Russia Says Air Strikes In Syria Would Be Act Of Aggression Without U.N. Vote

[Purveyor]

Source: REUTERS

MOSCOW/PARIS (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria without a U.N. Security Council mandate would be an act of aggression, raising the possibility of a new confrontation with the West in coming weeks.

"The U.S. president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the U.S. armed forces against ISIL positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government," Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said.

"This step, in the absence of a U.N. Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law."

Barack Obama said on Wednesday he had authorized U.S. air strikes for the first time in Syria and more attacks in Iraq, in an escalation of the campaign against the Islamic State militant group, which has taken control of large areas of both countries.


Read more: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-russia-airstrikes-20140911,0,5448867.story

[The Magistrate]

1. That, And a Dollar Fifty, Sir, Might Get You a Cup Of Coffee

Not even worth the air disturbed when he spoke.

[rug]

11. No, he has a point.

What precisely is the legal basis for unilateral air attacks on another country?

[TwilightGardener]

13. Same basis as we used to get OBL in Pakistan.

No safe havens for those who kill Americans. (Also, in Libya, for catching the Benghazi attackers.)

[rug]

16. I asked for the legal basis, not the jingoistic basis.

In fact, change the word "Americans" to "Muslims" and you've enunciated bin Laden's rationale for the event marked today.

[TwilightGardener]

17. It's not jingoism, it's US policy under Obama.

[JimDandy]

24. So, no legal basis, then, is the answer. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

38. What is meant by "legal basis"? You mean AUMF, or UN/international, or what?

[JimDandy]

45. Legal basis re U.N., as the other poster also inquired.

Putin's premise is that it's not been approved in a vote of the U.N.

[TwilightGardener]

48. They could get a vote, Russia and China would object, and we'd do it anyway.

[Cayenne]

51. Right, we do what we want, they can now do whatever they want

[TwilightGardener]

52. We all already do what we want. The UN is toothless and meaningless.

It's good for condemnation and disapproval, but that's about it.

[Hugabear]

15. Legal basis? We're the Goddamned United States of 'Murica.

We don't need no stinking UN authorization.

[The Magistrate]

20. It Is Not That Complicated, Sir

The body known as I.S.I.L. has invaded Iraq, and Iraq has invoked its right of self-defense, and asked for assistance from the United States. I.S.I.L. launched its attack on Iraq from territory it controls within Syria. The government of Syria is incapable of exercising governance in these areas, and incapable of policing them. It is well within the legitimate exercise of self-defense to engage the bases of an invading force, and that these may be on ground nominally part of a country, but where that country's government is incapable of exerting its authority, does not alter this. If the Syrian government wants to prevent such strikes, its recourse is to invade the areas under control of I.S.I.L. in sufficient force to put an end to its capability to engage in invasion and occupation of Iraqi territory. It cannot do this, or perhaps does not want to, but in either case, if the Syrian government does not exert governing authority in these areas, and prevent them being used as bases to assail another country, they are open to attack by those they have attacked.

Suppose that, during our Civil War, France had got it into its head to invade Texas across the Mexican border. Would that have been aggression against the Federal Union led by President Lincoln, or against the Confederate States led by Jeff Davis?

[red dog 1]

32. I agree.

[rug]

61. It is also not that legal.

Nixon invoked that spurious line of reasoning to invade Cambodia in 1970, with glorious consequences.

It's dismaying this pap is being recycled 40-odd years later.

Inasmuch as France did not invade Texas 150 years ago, I'll just leave that hypothetical dangling while I look at the other hypothetical posted today regarding Hitler and DU.

[The Magistrate]

63. A Thing May Be Foolish And Fail, Sir, Without Being A Crime

And no crime was committed by the crossing of the border into Cambodia by U.S. soldiers. Some may certainly have committed crimes there, but that is a separate thing from simply crossing the border to deal with enemy forces established there.

One notes, as is so often necessary, that you refrain from applying a uniform standard, for if you did, you would have to acknowledge North Vietnam committed a crime by invading Cambodia, and for that matter by invading South Vietnam, both of which things it indisputably did.

[rug]

65. Foolishness is a given here.

However, whether someone or some government is not indicted on a war crime does not mean it had any legal basis for its actions in the first place. That was the question which remains unanswered as much today as it was then.

