the presidential palace is located.

http://www.inquisitr...s-seven-killed/

Putin jumped in to the Syrian civil war because his pal Assad had been losing all year to the new strategies and cooperation adopted by the diverse rebel forces. The conflict had begun to spiral out of Assad's capabilities.

Assad's army had shrunk to fewer than 100,000 from the 300,000 at the start of the Assad crackdown against Syrian activists in 2011. Rebels this year captured army and air force bases while routing Assad forces across the board. Assad's palaces were being shelled by rebel artillery situated in suburbs of Damascus.

Putin threw the switch for direct military involvement when Assad had to abandon his recently developed backup plans to relocate the president's office to the ultimate Alawite stronghold of Latakia on the Med coast because rebels had got within artillery range of it.

Throughout the year, the myriad of rebel forces have had unprecedented cooperation which is not to claim they sing kumbaya around a campfire every night. The successful new strategy has been to shift from attacking populated and defended cities to instead taking control of infrastructure connecting and linking the cities to their sources of supplies and to one another. Rebels have seized territory to control roads, rail lines, corridors of transportation and communication to include airports and air force bases. This has isolated a significant number of cities and forced Assad's military out of the urban areas into the open countryside where they get ambushed and routed.

Given that Moscow and the Assad family in Damascus have been in bed together for a long time, Putin made his move. And the fanboyz have been cheering and hooting it up since. It is however a long way from overwith in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

I was making a simple point. Not necessarily a right wing point. One in which there is logic and evidence. Why would Assad or anybody else for that matter gas his own people knowing it would bring the wrath of the west? It is simply not likely. There is much evidence, beside the idea that is a stupid move, and he is in trouble for all the obvious reasons but not stupid enough to invite western attacks simply to kill 1,200 of his own people which would surely read into the western end game.

There is quite a bit of evidence that points to the Turks and very little if any that points to Assad.

All well and good to make a simple point. It's undocumented opinion and that is common and broadly accepted a such, but not much more than that. It's a rather obscure point and thought anyway. No matter.

[Publicus]

no, a link to the actual law. Not more drivel from a newssite

The posts and links present the various aspects of international law. This is in contrast to rightwing law which is primary school clear, absolute, precise, exact. fixed on its single point, unchanging, unchangable.

Anyone who wants to read the literal text of international law verbatim can Google it or hire a professional reader of law..

In the meantime there is also this: http://www.readwrite...hrough-139.html

So you can't find this law you keep refering to. No surprise here.

I see you are a Republican.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Publicus

[vogie]

Does this mean half the Bars in Pattaya are now empty,

Your getting mixed up. The bars will be empty when the SAS put boots on the ground.

The SAS are pussys compared to the SBS, The SBS are usualy the first on the scene, They have won more medals than the SAS and you never hear about them.

SAS motto, knowledge dispels fear, SBS By stealth and guile.

Thanks for sharing that pile of garbage, SAS Motto 'who dares wins'.

[farmerjo]

I hope these guys don't need gas.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/29980058/us-military-wasted-43m-on-compressed-natural-gas-station/

[simple1]

@FritsSikkink.

Might be a good idea to clarify what your actual concern is. It's often the case that law is behind the eight ball regards international security threats which requires individual countries to apply their own specifically developed legal justification & doctrine to support their actions. Do you not wish for proactive action be taken to diminish the very real immediate threat of Daesh or would you rather wait for lawyers to hash out the fine detail while thousands die, are tortured and sexually abused.

Getting back to your demand I believe the basics were addressed in post #50, e.g....

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

The US attacks Syria because of Iraq's self defense. The BS generator is making overtime.

Daesh forces do not recognise the Syrian border with Iraq so it would be incumbent on the US & coalition forces to assist Iraq by attacking Daesh infrastructure and forces within the 'ungoverned' territory of Syria.

[FritsSikkink]

@FritsSikkink.

Might be a good idea to clarify what your actual concern is. It's often the case that law is behind the eight ball regards international security threats which requires individual countries to apply their own specifically developed legal justification & doctrine to support their actions. Do you not wish for proactive action be taken to diminish the very real immediate threat of Daesh or would you rather wait for lawyers to hash out the fine detail while thousands die, are tortured and sexually abused.

Getting back to your demand I believe the basics were addressed in post #50, e.g....

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

The US attacks Syria because of Iraq's self defense. The BS generator is making overtime.

Daesh forces do not recognise the Syrian border with Iraq so it would be incumbent on the US & coalition forces to assist Iraq by attacking Daesh infrastructure and forces within the 'ungoverned' territory of Syria.

As Mexico has problems with drugcartels, we will start bombing mexicans and their infrastructure in the US to help with the Mexican war on drugs.

[Publicus]

@FritsSikkink.

Might be a good idea to clarify what your actual concern is. It's often the case that law is behind the eight ball regards international security threats which requires individual countries to apply their own specifically developed legal justification & doctrine to support their actions. Do you not wish for proactive action be taken to diminish the very real immediate threat of Daesh or would you rather wait for lawyers to hash out the fine detail while thousands die, are tortured and sexually abused.

Getting back to your demand I believe the basics were addressed in post #50, e.g....

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense.

The US attacks Syria because of Iraq's self defense. The BS generator is making overtime.

Daesh forces do not recognise the Syrian border with Iraq so it would be incumbent on the US & coalition forces to assist Iraq by attacking Daesh infrastructure and forces within the 'ungoverned' territory of Syria.

As Mexico has problems with drugcartels, we will start bombing mexicans and their infrastructure in the US to help with the Mexican war on drugs.

Didn't see Mexico mentioned at all in the OP.

Good to know however someone is on the case to spot any ISIS south of the border way. Bomb the crap out of 'em as the post suggests.