WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria strik

[Beaudreaux]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran. A trifecta of evil.

 

[Linc]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

LOL, it is the left's religion.

Jackbooted Republicans are always plotting to end the world, doncha know.

The only people I see arguing with each other on trump's actions in this thread are noted trumpartisans, not that I get any comfort from that on such an important issue as foreign policy and war.

Not a good time for Congress to be on vacation, especially when certain members from both parties want to approve of trump's actions .

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

If there is a good reason then it's legal to attack a foreign nation, yes.

Since you've made an assertion and were asked to back it up with evidence (the law that makes it illegal) and refused to do so (unless I'm mistaken I see no such reference to any such law) then I'm glad to see we're in an agreement.

This issue was decided over nicauragua in international court, where the us lost, but then used it's veto powers to avoid any punishment. Supplying rebels with arms is a violation of the un charter, and sending any military into a country even if to just train and advise is still unlawful entry unless that country permitted it.

The us would have been legal had it only been financial support, however they tried to arm rebel forces under the guise of fighting isis, which would in itself not be illegal if that was their goal, however they were also fighting the govt of that country, which makes it illegal.

 

[Roadvirus]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

World War 3 fears - Russia and Iran threaten to respond to 'US aggression' | World | News | Express.co.uk




This is a serious development that in my opinion is a direct result of 8 years of obama weakness and pandering toward iran

The US better launch a crash program to rebuilt our military because we are going to need it

Well, looks like John McCain's wet dream is coming true: A possible war with both Iran AND Russia.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

This issue was decided over nicauragua in international court, where the us lost, but then used it's veto powers to avoid any punishment. Supplying rebels with arms is a violation of the un charter, and sending any military into a country even if to just train and advise is still unlawful entry unless that country permitted it.

The us would have been legal had it only been financial support, however they tried to arm rebel forces under the guise of fighting isis, which would in itself not be illegal if that was their goal, however they were also fighting the govt of that country, which makes it illegal.

Again, if there is a good reason then it is legal to attack a foreign nation.
Simply saying "you can't attack another nation and it's never legal" is absurd and false.

Assad is a dictator, he is maintaining power by the use of force and attacks the people of Syria constantly, it's more than a sufficing reasoning for the US to "get involved in the affairs of the sovereign state of Syria".

 

[Linc]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

World War 3 fears - Russia and Iran threaten to respond to 'US aggression' | World | News | Express.co.uk

This is a serious development that in my opinion is a direct result of 8 years of obama weakness and pandering toward
The US better launch a crash program to rebuilt our military because we are going to need it

Let's hope trump's inner circle understands administration overlap. Conflicts don't just end on 1/20, whether in 2017; 2009; 2001; 1993; etc.

trump GOPartisans blaming Obama might want to look back at what Bush-43 left when they start their bogus historical revision;

I'm seeing more division WITHIN each party on war issues so far in trump's admin .

 

[Linc]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Well, looks like John McCain's wet dream is coming true: A possible war with both Iran AND Russia.

There are plenty of McCain's in both parties, just as there are plenty of Rand Paul's in each party .

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Again, if there is a good reason then it is legal to attack a foreign nation.
Simply saying "you can't attack another nation and it's never legal" is absurd and false.

Assad is a dictator, he is maintaining power by the use of force and attacks the people of Syria constantly, it's more than a sufficing reasoning for the US to "get involved in the affairs of the sovereign state of Syria".

Assad is also a member of the un, and I can not find any legal backing anywhere that allowes un members to invade eachother because they think they are bad.

The only thing I see is america deciding rules do not apply to them, and only to non allied countries. Might I add israel and saudi arabia too have both blatently violated un regs in the past, and saudi arabia still commits human rights violations and severe warcrimes to this day in yemen.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Invoking Godwin's law already? Don't do that. Trump is no Hitler.................. Think Mussolini here.

Meh, I thought it rolled off the tongue nicely...

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Also for those unaware those who are members of the un, abide by the charter of the un, which prohibits any military action against another country, unless approved by the un security council. Per un regs, trumps attack against syria was a blatent violation of un law, as they are still deciding on the issue.

Iraq was also an illegal occupation under international law, saying this is somehow legal for america do do what it does all over the world means you have to blatently ignore the un charter, and believe rules are only applied one sided.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Well, looks like John McCain's wet dream is coming true: A possible war with both Iran AND Russia.