BTW, what occurred at Parrot's Beak was not nearly as prosaic - or legal - as your words "simply crossing the border to deal with enemy forces" suggest.

[The Magistrate]

68. It Is Not That Difficult, Sir

A neutral has certain obligations; its territory cannot simply be used as a safe haven or transit for belligerent forces. A neutral is supposed to intern or expel belligerents on its territory, though it may give them a short space of time to vacate in the latter response to belligerent intrusion. If a neutral fails to do, whether because it is incapable of it, or because it has no desire to do so, protections of neutrality no longer apply. The belligerent party disadvantaged by its behavior may do anything from treat the former neutral as a belligerent, to such lesser steps as it considers necessary to address the situation.

I note again the fact that, if you are going to claim the United States committed a crime by invading Cambodia to engage North Vietnamese forces there, you must acknowledge North Vietnam committed a crime by invading both Cambodia and South Vietnam.

[rug]

71. Apparently citing the international law which holds that is that difficult.

You may wish to check your notes. My question is about the legality of unilateral military action by one country against the other.

The only one who mentioned a crime is you. It's an interesting diversion, to contemplate which U.S. military actions in the last sixty years are or are not war crimes, but it's a diversion all the same.

Why don't you just produce the international treaty or declaration that supports your statement instead?

I will be happy to dust of those documents that do not support cover for these actions.

[The Magistrate]

74. And You May Feel Free To Cite Something Establishing It Is Not Legal, Sir

It is clear you cannot engage the facts of the matter, which I am not inclined to repeat yet again.

I will point out, however that it was you who brought up the legality of the incursion into Cambodia, with your post above:


"It is also not that legal.

Nixon invoked that spurious line of reasoning to invade Cambodia in 1970, with glorious consequences.

It's dismaying this pap is being recycled 40-odd years later. "

Your opening stated it was not legal, you then stated that Nixon employed the same reasoning, and complained that reasoning was being used many years later to argue a similar action is legal. For you to claim that is not 'mentioning a crime' is not going to carry you very far, especially in the context of your taking up a position in agreement with a claim the action would be aggression without U.N. sanction, since, after all, waging aggressive war is a crime under international law.

[rug]

76. How about Article 39 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations?

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Really, I'm quite aware of what I wrote. Repeating them will not provide you a rebuttal.

Now, on a personal note, since you declared:

It is clear you cannot engage the facts of the matter, which I am not inclined to repeat yet again.

I am compelled to note that I have not heard from you a single fact, only hoary discredited and unsupported opinion, garnished with a whiff of Rumpole.

[The Magistrate]

78. Try Article 51, Sir

'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. '

Note that the right of self defense is inherent, is not impaired by the Charter, and tha nations may act until the Security Council takes measures. Since the Security Council generally does not take measures, and certainly will not in this instance, owing to veto power of a participating state, the right to act continues indefinitely....

[rug]

79. That's correct. "Self"-defense is an inherent right of the state attacked.

Lawful military intervention occurs only when a member state is attacked, which the authorizes that state to defend itself - or - if authorized by the Security Council as described in Articles 40 through 50.

Which is precisely what Lukashevich said in the OP, a comment you dismissed as "Not even worth the air disturbed when he spoke."

There appears to be much more to it when subjected to examination rather than rhetorical flourish.

[The Magistrate]

80. Note The Word 'Collective', Sir

'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. '

It means that allies and treaty partners may assist. We have been requested to assist. That is the end of it.

[rug]

83. I did.

"We have been requested to assist." is a phrase that has been used to justify aggression since the Sudetenland. In fact it's a phrase Putin himself has insinuated regarding the Ukraine.

It's also a cynical excuse to expand war beyond Iraq and, if done without the consent of Syria, by those same terms condones a military action against the U.S.

The bottom line: if Syria is attacked it will be the result of a cynical political calculation, not a compelling legal base.

[The Magistrate]

84. Apparently Not, Sir, Since You Ignored Its Meaning In Your Comments

Further, cynical calculation and legality are not exclusionary concepts: an action may be quite legal, and the product of the coldest and most cynical calculation imaginable.

The fact is Lavrov misstated the rules, and doubtless knew he did so when he did.

