• Russia : U.S. would be violating international law by striking targets in Syria
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. A Russian foreign ministry spokesman said any such action, without the backing of the UN, would be "an act of aggression". It comes as US Secretary of State John Kerry meets Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia to try to build a coalition against Islamic State (IS) militants. President Obama has threatened action against IS in Syria as well as Iraq. IS controls large parts of Syria and Iraq after a rapid military advance. In a speech outlining his strategy, Mr Obama said any group that threatened America would "find no safe haven". He also announced that 475 US military personnel would be sent to Iraq but said they would not have a combat role.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29154481[/url]
Isn't ISIS hostile to Russia? Why does Russia want to defend them? I feel like I'm missing something.
I can't imagine how they managed to say that without laughing.
[QUOTE=OvB;45956756]I can't imagine how they managed to say that without laughing.[/QUOTE] They aren't. They just give no fucks. Like someone in another thread said Russia is becoming more and more like North Korea every day. Shit like this helps to highlight it
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;45956751]Isn't ISIS hostile to Russia? Why does Russia want to defend them? I feel like I'm missing something.[/QUOTE] They want to be the ones who invade Iraq and Syria, just gotta deal with Ukraine first.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;45956751]Isn't ISIS hostile to Russia? Why does Russia want to defend them? I feel like I'm missing something.[/QUOTE] They're defending Assad, not ISIS. US presence in Syria puts Assad's future at risk even though the primary focus is currently ISIS.
Oh so NOW you care about international law and the UN and shit? America wants to help the Syrian rebels against the Syrian government. Russia: "No" America wants to help the Syrian government against an even bigger threat. Russia: "No" I bet if ISIS was really a threat to the Syrian government Russia would be on that shit regardless of international law.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;45956906]I bet if ISIS was really a threat to the Syrian government Russia would be on that shit regardless of international law.[/QUOTE]Not really. If going after ISIS were to hurt the U.S. somehow though, absolutely.
i think it would be against international law to not strike at them as they are guilty of shitloads of human rights violations
Russia is much more annoying than it is scary nowadays [editline]11th September 2014[/editline] To the US that is
as it stands we're not actually doing anything to dismantle assad (for now) besides arming rebels that are part of the guys we're destroying
Oh and forcibly annexing Crimea from another country and continuing to menace Ukraine with supporting rebels isn't a "gross violation of international law"?? Honestly this world is so backwards sometimes.
I wonder how the US is going to justify violating Syria's sovereignty once Syria bitches and moans about it to the UN
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;45956852]They're defending Assad, not ISIS. US presence in Syria puts Assad's future at risk even though the primary focus is currently ISIS.[/QUOTE] What this guy says, also Syria has a mutual defense agreement with Iran so let's say if USA were to attack anything in Syrian soil against Assads permission it would pretty much be a declaration of war against not only Syria but also Iran.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;45957008]I wonder how the US is going to justify violating Syria's sovereignty once Syria bitches and moans about it to the UN[/QUOTE] I'm guessing WMD related excuses out the ass like bush if US decides to go all the way
Get real, Russia and the US both wipe their ass with international law.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;45957008]I wonder how the US is going to justify violating Syria's sovereignty once Syria bitches and moans about it to the UN[/QUOTE] honestly assad has no credibility anyways and can't get to the UN to bitch about it so theres that, i mean he really can't leave his country without fear of a coup or a rebel assault
He doesn't physically have to go to the UN. He can send delagates (who are already there)
[QUOTE=Pokeman493;45957057]I'm guessing WMD related excuses out the ass like bush if US decides to go all the way[/QUOTE] They tried to get a cause for intervention already once with the nerve gas debacle in which Syrian government got blamed for gassing civilians and then UN said "wait a minute it was the American backed rebels gassing the civilians not the Syrian government." and then Russia mediated the Syrian chemical weapons stock to be dismantled.
The UN confirmed that chemical weapons had been used but never placed the blame on either side Angua. Saying the rebels used the gas is approaching 9/11 truther level of conspiracy
"I know you are but what am I?"
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;45957400]The UN confirmed that chemical weapons had been used but never placed the blame on either side Angua. Saying the rebels used the gas is approaching 9/11 truther level of conspiracy[/QUOTE] What i'm 90% positive their conclusion was that the gas could only have been used by the rebels, i shall conclude a thorough investigation into this tomorrow. And i'm back. Sources found, from these crazy conspiracy sites of the [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html"]telegraph [/URL]and the [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html"]independent[/URL] and to top it all off have some [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-jobar-idUSBRE97N04T20130824"]reuters[/URL]. Also have some more [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-chemicals-idUSBRE97M0U820130823"]reuters [/URL]in this specific article they gloss over the fact that the rockets used were homemade. Also i know [URL="http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/"]RT [/URL]is a bad source but this article presents the case of one of the rebels being caught with a 2kg container of sarin gas.
This is so hypocritical, even if it is coming from Russia. They should honestly just stick to themselves, rather then being that one country that tries to be annoying and act tough and "scary" to others.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;45957834]This is so hypocritical, even if it is coming from Russia. They should honestly just stick to themselves, rather then being that one country that tries to be annoying and act tough and "scary" to others.[/QUOTE] You don't understand Russia.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;45957834]This is so hypocritical, even if it is coming from Russia. They should honestly just stick to themselves, rather then being that one country that tries to be annoying and act tough and "scary" to others.[/QUOTE] Like the U.S of A? You need to look at it from a neutral point of view. Breaking international law and creating new international norms isn't mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45956955]as it stands we're not actually doing anything to dismantle assad (for now) besides arming rebels that are part of the guys we're destroying[/QUOTE] Yeah no, many rebel groups that have been armed are fighting isis as well as assad.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;45957400]The UN confirmed that chemical weapons had been used but never placed the blame on either side Angua. Saying the rebels used the gas is approaching 9/11 truther level of conspiracy[/QUOTE] There was 1 chemical attack carried out in the north against the kurds. At that point assad had totally lost control of the north and the point of attack was too far behind "rebel" lines to be in range of the artillary used to deliver the chemical agents. So the attack much have been launched from inside "rebel" lines and I'm not sure why Assad would risk going deep into enemy lines to shell a village when there would be plenty more villages in range without having to travel so far into enemy territory.
[QUOTE=Angua;45957043]What this guy says, also Syria has a mutual defense agreement with Iran so let's say if USA were to attack anything in Syrian soil against Assads permission it would pretty much be a declaration of war against not only Syria but also Iran.[/QUOTE] Iran is at war with Isis...
Pot, meet kettle.
Plus the attacks wouldnt be in Assad controlled area it'd be in places that are taken over by ISIS
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.