Syrian MP: US decision to send troops is act of aggression

[konying]

I'm not American.

I never said you were. I said American point of view

[konying]

Sadly, he is not wrong.

US does not own Syria, nor does it have any right to support the rebels

US presence is really a violation of Syrian sovereignty, could even be interpreted as an act of war.

Equally what right has the IS to be in Syria. Is that not an act of war also?

So following your logic, because IS in Syria, US also has the right to go into Syria and back rebels?

[Publicus]

It addresses Syria period.

And some Syrian MP made the statement.

Did Bashir lose his voice? When is Bashir going to make the bogus claim himself.

And how about the Syrian foreign minister. Where's his voice. What, did he go hide in the washroom? Neither have been reported in media anywhere I've seen to have said it. Same for the Syrian representative to the United Nations. Only youze guyz who are Assad-Putin fanboyz have spoken

Maybe the bombs are too loud for us to hear 'em. Or maybe they're having a tough time being heard through their gas masks.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Publicus

[Chicog]

I'm not American.

I never said you were. I said American point of view

I don't have an American point of view. I have my own.

The US have been too weak from the beginning.

[ravip]

Anyone following or interested, turn on Aljazeera, as i thought earlier, it is now considered by some analysts and statements by Russian FM as US trying to start proxy war with Russia

What a pathetic mind set...

Destruction is the only vision

Do not shoot the messenger, these are the thoughts and statements by analysts.

Someone from US, was claiming special forces were always on the ground so this is nothing new, in which case that would mean Obama lied to American people and the rest of the world.

The same US person was claiming that special forces are there to coordinate with rebel forces for US low flying jets to carry out strikes against ISIS.

Best let you watch it, i am sure there will be a re run

Ooops! I guess I was not clear. Never meant to shoot the messenger!

What a pathetic mind set... (I meant about the US always invading and destroying countries)

Destruction is the only vision

[ravip]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

Are you REALLY serious or are you joking?

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

And the world would definitely be a better place to live in, today.

Ever noticed how selective are the above in their "do-good" actions?

[Publicus]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

Are you REALLY serious or are you joking?

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

And the world would definitely be a better place to live in, today.

Ever noticed how selective are the above in their "do-good" actions?

And the world would definitely be a better place to live in, today

Whimsical speculation. An unsupportable claim made by the Assad-Putin fanboyz who ignore the facts and realities of the history of the modern world, circa post French Revolution and the American Revolutionary War of Independence.

Spoken from fantasy island inhabited only by the global right.

[chilli42]

It is in fact an act of war to place uninvited armed troops on the ground without even discussing the action with the government of that country. Particularly when the stated intent is to support a rebellion group that is hostile to that government.

The US is between a rock and a hard place. Seems that the US wants to be seen supporting its Kurdish allies (as the Russians have done with Assad). However, were they to ask Assad they would effectively be saying that they are legitimizing him and they know that Assad is never going to agree to support a rebel group when the government itself is on the ropes.

Why now indeed. Who can know what is being discussed between Russia and the US now. One thing for sure, they are on a slippery slope and one that I have never seen the US pull back from.

[ravip]

Spoken from fantasy island inhabited only by the global right.

Each to his own fantasy!

[sirineou]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

don't disagree with your sentiment, unfortunately the Russians were invited by the Syrian government and the US is not.

IMO The only way for the US to go in to Syria is to have the Syrian government declared illegitimate. Good luck that happening with the Russians having UN veto power

The other way would be to demonstrate how the Syrian government present a compelling threat to US national interests,

So far neither one of the above options have being demonstrated. If the US has the right to unilaterally, send troops to support rebels in Syria,then I think Syria or other countries should have the right to send troops to support rebels in the US or other countries if such rebels existed.

Such behaviour creates a free for all, and a world where might makes right.

[Publicus]

Spoken from fantasy island inhabited only by the global right.

Each to his own fantasy!

You first.

I'm pretty busy at the moment dealing with the facts and the realities. I might be along later but don''t wait too long for me cause you'd be wasting your time.

[Srikcir]

"The United States' decision to send troops into Syria is an act of aggression"

I'm sure POTUS Obama is waiting with bated breath for Asaad's declaration of war against the USA.