[rug]

85. You have a habit of making wrong inferences.

The cynicism here is your claim that a request by a puppet government for the U.S. to bomb another sovereign in the name of self-defense stems from the same UN Charter that Lukashevich invoked.

[The Magistrate]

87. The Iraqi Government Meets Every Standard Of Legitimacy, Sir

It has a seat in the United Nations.

It maintains embassies and consular facilities around the world, and hosts them from other nations.

If it is to be accorded puppet status, it would be more accurate to describe it as Iran's puppet rather than ours.

But as matter of fact, it has every right any other member of the United Nations has, including the right to ask for assistance in defending itself against attack, whether by a state, or by a non-state actor.

[rug]

88. The nation has a seat, run by this sham.

Haider Al-Abadi (or al-'Ibadi; Arabic: حيدر العبادي‎, born on 5 March 1952) is the 75th and current Prime Minister of Iraq. He is also Deputy Leader of Islamic Dawa Party, the ruling party at the country. He was Minister of Communication from 2003 to 2004, in the first government after Saddam Hussein.
A Shia Muslim, he was designated by President Fuad Masum on 11 August 2014 as new Prime Minister of Iraq to succeed Nouri al-Malikiand was approved by the Iraqi parliament on 8 September 2014.

It was not Iran who invaded Iraq and installed a government, a government in which Al-Abadi was a founding member installed under the guns of the U.S.

I would have far more respect for your position if you simply said ISIS is composed of barbarians who must be destroyed rather than this neolib nonsense about the legitimacy of this Iraqi government and the legal righteousness of the U.S. to defend it.

[The Magistrate]

92. None Of That, Sir, Affects The Fact That It Is Recognized As The Legitimate Government, By The World

And as such, it has every right any sovereign state enjoys, including the right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter, and the right to solicit aid in defending itself. The point at issue was whether some action taken under aegis of defending Iraq against attack over its border would be legal. It would be. The question of legality is separate from the question of whether that action is sound policy, or righteous, or damned foolishness and cruel folly. It may be any of these, and that will not affect the question of whether it is legal or not.

[rug]

108. No, the point at issue is whether Russia has a point about going to the UN.

Your brusque bluster aside, it does. I suspect you are just swell with the proposed airstrikes so I won't discuss the policy of it. But, if you are indeed concerned about the legality, not to mention the world opinion, of this precipitous proposal, you would be prudent to take it to the Security Council.

[The Magistrate]

109. And It Does Not Have A Legitimate Point Of Complaint, Sir

Further, given its recent invasion of a neighboring state, and outright annexation of a portion of its territory, actions which sound argument could be made not only violate the U.N. Charter but amount to war of aggression, Russia is the last power on earth to be taken seriously in complaining of another's behavior.

[rug]

110. Saying it doesn't doesn't make it so.

The fact they're hypocrites does not establish a legal basis to do likewise.

[The Magistrate]

112. That, Sir, Is Advice You Might Want To Take Yourself....

[rug]

113. Oh, do go on.

[4Q2u2]

106. Please Sir

Do not confuse real life facts and situations with Ivory Tower idealism. Do you not know that other people are supposed to suffer the consequences of our abstract beliefs when the gun is pointed at them. American support of Iraq's self defense in not legitimate because some guy in New York says so.

On the other hand Russia would know what an Illegal military action looks like.

[tabasco]

55. You apparently don't know the definition of "unilateral."

Look it up.

This is several nations combining in a joint effort.

[rug]

62. Lol, no, I didn't forget Poland.

While you have your dictionary open, look up sovereignty and aggression.

[Billy Budd]

54. You are Right sir...only the US is "Exceptional"..sir

so we do not have to follow any rules cause cause ...Freedom

[The Magistrate]

59. The Fact That You Neither Know Nor Understand The Rules, Sir, Does Not Mean Someone Else Breaks Them

No one needs refer use of military force in self-defense to the United Nations.

A state requested to assist in self-defense by another state does not require any permission from the United Nations to use military force on its behalf.

The right of self-defense is not restricted to enemy forces on your territory, but extends to bases and facilities of the attacker elsewhere.