I'm thinking that WW3 is a rather remote possibility.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Assad is also a member of the un, and I can not find any legal backing anywhere that allowes un members to invade eachother because they think they are bad.

The only thing I see is america deciding rules do not apply to them, and only to non allied countries. Might I add israel and saudi arabia too have both blatently violated un regs in the past, and saudi arabia still commits human rights violations and severe warcrimes to this day in yemen.

It's like saying that France cannot target an ISIS cell in Libya because that is in violation of Libya's sovereignity.
The law isn't as simple as you're pretending it is, there are things called 'justifications'. If you have a justification to act in a certain way then you can act that way, it should be obvious.

There is no violation in opposing Assad's regime militarily. There is nothing illegal in targeting its military.
It's a legitimate use of force with the justification being the actions of Assad's regime, what it is responsible for, its crimes against its own people and the consequences the regime's actions have had and will have on the entire world.

 

[Fallenangel]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Ehhh....weird, maybe someone here can help me and give a link or something, cause I tried to look for it and so far couldn't find a "Joint Command Centre, which is made up of Russian, Iranian and the Lebannon's Hezbollah" or their supposed statements.

The only statement that I could find was from some Hezzy fanboys on almasdarnews.com


Fallen.

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

It's like saying that France cannot target an ISIS cell in Libya because that is in violation of Libya's sovereignity.
The law isn't as simple as you're pretending it is, there are things called 'justifications'. If you have a justification to act in a certain way then you can act that way, it should be obvious.

There is no violation in opposing Assad's regime militarily. There is nothing illegal in targeting its military.
It's a legitimate use of force with the justification being the actions of Assad's regime, what it is responsible for, its crimes against its own people and the consequences the regime's actions have had and will have on the entire world.

Actually by the un charter, france targetting isis is a direct violation and completely illegal unless the libyan govt permitted them to do it, or the security council voted on the move.

However your libya example is a moot point since there is no central govt there at all, or any sovereign one, since their dictator was overthrown they have been run by various militia.

Justification is not in the un charter, short of the un security council approving it, and yes opposing assads regime is a direct violation of internation law, and the us has been called out on it since reagans administration to now. Without un approval, military action or even arming rebels is a violation, and regime change itself is not allowed in the un charter eitherm again unless the un security council votes for it.

The un rules were set to keep countries from flexing their muscles and invading other countries over policy or starting proxy wars . The rules were set in 1945 due to world war two.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Actually by the un charter, france targetting isis is a direct violation and completely illegal unless the libyan govt permitted them to do it, or the security council voted on the move.

However your libya example is a moot point since there is no central govt there at all, or any sovereign one, since their dictator was overthrown they have been run by various militia.

Justification is not in the un charter, short of the un security council approving it, and yes opposing assads regime is a direct violation of internation law, and the us has been called out on it since reagans administration to now. Without un approval, military action or even arming rebels is a violation, and regime change itself is not allowed in the un charter eitherm again unless the un security council votes for it.

The un rules were set to keep countries from flexing their muscles and invading other countries over policy or starting proxy wars . The rules were set in 1945 due to world war two.

First of all you're referring to the UN as if it is a world government of some sort. It's simply a bad joke of an organization no one takes seriously. A buffoonish institution created to avoid WWIII but instead becoming a tool through which ill intentioned third world countries with a long history of human rights abuses can sabotage any attempt to get in their way or harm those who oppose them. It's an organization where Iran was elected several years ago to the commission on the status of women. It's a joke of an organization. Any reference to international law in warfare (the rules of war) is made by the universal declaration of human rights and the articles of the Geneva Conventions, among other treaties and documents.

To show how absurd your position truly is what you're suggesting is that if nation A has people in it who are attacking the citizens of bordering nation B from its territory, and nation A's government either is unwilling to act and stop them or unable to (or both), nation B attacking those people is illegal because it says so in the UN charter that "attacks on other countries are illegal". It's nonsensical and simply not true. They also don't have to wait for a bunch of human rights violating countries to gather up and decide on whether or not nation B has the right to defend its citizens from those attacks in the UN secrutiy council, that is nonsensical as well. They have the right to act under the right to self defense and the right to life of their people. This is called a 'justification', again. Something the United States of America most certainly have in the case of the attacks on Syria as referred to above.