[sirineou]

"The United States' decision to send troops into Syria is an act of aggression"

I'm sure POTUS Obama is waiting with bated breath for Asaad's declaration of war against the USA.

Assad does not need to declare war,all he needs to do is defend the sovereignty of his country against invading forces

Edited November 1, 2015 by sirineou

[Credo]

"The United States' decision to send troops into Syria is an act of aggression"

I'm sure POTUS Obama is waiting with bated breath for Asaad's declaration of war against the USA.

Assad does not need to declare war,all he needs to do is defend the sovereignty of his country against invading forces

Most of those invading forces are citizens of his own country.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.

The topic is about Syria. Please stay on topic.

[sirineou]

"The United States' decision to send troops into Syria is an act of aggression"

I'm sure POTUS Obama is waiting with bated breath for Asaad's declaration of war against the USA.

Assad does not need to declare war,all he needs to do is defend the sovereignty of his country against invading forces

Most of those invading forces are citizens of his own country.

but that's not what we are talking about here

The US forces are not citizens of Syria, and being uninvited are invading.

[Publicus]

It is in fact an act of war to place uninvited armed troops on the ground without even discussing the action with the government of that country. Particularly when the stated intent is to support a rebellion group that is hostile to that government.

The US is between a rock and a hard place. Seems that the US wants to be seen supporting its Kurdish allies (as the Russians have done with Assad). However, were they to ask Assad they would effectively be saying that they are legitimizing him and they know that Assad is never going to agree to support a rebel group when the government itself is on the ropes.

Why now indeed. Who can know what is being discussed between Russia and the US now. One thing for sure, they are on a slippery slope and one that I have never seen the US pull back from.

It is in fact an act of war to place uninvited armed troops on the ground without even discussing the action with the government of that country

It's a thoughtful post even if it does ruminate some. As for the quote, the place is a government without a country. Syria is a failed state. It has a continuous line on a map but not much more than that; and at the risk of getting metaphorical, the line on the map goes basically in a circle.

Regardless of how they got into Syria, there are Arabs of numerous nationalities fighting there in a mish-mash for or against one another. There are Russians, there are Chinese, Iranians, Hezbollah, Kurds from inside and from nearby, the US is there, German Kommandos have been there for a long time. And who knows who else is in the place called Syria.

If the government that no longer has a country called Syria wants to declare war against foreign intruders/invaders, it has a long list for its president and parliament to get through if the two of 'em can sit long enough in the building without getting shelled by somebody's bombs.

It is not difficult to see Assad and his gang of mass murderer operatives gone while Russia and the US divvy up the place based on the commonalities and incompatibilities that exist among the varied and diverse people there. This could occur under the auspices of a temporary government of awkwardly tolerant rivals, namely the US and Russia.

It is correct to say the United States is intensely averse to accepting an equal superpower....witness the world wars, the cold war, the present situation in East Asia and in Russia. No one who has tried it has ever fared well and the US fully intends to keep things in that order and arrangement. In the present situation and circumstances, Russia will not dominate the Middle East or anywhere else (note Putin is frozen in Ukraine).

US troops are in what used to be Syria in a large part because the very experienced Pentagon hand Ashton Carter is Prez Obama's recently chosen SecDef. Carter knows the Pentagon and the US military and he knows options, alternatives, use of force great and small better than any of his predecessors since his mentor former SecDef William Perry. Prez Obama wants realistic and intelligent options from Ash Carter and the president is getting them from the long time hawk who all the same does not take a hammer to every nail.

It is anyway hard to argue anyone in the region or anywhere else will miss the place called Syria as it used to be, which wasn't ever much of anything positive to begin with.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Publicus

[dcutman]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

You sound like a "US Govt/CIA poster child" trying to convince the world of something.

We (the US) have been jackin around in this region for 40 years, and much of it under a CIA operation that has been replacing one dictator with another, or even installing terror groups (Al Qaeda/ ISIS) to get to some end game. With no positive results whats so ever.

The CIA does not have much credibility when it come to the best choice of leaders. I dont see Syria being any different.

Here is a link to the published CIA operations since WWII, its a truly disgusting record this bunch has, and I am sure there is way more that is still classified.

http://www.mercenary-wars.net/cia/

Edited November 1, 2015 by dcutman

[Credo]

"The United States' decision to send troops into Syria is an act of aggression"

I'm sure POTUS Obama is waiting with bated breath for Asaad's declaration of war against the USA.