A government which cannot effectively control and police a portion of territory nominally part of the state it governs, cannot claim it is attacked when forces lodged in that uncontrolled territory use for a base of invasion, and are attacked in self-defense by the country which has been invaded.

Mr. Lavrov, one suspects, knows he is talking piffle, and does not really expect anything to come of this sophomoric exercise. It is his job to say a variety of outright lies and falsehoods and mis-statements with a straight face.

[Billy Budd]

81. is that the US excuse sir

is that the Official US Military Industrial Complex Empire [MICE] position...? Sir

[Iliyah]

2. This is from a guy who invaded another country and took a part of its land?

[newthinking]

3. As the "Leader of the free world" we set the standards.

We also attempt to impose "standards" while we don't ourselves follow them.

As a grade school teacher you would not lie in class constantly then turn around and attempt to discipline students when they do the same.

Is Intellectual and liberal thought become so rare that this concept is now lost on us?

[dvduval]

22. They are beheading people

Duh

[Autumn]

4. He has no room to talk. However air strikes against Islamist militants in Syria without

Syria's permission would be an act of aggression and I doubt Syria will give permission.

[PragmaticLiberal]

19. I suspect Syria will give us permission....just not publicly.

[LanternWaste]

27. That is the crux of it. I suspect that many, many back-channel negotiations are underway

That is the crux of it. I suspect that many, many back-channel negotiations are underway as we type, as when John Scali of ABC News, at the request of Aleksandr Fomin, was a go-between for the White House and the Kremlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I believe that anyone on the outside of this (including myself) knows merely the icing, but is ignorant of the cake itself... yet it's the height of self-importance to pretend the icing we see is in fact, the entire cake.

[RKP5637]

56. +1, n/t

[karynnj]

111. I suspect you are right

One of the Syrian officials was covered on MSNBC this afternoon speaking of their willingness to be involved -- and have not been included.

In addition, read between the lines in this John Kerry interview. There is NOT complete exclusion of Russia and Iran. While he still speaks of Russia abandoning Assad because of his war crimes, I wonder if - as in Sudan, where the US would not speak to the ICC indicted President - we did get involved via others in his government in the process that led to a vote then the split between Sudan and South Sudan. The reason given was that there was a compelling reason to engage with Sudan. Certainly, there is a compelling reason to engage with Syria.


http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-saudi-arabia-talks-arab-leaders-comabting-islamic-state/2445974.html

[DustyJoe]

5. Problematic

Russia has had a military presence in Syria for decades including their naval base and unknown number of air/army presence.

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention, the Guardian has learned.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/23/syria-crisis-russian-military-presence
.
This gives the Russian warning some teeth as the russian crewed SAM equipment includes the newest state of the art SAMS that US aircraft have yet to encounter. It will be quite a test of US countermeasures and if a US wild weasel anti-radar missile takes out a russian crewed site will elicit probably quite a response.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Well goodness, I guess Beloved Pootie Poot should have encouraged Assad to

fight against ISIS before they spread into Iraq and menaced millions of people and beheaded Americans. Why didn't they?

[Iliyah]

10. Because most people don't care about others until it hits close to home.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Actually, it's suspected that Assad and ISIS had a tacit understanding to leave each

other alone, so that Assad could both conflate them with more moderate rebel forces in the eyes of the rest of the world, and also point to them as what would (undesirably) take his place should his regime fall. I guess they don't serve his purposes now--or Russia's.

[KurtNYC]

25. Syria struck ISIS when they were still in Iraq

June 24, 2014

[TwilightGardener]

39. Syria has not seriously fought ISIS. A token airstrike to fend off US involvement

isn't going to cut it.

[KurtNYC]

44. Obviously NOTHING Assad does will "fend off US involvement" since that involvement is ongoing

Striking ISIS while ISIS is still in Iraq makes me conclude he was trying fend off ISIS involvement in the country he leads.

I don't think you're asserting that Assad, as the Alawite leader of a moderate, multi-cultural country, sees nothing to fear from thousands of insurgent Wahhabi Sunni extremists (?) especially since June 24 shows us Assad was willing to take on ISIS before they had even crossed the border from Iraq into Syria so I'm not sure what your theory of this war is. On my scorecard it is now a civil war in year 3 and an insurgency.