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

First of all you're referring to the UN as if it is a world government of some sort. It's simply a bad joke of an organization no one takes seriously. A buffoonish institution created to avoid WWII but instead becoming a tool through which ill intentioned third world countries with a long history of human rights abuses can sabotage any attempt to get in their way or harm those who oppose them. It's an organization where Iran was elected several years ago to the commission on the status of women. It's a joke of an organization. Any reference to international law in warfare (the rules of war) is made by the universal declaration of human rights and the articles of the Geneva Conventions, among other treaties and documents.

To show how absurd your position truly is what you're suggesting is that if nation A has people in it who are attacking the citizens of bordering nation B from its territory, and nation A's government either is unwilling to act and stop them or unable to (or both), nation B attacking those people is illegal because it says so in the UN charter that "attacks on other countries are illegal". It's nonsensical and simply not true. They also don't have to wait for a bunch of human rights violating countries to gather up and decide on whether or not nation B has the right to defend its citizens from those attacks in the UN secrutiy council, that is nonsensical as well. They have the right to act under the right to self defense and the right to life of their people. This is called a 'justification', again. Something the United States of America most certainly have in the case of the attacks on Syria as referred to above.

If you do not use un law then the only other international law is ancient international law, that views any attemp to attack, invade, or do anything in a foreign land short of consent as a crime, thus justifying retaliation.

There is no international law that has ever existed that views attacks and invasion or even regime change as legal, what you are trying to do is use an imaginary set of rules to justify illegal actions, which makes them no less illegal or any more justified, claiming laws that do not exist is the highest levels of insanity.

Further the un charter fully allows all countries the right to defense, you are now trying to confuse defense with attack, as any country can legally by un charter defend itself, but needs security council to be legal in attacking someone else outside of defense.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

If you do not use un law then the only other international law is ancient international law, that views any attemp to attack, invade, or do anything in a foreign land short of consent as a crime, thus justifying retaliation.

There is no international law that has ever existed that views attacks and invasion or even regime change as legal, what you are trying to do is use an imaginary set of rules to justify illegal actions, which makes them no less illegal or any more justified, claiming laws that do not exist is the highest levels of insanity.

Further the un charter fully allows all countries the right to defense, you are now trying to confuse defense with attack, as any country can legally by un charter defend itself, but needs security council to be legal in attacking someone else outside of defense.

You are confusing the situation I described where an organization or a group of people are attacking citizens of a bordering nation from their nation's territory with a situation of direct warfare between two nations.
In the latter self-defense is applied by the defending country against the aggressor, in the former we're referring to an act of self-defense but one against a third party, an act that causes a violation of the sovereignity of a nation by another and is thus "illegal". It's nonsense, as long as there is a justification they have the right to protect their country. The UN security council saying "no" to that means nothing. And again it should be noted that the UN is a joke.
And the Geneva Conventions are not "ancient international law", not at all.

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You are confusing the situation I described where an organization or a group of people are attacking citizens of a bordering nation from their nation's territory with a situation of direct warfare between two nations.
In the latter self-defense is applied by the defending country against the aggressor, in the former we're referring to an act of self-defense but one against a third party, an act that causes a violation of the sovereignity of a nation by another and is thus "illegal". It's nonsense, as long as there is a justification they have the right to protect their country. The UN security council saying "no" to that means nothing. And again it should be noted that the UN is a joke.
And the Geneva Conventions are not "ancient international law", not at all.

But arguing a justification of self defense does not permit self defense half way across the world against a country of no thrat to you.

In a bordering situation, self defense could be a civil war that is spilling over or about to spill over, past bordering nations that point is moot, especially in reguards to the us as canada is real friendly dont ya know and mexico is well mexico.

 

[reinoe]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You are confusing the situation I described where an organization or a group of people are attacking citizens of a bordering nation from their nation's territory with a situation of direct warfare between two nations.
In the latter self-defense is applied by the defending country against the aggressor, in the former we're referring to an act of self-defense but one against a third party, an act that causes a violation of the sovereignity of a nation by another and is thus "illegal". It's nonsense, as long as there is a justification they have the right to protect their country. The UN security council saying "no" to that means nothing. And again it should be noted that the UN is a joke.
And the Geneva Conventions are not "ancient international law", not at all.

Your only defense seems to be that the UN is a joke. And you are correct, The United Nations is a joke of an organization. However the United States is a member. Therefore what the United States is doing in Syria is illegal according to UN charter.

 

[sangha]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

You may want to change your avatar before you start pointing fingers at others about having a fetish. Just sayin'.

Oh, I have got plenty of fetishes, but fear ain't one

 

[Linc]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Again, if there is a good reason then it is legal to attack a foreign nation.
Simply saying "you can't attack another nation and it's never legal" is absurd and false.

