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

[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.

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.

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.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

I am sure A;Qaeda and ISIS use the same argument only in reverse and directed at the west,

So now we are going to begin the messy process of doing to Syria what we did to Iraq?

It is said that Alexander the great first used the divide and rule strategy , I believe what is going on in the middle east is a lot of that.

what we are witnessing is the balkanization of the middle east with the only clear winner being Israel, a fact that Iran is , I am sure, painfully aware , hence their desire for a nuclear defence.

Democracy is great until it starts voting against you as it happened in Egypt, The Us does not want democracy in the middle east , it wants a democratic system it can manipulate.

[Thorgal]

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.

If you go without consent of Syrian sovereign government you need a mandate from UNSC, which US doesn't have.

That's why we see repetitive false slurs of Syria being a failed state.

US is not pleased with the coalitions between pro Iraqi/Syrian governement militants from Shia and Sunni scholars. The same happened back in 2003 during US invasion of Iraq under Saddam.

Moreover, Iranian success and multiple victories on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria are not really welcomed by US administration.

Just have a look at Iranian Al Quds general Qassem Suleimani what he did, and what US didn't do or achieved since 2003. A turning point in the region.

This Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian- Kurdish coalition on the battlefields are completely the opposite of Washington policies. And I'm not even speaking about the Russian military interventions.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Thorgal

[Publicus]

If you go without consent of Syrian sovereign government you need a mandate from UNSC, which US doesn't have.

This is the same stuff over and over again, the same incomplete claim in respect of the UN and the UNSC. It is the same absolute view that international law is fixed, permanently set, clear, precise, unambiguous, one dimensional.

The UNSC rule that is quoted is indeed clear and well understood, with a great precedent.

It is also the case that anyone who reads the thread without an agenda can see and determine there are many arguments to international law in the context of the Syria conflict which support the United States, its ME coalition and partners.

No need to repost it all or to rehash that which the Putin-Assad fanboyz can't deal with and shall never accept.

[Thorgal]

If you go without consent of Syrian sovereign government you need a mandate from UNSC, which US doesn't have.

This is the same stuff over and over again, the same incomplete claim in respect of the UN and the UNSC. It is the same absolute view that international law is fixed, permanently set, clear, precise, unambiguous, one dimensional.

The UNSC rule that is quoted is indeed clear and well understood, with a great precedent.

It is also the case that anyone who reads the thread without an agenda can see and determine there are many arguments to international law in the context of the Syria conflict which support the United States, its ME coalition and partners.

No need to repost it all or to rehash that which the Putin-Assad fanboyz can't deal with and shall never accept.

Quote from link :

'According to a ruling of the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Nicaragua case, where the US was found guilty of violating international law by supporting armed Contra rebels, self-defence could only be invoked by Iraq against Syria if IS acts as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29283286

[Publicus]

If you go without consent of Syrian sovereign government you need a mandate from UNSC, which US doesn't have.

This is the same stuff over and over again, the same incomplete claim in respect of the UN and the UNSC. It is the same absolute view that international law is fixed, permanently set, clear, precise, unambiguous, one dimensional.

The UNSC rule that is quoted is indeed clear and well understood, with a great precedent.

It is also the case that anyone who reads the thread without an agenda can see and determine there are many arguments to international law in the context of the Syria conflict which support the United States, its ME coalition and partners.

No need to repost it all or to rehash that which the Putin-Assad fanboyz can't deal with and shall never accept.

Quote from link :

'According to a ruling of the International Court of Justice in the 1986 Nicaragua case, where the US was found guilty of violating international law by supporting armed Contra rebels, self-defence could only be invoked by Iraq against Syria if IS acts as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29283286

Posted to the thread already is the "Unable or Unwilling" provision that directly applies to the Syrian government in Damascus. In accord with the doctrine of international law, Iraq and the USA can intervene in individual self-defense or in a collective self-defense to include with others, which is exactly what is happening.

Also posted to the thread is the provision that rebels in a country may be armed by a foreign government (but not funded: note Nicaragua) if a rebel movement exists, if it is widespread and has support, and if it holds territory in the country. Syria is four for four (and counting) as I'd pointed out with a link and citation earlier in the thread.

Not everyone has read the whole of the thread to this point of course. If however a person has read every post to the thread and still does not get these points....... http://www.readingrockets.org/article/using-think-alouds-improve-reading-comprehension

[micmichd]

Don't forget that US never got threatened by Iraq either, the "collective self-defense" was imposed on Iraq by US aggression.

[spidermike007]

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.

Pinpoint assassinations are far more effective, cost one millionth the amount spent on a war, and accomplish the same thing. Boots on the ground could be a mistake of historic proportions.

[Publicus]

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.

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.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

I am sure A;Qaeda and ISIS use the same argument only in reverse and directed at the west,

So now we are going to begin the messy process of doing to Syria what we did to Iraq?

It is said that Alexander the great first used the divide and rule strategy , I believe what is going on in the middle east is a lot of that.

what we are witnessing is the balkanization of the middle east with the only clear winner being Israel, a fact that Iran is , I am sure, painfully aware , hence their desire for a nuclear defence.

Democracy is great until it starts voting against you as it happened in Egypt, The Us does not want democracy in the middle east , it wants a democratic system it can manipulate.

The United States has always dealt with governments as they are, from monarchies to dictators whether they are friendly or hostile. During the cold war and in a mortal competition against the Soviet Union, they put some governments in, took some out, and so did the United States.

Post cold war nation building is one of the worst ideas to come out of right wing think tanks since the Vietnam War. In the present context, it had been said during the Ukraine crisis that the road to Moscow goes through Damascus. Well now Putin has put Russia into Syria and at Damascus itself. So it's become two birds with one stone kind of thing.

Iran hasn't any friends either. The CCP Boyz will be post haste getting out of the ME madness that they had no idea could exist anywhere on the planet as it does in the ME only. In the ME it doesn't matter who you are or what you're trying to do or trying not to do, you are going to die and you will die very soon in a horrible death.

SecDef Ashton Carter just moved a bunch of F-15 fighter jets to the area which have only one purpose and that is air to air combat, what used to be called aerial dogfights. Maybe it's for a no-fly zone, maybe it's to shoot down Syrian Air Force fighter-bombers, or some other country's fighter-bombers too or instead. Don't know and can't yet guess. Whatever goes on in the ME however has death and destruction stamped all over it regardless of who, what, when.