[TwilightGardener]

49. You seem completely confused. ISIS may have originated years ago from

elements of the disbanded Iraqi/Baath army and AQ in Iraq, but they took their show to Syria because of the civil war opportunities there, and took over the eastern portion of Syria. They control that whole area now--Assad no longer controls it. And then they came back across the border, overran Fallujah last spring, overran Mosul and surrounding Sunni areas of Iraq, in trying to form their caliphate. The home base of ISIS is Syria. Assad did not confront them or try to stop them as they strengthened.

[Igel]

57. It misses the forest for a couple of trees.

In that area the border is meaningless. The "Sunni insurgency" was often supplied or sheltered in E. Syria during the Iraq War. That's just how it is. Tribal and clan boundaries ignore the artificial borders that were drawn. In some cases tribes have spread; in other cases the borders were stupidly drawn.

During the Iraq War Syria had to tamp down some of the insurgency's spill-over into Syria.

The insurgency was largely defeated and defused in Iraq--but not destroyed. But it "didn't take its show on the road to Syria." It was there all the while. But since "we" forgot that this had ever happened, it came as a complete surprise to "us."

It's rather like "forgetting" about the Berber discontent in Libya, or the ill-will between tribes that supported and those persecuted by Qaddhafi. There's a kind of blindness that is common: People fail to appreciate even facts that they know when they're in the way of what they want to be true.

[TwilightGardener]

70. Well, I don't know that we forgot, so much as thought/hoped/wished that somehow

the Iraqi government would have kept these troublemakers at bay after we left--and failing that, the Iraqi army was supposed to take care of them with all the expensive training and weapons we gave them. That, uh, didn't work out.

[KurtNYC]

60. ISIS controls only the thin black bands within Syria as shown here

they picked up a splinter group that was already in Syria, Jabhat al Nusra in February. The overwhelming majority of ISIS actions and interest is in Iraq where the Shia government alianated Sunnis.

A series of ongoing clashes between Syrian government forces and ISIS are detailed here:
http://www.understandingwar.org/syria-blog

[TwilightGardener]

73. I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that

ISIS is not really a Syrian issue? Because of this map? Do you believe that Assad has been KEEPING the group out of Syria?

[davidpdx]

101. Seeing that map makes me think, given Obama's decision to deal with ISIS

What would make more sense is not to bomb in Syria, but along the border to cut off those who are inside Syria. Then tell Assad he should consider himself "assisted" and that he can deal with ISIS inside Syria. Maybe that's too simplistic, but it would be a hell of a lot better than flying into Syria and conducting missions. (to be clear I'm not advocating bombing, just stating that I think going into Syria is not a good idea)

Iraq really needs to learn to deal with the problems they have so they stop asking for help. Until they can do that they are doomed.

[4Q2u2]

105. ISIS

Is a breakaway group from the original Al-Qaeda in Iraq. A group so violent that even OBL had to personnaly send a letter to Al Zarqawi in 2004 telling him to stop killing Muslims in Iraq. They freely crossed the Iraq and Syrian border at will during the Iraq War and Assad did nothing concrete to discourage this. They were killing Americans at that time, which is a good thing in Assads mind, as well as his Masters in Russia. Now that the Americans Forces withdrew from the areas, ISIS turned their lonely eyes to Assads Apostate Government to liberate the domain of the Caliphate.

[pampango]

46. And no Syrian strikes on ISIS in Syria until last month. I wonder why.

One would think that the Syrian leader would be much more concerned about ISIS presence in Syria than in Iraq. If he wants to help out Iraq's government that is fine, but why not strike ISIS in Syria. That shouldn't be too hard. Is it because ISIS in Syria is killing Syrian opposition fighters in other rebel groups rather than Syrian soldiers, while ISIS in Iraq is doing him no good at all.

[B2G]

7. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

This is satire, right?

[riversedge]

8. Puty pooo poop sounds like the Republicans in the US

[B2G]

9. Personally, I think he SHOULD go to the UN

It's Putin's little lecture that has me in stitches.

[riversedge]

36. Agree on both points.

[Hugabear]

14. The US can do whatever the fuck it wants, because we're the good guys.

It's not okay for Russia, China, or any other country to launch military strikes in a sovereign country.