Assad is a dictator, he is maintaining power by the use of force and attacks the people of Syria constantly, it's more than a sufficing reasoning for the US to "get involved in the affairs of the sovereign state of Syria".

Though I am supportive of my president DURING these war hostilities, what is your state of Israel doing?

You have rightly damned Assad and are questionably telling the USA to "get involved in the affairs of the sovereign state of Syria" in your back yard.

Does Israel have a hands-off policy with Syria ?

 

[reinoe]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Side with terrorists... it is no surprise.

It's the U.S. that is siding with terrorists. Overthrowing Assad allows terrorists to take over. Anyone who wants to remove Assad is siding with terrorists.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

But arguing a justification of self defense does not permit self defense half way across the world against a country of no thrat to you.

In a bordering situation, self defense could be a civil war that is spilling over or about to spill over, past bordering nations that point is moot, especially in reguards to the us as canada is real friendly dont ya know and mexico is well mexico.

Yes and I have given the example to show that there are cases that are in violation with the UN charter's "don't attack any other UN member" and have a justification.
In a situation where a country such as Nazi Germany is executing parts of its own population, even if it doesn't go and invade other countries and only "minds its own business", there is still every kind of justification to invade the country and attack the regime. The UN security council gathering up and saying "don't" is meaningless.

Your only defense seems to be that the UN is a joke. And you are correct, The United Nations is a joke of an organization. However the United States is a member. Therefore what the United States is doing in Syria is illegal according to UN charter.

That was not 'my only defense' but something that was mentioned beside the point.

Though I am supportive of my president DURING these war hostilities, what is your state of Israel doing?

You have rightly damned Assad and are questionably telling the USA to "get involved in the affairs of the sovereign state of Syria" in your back yard.

Does Israel have a hands-off policy with Syria ?

1) My state has nothing to do with the discussion here. The fact that you look to my profile and see where I'm from and decide to change discussion towards that place is ridiculous. It's not the first or second time you do this either and that's just from what I recall.
2) Nowhere have I made a call for the US to get involved in Syria. I'm describing the situation and justifying the action taken by the US, but not calling or "telling" anything. That's just as ridiculous.
3) I'll answer your question even though it's clearly an attempt to take the discussion to other places - no, Israel doesn't get involved in the civil war. It provides medical aid to the wounded who come to the border and seek such aid, it also targets Hezbollah weapon transfers in Syria as it did prior to the civil war, and finally whenever the exchange of fire between the Syrian government and the rebels crosses into Israel by mistake or not Israel reacts and that's it.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

It's the U.S. that is siding with terrorists. Overthrowing Assad allows terrorists to take over. Anyone who wants to remove Assad is siding with terrorists.

Assad is cooperating with terrorists so you can say the opposite using the same logic.
The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy in these situations.

 

[beerftw]

Re: WW3 fears as Russia and Iran threaten to respond to US 'aggression' after Syria s

Yes and I have given the example to show that there are cases that are in violation with the UN charter's "don't attack any other UN member" and have a justification.
In a situation where a country such as Nazi Germany is executing parts of its own population, even if it doesn't go and invade other countries and only "minds its own business", there is still every kind of justification to invade the country and attack the regime. The UN security council gathering up and saying "don't" is meaningless.



That was not 'my only defense' but something that was mentioned beside the point.



1) My state has nothing to do with the discussion here. The fact that you look to my profile and see where I'm from and decide to change discussion towards that place is ridiculous. It's not the first or second time you do this either and that's just from what I recall.
2) Nowhere have I made a call for the US to get involved in Syria. I'm describing the situation and justifying the action taken by the US, but not calling or "telling" anything. That's just as ridiculous.
3) I'll answer your question even though it's clearly an attempt to take the discussion to other places - no, Israel doesn't get involved in the civil war. It provides medical aid to the wounded who come to the border and seek such aid, it also targets Hezbollah weapon transfers in Syria as it did prior to the civil war, and finally whenever the exchange of fire between the Syrian government and the rebels crosses into Israel by mistake or not Israel reacts and that's it.

Actually preventing a genocide is a violation of international law, unless approved military action by the security council. If it spilled into your country you could claim self defense, however otherwise it is illegal.

For your point to be valid you must provide any law that justifies your position, otherwise your position is to cite imaginary laws, and somehow hold the us above any and all law while granting it the authority to enforce it.