Assad does not need to declare war,all he needs to do is defend the sovereignty of his country against invading forces

Most of those invading forces are citizens of his own country.

but that's not what we are talking about here

The US forces are not citizens of Syria, and being uninvited are invading.

Well, they were invited by the Syrian opposition.

[englishoak]

Its pretty clear cut, its an uninvited foreign force ergo an invasion, same as IS is an invading force just different flag.

Have the decency to at least call it what it is.

Edited November 1, 2015 by englishoak

[Publicus]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

You sound like a "US Govt/CIA poster child" trying to convince the world of something.

We (the US) have been jackin around in this region for 40 years, and much of it under a CIA operation that has been replacing one dictator with another, or even installing terror groups (Al Qaeda/ ISIS) to get to some end game. With no positive results whats so ever.

The CIA does not have much credibility when it come to the best choice of leaders. I dont see Syria being any different.

Here is a link to the published CIA operations since WWII, its a truly disgusting record this bunch has, and I am sure there is way more that is still classified.

http://www.mercenary-wars.net/cia/

My contribution to the thread topic has been to present international law that supports the US actions in this failed state called Syria which has a zombie walking dead government but no country for it to govern. I reiterate Syria is a failed state. I state the internationally obvious and accepted, i.e., that this is a failed state and that, as such, it is up for grabs, as evidenced by the recent intervention by Russia and its armed forces.

It matters not who is invited or not invited because international law as I have posted does in fact enable the rebels based on the standards of international law in these very matters.

[dcutman]

Its pretty clear cut, its an uninvited foreign force ergo an invasion, same as IS is an invading force just different flag.

Have the decency to at least call it what it is.

Lets try and keep it real. It has nothing to do with ideology. Its all about money

The other reason, what better place to test new technology? Can you imagine the benefits of testing weapons of war in a real time war scenario?

[sirineou]

Assad does not need to declare war,all he needs to do is defend the sovereignty of his country against invading forces

Most of those invading forces are citizens of his own country.

but that's not what we are talking about here

The US forces are not citizens of Syria, and being uninvited are invading.

Well, they were invited by the Syrian opposition.

unfortunately the Syrian opposition does not have the legal right to do that

two illegal actions do not make a right

[sirineou]

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

You sound like a "US Govt/CIA poster child" trying to convince the world of something.

We (the US) have been jackin around in this region for 40 years, and much of it under a CIA operation that has been replacing one dictator with another, or even installing terror groups (Al Qaeda/ ISIS) to get to some end game. With no positive results whats so ever.

The CIA does not have much credibility when it come to the best choice of leaders. I dont see Syria being any different.

Here is a link to the published CIA operations since WWII, its a truly disgusting record this bunch has, and I am sure there is way more that is still classified.

http://www.mercenary-wars.net/cia/

My contribution to the thread topic has been to present international law that supports the US actions in this failed state called Syria which has a zombie walking dead government but no country for it to govern. I reiterate Syria is a failed state. I state the internationally obvious and accepted, i.e., that this is a failed state and that, as such, it is up for grabs, as evidenced by the recent intervention by Russia and its armed forces.

It matters not who is invited or not invited because international law as I have posted does in fact enable the rebels based on the standards of international law in these very matters.

From the link you provided in your reply #28 quoting international law.

"There’s plenty of dissent within the West as well about the legal basis for arming the rebels. The Austrian government reportedly circulated a paper pointing out the legal problems with the policy. The argument against legality is straightforward: the Assad regime remains the recognized Syrian government, and the U.N. Charter does not permit other states to act against it militarily (other than in self-defense or with U.N. approval). "

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/the-syrian-rebels-and-international-law

The discussion in that article is about the legality of the US arming rebels, and it's not conclusive, This thread is about uninvited US troops in Syria , and as your article clearly states it is against the UN charter.

[simple1]

As Daesh have in fact eliminated the border where they operate between Iraq and Syria (ungoverned area), 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 is 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.co...l#ixzz3qHRdMZlg

Edited November 2, 2015 by simple1

[Publicus]

From the link you provided in your reply #28 quoting international law.