But it is okay for the US to do so, because we're the goddamn United States.

[DocMac]

23. We pick and choose who we fight.

I'm guessing there is no oil in Tibet.

[Psephos]

28. That ship has sailed...

...and sunk.

[jamzrockz]

29. Danny Devito said it better in Matilda

[Xolodno]

18. I believe this is what you call a "pot to kettle" remark.

Obama made remarks about "breaking international law" in regards to Crimea. He kind of had the high ground as his name wasn't GWB. With strikes in Syria...well.....

And I can bet if he tries to get UN approval, Russia will veto...China will abstain.

This could get really hairy if Russia announces they will bomb ISIL targets in Syria on behalf of Assad...

[Iliyah]

21. That would be wonderful. I hope Russia does.

[ballyhoo]

50. Oh, me too.............

[TwilightGardener]

40. Well, you might have some sort of point there, if Putin didn't actually take Crimea for Russia.

Or if the US keeps chunks of Syria and calls it "NovoAmerica". The closest proper analogy would be a scenario in which Ukraine was sheltering terrorists who staged attacks on Russian citizens, and so Russia bombed those terrorist havens...but didn't actually KEEP slices of Ukraine for itself.

[qazplm]

64. quit making sense

we have to instead make sure we look to Russia as some sort of moral center in the world when the idea that Russia would talk about actions in another country after the last decade or so is laughable.

[BlueCaliDem]

102. + 1000.

The pro-Putin-blame-America-first crowd on this board are so myopic that it's exasperating. Good thing they have no say-so in U.S. foreign policy.

[ballyhoo]

47. That may well happen. And if there is a mistaken

shot at a US jet, oh well...

[The Magistrate]

53. Adding Hopes For The Death Of American Service Members, Sir, To Your Usual?

Here are some choice excerpts from the record of Mr. Ballyhoo....

1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=787698

Baloney. It's because of Victoria Nuland and her band

of nincompoops actions. Putin was just out riding his hog when the tires in Kiev started burning. He had to do something. Maybe if Nuland hadn't been listening to her neoncon husband Kagan, none of this would have happened. Look at this woman: if she ain't possessed, no one is.

http://wideawakegentile.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/fuck-you-victoria-nuland-and-fuck-your-whole-miserable-neocon-zionist-family/

( link to an extreme hate site, obviously Anti-Semitic )

2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=790363


What is the matter with anyone trying to rid a town of

drugged-out gypsies? Have you ever had contacts with gypsies? They are not a savory type.

( endorsement of ethnic cleansing against Roma )

3)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=797508

Whatever has to be done to stop this

by the Right and the Nazis, sir. Some of us care about stuff like this. Some of us don't understand there just might be a conflict when the reporter of the Crimea voting happens to be on a Human Rights Group of Urkaine.


http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/05/kiev-and-right-sector-kristallnacht-odessa-extreme-graphics/

( links to yet another hate site )

4 )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=798523

Or...he's one of, if not the greatest,

leader of our times. He protects his people wherever they are; he throws financial crooks in jail; he maintains a morality that suits the greatest percentage of his people;, and he likes cats.

( some of that real 'Putin love', including an endorsement of anti-gay legislation in Russia )

5 )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014850023#post26

Accuses, as near as can be understood, the pilots or passengers of deliberately flying into anti-aircraft fire:

'Frame of reference....If the "victims"

knowingly and wantonly entered prohibited air space (a war zone), they are at least partly responsible for their fate. I'll leave the cute icons to you.'

[KurtNYC]

26. Obama said last August that he would use air strikes against Assad

with or without congress, etc. but he never did. Here we go again.

US attack on Syria delayed after surprise U-turn from Obama

Obama said he had decided the US should take military action against Syria and had been told by his advisers that while assets were in place to launch strikes immediately, the operation was not "time sensitive". He said Congressional leaders had agreed to hold a vote when lawmakers return to Washington next week.

It was a dramatic turnaround by the White House, which had earlier in the week indicated it was on the verge of launching strikes against Syria without the approval of Congress. Only on Friday, secretary of state John Kerry had delivered a passionate case for taking action against Assad.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress

[geek tragedy]

43. Yes, and as a result he got Syria to surrender all of its chemical weapons. nt

[CentralMass]

30. That fact it comes from the land of Putin the liar who does whatever he pleases makes -

it harder to take it seriously.

[Blue_Tires]

31. Which U.N. vote permitted Russia to invade Ukraine?

[Louisiana1976]

33. If there was a vote in the Security Council on bombing Syria Russia would just veto it.

[FloriTexan]

34. and shooting down a passenger airline is ....? n/t

[KansDem]

35. UN vote?...

We ain't got no UN vote. We don't need no UN vote. We don't have to show you any stinking UN vote!

[dawn frenzy adams]

37. PLEASE,... PUT YOUR THINKING HATS ON!

Almost one year ago to the date, we were threatening to bombing Syria. The American People wholly rejected it. But that hasn't stopped those who want to bomb Syria. So why are we here again? What changed? Well ,Israel has been heavily lobbying the West to bomb Syria. It also includes, I think, our own intelligence services enacting a calculated series of narratives and propaganda that produced the latest Boogie man ISIS. As soon as I heard the ISIS here, ISIS there, everywhere a ISIS, I said here we go again. It escalated in the beheading of two journalists- that just happened to give the U.S. the justification to finally bomb Syria. It took one year to dupe the American People into doing something a year ago, they wouldn't accept. This is the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the PNAC Crowd's foreign policy, yet again!

Furthermore, Putin has every right to be in the Ukraine. After all, there are Russian citizens there. The question is, why are we there? We lied when we promised the Russians that we would not extend NATO; then we proceeded to build the largest military base in Europe, Camp Bondsteel. It was built by Haliburton of course. We already had military bases in Bulgaria and Romania. We are acting aggressively here. Read what the Wolofowitz Doctrine said about Russia.

What is Russia had started building massive military bases in Cuba?

[ColesCountyDem]

41. "...After all, there are Russian citizens there...."

No, there are NOT, unless they're tourists!

[dawn frenzy adams]

67. Excuse me?

It's estimated that 60% of the population in Crimea are Russian. If I would have said people instead citizens, would that make you feel better Einstein?

[ColesCountyDem]

72. You're excused.

It would be accurate to say 'Ukranian citizens of Russian descent', which is NOT what you said.

[BadtotheboneBob]

75. Ethnic Russians...

Putin has a declared policy of intervention rights anywhere there are nearby ethnic Russians that he thinks are being persecuted. That's why the Baltic nations are so nervous. Leftover Russians from the USSR there that were brought in to displace/replace the Balts, many of which were transported to Siberia and elsewhere eastward over the Urals. The Russians stayed after the fall of the SU and have formed enclaves near the Russian border in Latvia that could be a flash-point as Latvia is a NATO member. Lots of Russians in Moldova, too... Stay tuned

[ColesCountyDem]

77. Which action clearly violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, to which Russia is a signatory. n/t

[geek tragedy]

42. LMAO. Putin's the one guy on the planet who cares less about international law than Cheney nt

[Igel]

58. Do the Russian thing.

Bomb. Send in troops. Tanks. APCs.

Then, when confronted with evidence, deny it. And accuse Russia of ill-will and attempts to manipulate others to defend corrupt, immoral regimes that would commit genocide. Putin as chief Islamist and warmongerer. Doesn't need to be true. Just repeated often enough. Perhaps we can set up "America Today" to catapult the agitprop.

When confronted with very, very good evidence, say that we need an objective evaluation of the evidence that is unbiased, with Russia very biased. Then let it drop because nobody is disinterested or unbiased, so "objective" means "whatever I want." If it doesn't drop, suggest a working group to produce a time line subject to multilateral approval on the formation of a task force to nominate members of a committee to explore the establishment of an ad hoc committee to formulate the working principles of an investigatory body on the matter. The actual formation of said task force to nominate ... would be postponed until at least January of the next fiscal year.

And if Russia continues to object, say that it's being militaristic and a threat to world order, and the world must mobilize to destroy it before it destroys the "American World." Then deny that this is anything but the most sincerest of peace plans and claim that Russia is wilfully failing to see and appreciate American attempts to de-escalate the situation in Syria and Iraq.

Then bomb. Send in more troops. More tanks. And more APCs.