"There’s plenty of dissent within the West as well about the legal basis for arming the rebels. The Austrian government reportedly circulated a paper pointing out the legal problems with the policy. The argument against legality is straightforward: the Assad regime remains the recognized Syrian government, and the U.N. Charter does not permit other states to act against it militarily (other than in self-defense or with U.N. approval). "

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/the-syrian-rebels-and-international-law

The discussion in that article is about the legality of the US arming rebels, and it's not conclusive, This thread is about uninvited US troops in Syria , and as your article clearly states it is against the UN charter.

The discussion in that article is about the legality of the US arming rebels, and it's not conclusive,

Do mention that to the fanboyz banging away from the other side too.

Having researched the article I am of course well aware of its full contents. The international law is indeed inconclusive.

The bottom line is that Bashir Assad and his faction are a government without a country. Syria is a failed state. Its borders continue to exist on a map at the UN but they barely exist anywhere else. Daesh has a different map of Iraq Syria and the Levant. Hezbollah sustained by Iran exists in Lebanon with its support and operates with Daesh throughout Iraq, Syria, the Levant ---and elsewhere as the world well knows.

One Syrian MP in a phone call said the US placing (a company sized unit-equivalent of dispersed special operations) troops into the affected region and area is aggression against the state of Syria. So far only he supported by the Putin fanboyz are the few people to have noticed his phoning in of this otherwise unremarkable development amidst the ongoing chaos occurring in Iraq, Syria, the Levant.

If the nominal president Bashir Assad of the nominal state of Syria thinks the equally displaced and nominal single MP is right he certainly has not bothered himself to say so. Of actual consequence in the conflict is that Russia and the United States are talking, and that Iran also wants to pull up a chair (and throw in a rug for bogus goodwill). The hapless CCP Chinese who know precious little of the region, its peoples or its conflicts are meanwhile standing behind Putin saying "That's right. That's right."

Neither Putin nor Assad will take this to the UNSC for even a discussion or debate and an airing even though they couldn't win a vote. It's the Putin-Assad fanboyz who are working overtime in this manufactured and fabricated campaign begun by one obscure guy in Syria with a phone and a number he probably spent days to get.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Publicus

[cookee68]

I'm not American.

I never said you were. I said American point of view

I don't have an American point of view. I have my own.

The US have been too weak from the beginning.

I wouldn,t say America was to weak as in power, but to weak as in a voice and actions worrying about all those do gooders and human rights etc, where as Russia don,t give a shit, or rather Putin don,t give a shit

[micmichd]

I'm not American, but I worked with American soldiers in Heidelberg in the 1970s.

In my opinion, USA have a loyalty problem. Too many Americans feel they're getting ripped off, and they're not willing to sacrifice their lives anymore.

USA has become a corporation like any other company.

[Trouble]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

All the international law stuff is fine. I think most of us know that Assad is a dictator as was his father. They are ruthless against their enemies. The problem is that when the rebels started their small skirmishes against the government the west was quick to step in and use justification that chemical weapons were being used by the government against the rebels. This was seen as some kind of violation of sorts. It Assad had just bombed the rebels into oblivion there would have been no justification. The west saw this as an opportunity to fight a proxy war against Assad and therefore did its pontificating and helped arm rebels which they had little information about. Getting involved only made the bad situation worse. I am not at all a supporter of Assad but I think I would rather have a strongman and his army holding a country together, than the current situation which allowed an organization like ISIS/ISIL to become strong and wreck its havoc on the area. There are so many factions now fighting in the area that even the US government needs a score card to keep track of who are the good guys and who are the bad. I don't personally think there are any good guys, just warlords wanting power for their faction. Since the Obama administration has been mostly impotent in the matter, I am not unhappy to see Putin try his hand at strengthening Assad and hopefully going after ISIS when that is done. Rebels in any country run a risk of being trampled and in my book "most" of the rebels in Syria are in the fight to gain something personal, not necessarily because the conditions were so terrible under the Syrian government. Even in a dictatorship like Assad's, people can go about their lives if they keep their nose clean. Syria as bad as it was, was not North Korea. Business and commerce, education, etc. actually went on in Syria.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Trouble

[Publicus]

I suppose Russia bombing Syrians who oppose Assad's dictatorship is therefore "gentle nurturing", is it?

Well, Assad is still a legal president,

Only US thinks otherwise.

The so called rebels are mercenaries who are paid.