[dawn frenzy adams]

66. Well...

Your terminology, "Islamist", is a right-wing description. You're busted.

[The Magistrate]

69. That, Ma'am, Is Incredibly Silly: It Is A Proper And Compact Usage

[another_liberal]

89. Good catch . . .

Welcome to Democratic Underground!

[another_liberal]

90. "Bomb. Send in troops. Tanks. APCs."

I think what you are actually referring to there is the Registered and Patented Trade Mark of Twenty-First Century United States foreign policy. Right?

[Comrade Grumpy]

82. He is right, and a hypocrite, too. And Syria as said the same thing.

This could get interesting.

[another_liberal]

86. Germany and UK will not join attacks on IS targets in Syria.

Germany, Britain won’t take part in airstrikes on Islamic State group in Syria

The foreign ministers of Germany and Britain said Thursday their states would not be taking part in airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State militant group. Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in Berlin: “To be quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so.” Philip Hammond, in his turn, said Britain “supports entirely the US approach of developing an international coalition” against the Islamic State. However, he said the UK will not be taking part in any airstrikes in Syria. “We have already had that discussion in our parliament last year and we won’t be revisiting that position,” Reuters quoted him as saying.

http://rt.com/news/line/2014-09-11/#70460

[quadrature]

91. ISIS kills two spies, and Obama claims its a reason to go to war

your tax dollars at work.

[The Magistrate]

93. You Consider Those To Be Legitimate Executions Then, Sir?

[quadrature]

95. a much bigger issue, is that a war is starting, over the killing of 2 people

Edit.

let me add, Sir,
that I think I.S. is a lot more legitimate of a country,
than Syria or Iraq

[NickB79]

98. I'm sure the thousands of Yazidis starved to death on Mt. Sinjar by IS would disagree

But the dead can't talk, can they?

Legitimate. Legitimately war criminals and ethnic cleansers, more like.

[The Magistrate]

103. That Does Not Answer the Question, Sir: You Said Two Spies Were Killed

Do you consider the killing of these two people to be legitimate executions?

Do you consider a penalty of death appropriate for espionage?

Do you have any evidence to present demonstrating these people were espionage agents, spies, in any generally accepted meaning of the term?

[quadrature]

104. answers ...

Q1) I'm sorry, I just don't know

Q2) if DP is legal for anything else, it certainly
should be legal for spying during wartime

Q3) I have no info that these people were spies.
other than, it is commonplace for anyone the regime does not
like, to be convicted of, spying or collaboration. Applies double for journalists.

[The Magistrate]

107. In Other Words, Sir, Your Comment Was Simply Bean Breeze

A sort of verbal fart.

More interesting at this point is your comment nearby, in which you endorse the taking of hostages, and the killing of hostages if the leverage sought fails, or in reprisal. That would be in No. 99 below, where you agree it is a 'good point' when it is stated the men were held as hostages and killed when air attacks were carried out anyway. You do not condemn the action, you do not state it is wrong, and taken in combination with your statement that 'a couple of spies' were killed, it is clear you have no problem at all with the behavior.

I expect in the future there will be comments from you regarding the 'criminal nature' of U.S. actions against I.S.I.L., with a variety of trimmings, and will bear in mind that they come from someone who endorses the taking of hostages, and the killing of hostages and prisoners, all grave breaches of international law, serious war crimes.

[another_liberal]

94. It should also be noted that both of the Americans had been IS prisoners for months . . .

It was only after we began our bombing attacks ("Just to protect American personnel&quot that they were brutally murdered.

I don't have the greatest of scientific minds, but even I can see "cause and effect" when it is that clearly exhibited.

[quadrature]

96. there could be 'internal political' reasons for IS ...

wanting to close the books,
on these two people.

example. Foley.
according to one story,
Foley changed hands for 50K,
and they got nothing.

[another_liberal]

97. They were vauable just as hostages too . . .

So long as IS thought their holding them deterred American attacks, the two men remained relatively unharmed. Once our bombs started falling on IS fighters, that rationale no longer applied.

[quadrature]

99. excellent point.... nt

[pampango]

100. Bad idea. We should send in an uninspected aid convoy instead.

The host government may not like it but we are just there to help hungry civilians.