Regular folks are demanding social benefits in EU

So yeah, Russian presence is legal, while US presence is totally illegal no matter how you look at it

The United States and its allies or partners have an international legal basis to be present in Syria and operating in Syria.

This is true. It is fact.

This because International law provides to lawfully arm rebels (but not to fund them) in a foreign country where there are existing rebel movements....and....when the rebel movements are widespread, well established....and....when the rebel groups control territory. Syria is four for four. Syria has been four for four for more than four years now.

International law in fact provides for considerably more.

International law might well obligate a country to arm rebels in another country when the country's legal government is engaged in genocide or crimes against humanity.

This is indeed the case in Syria. The Syrian government has killed more than 270,000 Syrians using weapons to include poison gas and barrel bombs, and the Syrian government has created millions of refugees flooding neighboring and other countries to escape the Syrian government's campaign of mass slaughter and domestic terror.

That's four for four in respect of international law....five for five actually....more like six for six and counting.

http://foreignpolicy...ernational-law/

If it weren't for the United States over the past 70 years there would not be international law. No UN for starters.

There would only be Nazi law or the Soviet Union Russian law, or going back further in the century, the Kaiser's law or Ottoman law. There presently would be the CCP China law, the Islamic Republic of Iran law, Brazil law, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe law, Burma or Thailand law etc.

Almost all posts to this thread are vacuous pro-Assad global rightwing opinion. Yes there is a government in Syria and it is recognised by the United Nations. The government however governs only a part of the country. The specific provisions of international law cited and documented (linked) in this post recognise the fact and address the realities of it.

All the international law stuff is fine. I think most of us know that Assad is a dictator as was his father. They are ruthless against their enemies. The problem is that when the rebels started their small skirmishes against the government the west was quick to step in and use justification that chemical weapons were being used by the government against the rebels. This was seen as some kind of violation of sorts. It Assad had just bombed the rebels into oblivion there would have been no justification. The west saw this as an opportunity to fight a proxy war against Assad and therefore did its pontificating and helped arm rebels which they had little information about. Getting involved only made the bad situation worse. I am not at all a supporter of Assad but I think I would rather have a strongman and his army holding a country together, than the current situation which allowed an organization like ISIS/ISIL to become strong and wreck its havoc on the area. There are so many factions now fighting in the area that even the US government needs a score card to keep track of who are the good guys and who are the bad. I don't personally think there are any good guys, just warlords wanting power for their faction. Since the Obama administration has been mostly impotent in the matter, I am not unhappy to see Putin try his hand at strengthening Assad and hopefully going after ISIS when that is done. Rebels in any country run a risk of being trampled and in my book "most" of the rebels in Syria are in the fight to gain something personal, not necessarily because the conditions were so terrible under the Syrian government. Even in a dictatorship like Assad's, people can go about their lives if they keep their nose clean. Syria as bad as it was, was not North Korea. Business and commerce, education, etc. actually went on in Syria.

Even in a dictatorship like Assad's, people can go about their lives if they keep their nose clean. Syria as bad as it was, was not North Korea. Business and commerce, education, etc. actually went on in Syria.

If someone does not begin the long term messy and often bloody process of disposing of dictators and their dictatorships, then dictators and dictatorships will continue to exist in significant numbers for the rest of time.

Again, the process must begin with the first step, often a small step, such as Assad, sometimes a big step such as with Hitler and Tojo. Look now at Germany now and at Japan now and at each going forward.

Again, the process is long term, which means long term. Again, it is messy as in very messy over a long time. Again, it is bloody and that is awful and it is tragic and it is sad.It is also history and the way history has worked and continues to work going forward, long term, messy, bloody.

Sometimes a dictator gets replaced by a dictator, which occurs until the process is finally stopped and reversed, long term. Messy. Bloody.

If someone doesn't begin to end dictators and dictatorships, then they will always be. People who support that spawn more of 'em, not fewer or none. More.

GW Bush is a liar and an idiot and he will always suffer for it through the ages and in the history books. Saddam Hussein was meanwhile a tyrant and he was hanged. Hello Bashir Assad. Barack Obama sends his regards cause you're next.

People who support dictatorships should live under one, if they don't already. Of course there are those who do like dictatorship and who do endorse and support it. The historical fate of such people should however be a discouraging factor.