US shoot down Syrian air force plane over ISIS held Syrian territory - who's side are the US on...?

An American fighter jet shot down a Syrian warplane over the Isis-held province of Raqqa on Sunday as escalating tensions between rival forces threaten to draw the US into the wider conflict in Syria.

It was thought to be the first time the US-led coalition fighting Isis has shot down a Syrian jet since the war erupted six years ago, and it comes after several recent incidents in which the US has targeted regime forces and their allies in eastern Syria.

The US military said the downed Syrian plane was dropping bombs near a Syrian Kurdish militia that Washington was backing in the fight against Isis in Raqqa, the jihadi group’s de facto capital.

The downing of the Syrian jet came just hours before Iran launched ballistic missiles at suspected Isis targets in eastern Syria. The twin escalations by Washington and Tehran, which has already been active in supporting the Syrian regime, underscores the renewed risk of the civil war becoming a regional conflagration.

Moscow, which has intervened militarily to back the Syrian regime, condemned the US action, saying it flouted international law.

“What is this other than an act of aggression in violation of the norms of international law?” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, told reporters.

Syria’s conflict began in 2011 as a rebellion against President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, but has since devolved into a multi-sided conflict that jihadi groups such as Isis exploited to seize territory. Russia and Iran back the regime, while the US, Turkey and Gulf Arab states have supported Syrian rebels.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards launched its surface-to-surface missiles against Isis in Syria’s east in an attack seen as retaliation for attacks this month by the jihadi group on the Islamic republic’s parliament and a shrine in Tehran.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, tweeted that “Iran’s missile capability protects its citizens in lawful self-defence and advances common global fight to eradicate Isis and extremist terror”.



https://www.ft.com/content/d2aba898-5467-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

The Syrian was bombing a US ally, and got his ass burned.  Whatta surprise.

This is the difficulty with our getting involved.  No one knows who is who.  ISIS is former al Qaeda in Iraq, former Baath, former Iraqi military. ISIS is Sunni, and is opposed by Iran, which is basically Shi'ite.  If we were to get involved we would first have to sort out the 1,400-year old Sunni-Shi'ite battle, before sorting things out with Assad...not to mention the Israelis with the Palestinians and those Russian fuckwits, who want to tear up NATO and all the European alliances.

Get a pencil...here's a pad...take notes.

No... you need to take notes...


The Syrian govt aircraft was targetting ISIS terrorists in Syria... and was flying in Syrian airspace... where the US has no right to be under international law...!

Tommy Monk wrote:No... you need to take notes...

The Syrian govt aircraft was targetting ISIS terrorists in Syria... and was flying in Syrian airspace... where the US has no right to be under international law...!

My understanding is that:

The Guardian wrote:A US warplane shot down a Syrian army jet on Sunday in the southern Raqqa countryside. Washington said the jet had dropped bombs near US-backed forces.
*  *  *  *
Later, US central command issued a statement saying the Syrian plane was downed “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces”, which were identified as fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near Tabqa.

It said “pro-Syrian regime forces” attacked an SDF held town south of Tabqa and wounded a number of fighters, driving them from the town. In a show of force, coalition aircraft stopped the initial advance. When a Syrian army SU-22 jet then dropped bombs near the US-backed forces, the statement said, it was immediately shot by a US F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Before it downed the plane, the coalition “contacted its Russian counterparts by telephone via an established ‘de-confliction line’ to de-escalate the situation and stop the firing”, the statement said.

The coalition does “not seek to fight the Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces” but will not “hesitate to defend itself or its “partnered forces from any threat”, the statement said.

Tough titty, said the kitty,
But the milk's still good.

Well now the Russians say they'll shoot down any plane from the US coalition in the area west of the Euphrates river.

The Americans might feel they should support the rebels, especially against ISIS, but in reality, it's just prolonging the war and the suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/19/russia-target-us-led-coalition-warplanes-over-syria

Raggamuffin wrote:Well now the Russians say they'll shoot down any plane from the US coalition in the area west of the Euphrates river.

The Americans might feel they should support the rebels, especially against ISIS, but in reality, it's just prolonging the war and the suffering.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/19/russia-target-us-led-coalition-warplanes-over-syria

I couldn't agree more. This one will bear watching, as it involves Trump's military against Trump's Russian sponsors.

How will he play it? Use the red phone to sabotage the US military, and claim that they are a bunch of "losers" with "rubbish" as generals?

Quill... under what legal justification?

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... under what legal justification?

If its a threat or has attacked US/allied positions, then its a legitimate target, under the rules of engagement.

No... the US have no legal basis to be in syria.

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the US have no legal basis to be in syria.

Really, based on what?

International law...

Tommy Monk wrote:International law...

Which you clearly do not understand.

Show me the law?

Under the United Nations charter of which both the US and Syria have signed allow for two situations of force on a foreign soil.

One is self defence, of which this is, as they have troops within a base there or permission from the security council.

As both are signatories to this charter, that makes the US action legal under international law

Wrong didge!

Any presence, especially a military one, on the territory of a sovereign state is possible only when there is a corresponding UN resolution or a request from the state's legitimate authorities

There has never even been a Congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria against anyone...

...the simplest analysis is American bombing is not simply illegal, but immoral.





Russian diplomat blasts US military presence in southern Syria as 'illegal'
TASS - 4 hours ago
It is absolutely illegal. There is neither a United Nations Security Council
resolution nor a request from Syria's legitimate authorities to this effect ...
Syria and Our Illegal Acts of War
The American Conservative - 1 day ago
Russian jet buzzes U.S. plane after a drone was shot down in Syria
Newsweek - 2 hours ago
Syria and Our Illegal Acts of War | The American Conservative
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/.../syria-and-our-illegal-acts-of-war/‎
1 day ago ... There has never been a Congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria against anyone, and there has been scant debate over ...
U.S. Military Intervention in Syria: Legitimacy Does Matter | HuffPost
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../us-military-intervention-_b_3843783.html‎
U.S. Military Intervention in Syria: Legitimacy Does Matter ... of just war theory, the simplest analysis is American bombing is not simply illegal, but immoral.
PressTV-Russia: US deconfliction zones in Syria illegal
www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/06/.../lavrov-syria-russia-us-aggression‎
Jun 8, 2017 ... Russia has censured a recent US strike against Syrian military positions as an act of aggression.
Russia and U.S. Military Forces Are Now Battling ISIS in Raqqa, but ...
www.newsweek.com/us-russia-isis-syria-allies-battle-isis-raqqa-625297‎
5 days ago ... The Russia-backed Syrian military and its allies entered ISIS-held ... The Syrian government considers U.S. military presence in Syria illegal.
US-led forces accused of illegally using white phosphorus in Syria ...
www.straitstimes.com/.../us-led-forces-accused-of-illegally-using-white-phosphorus-in-syria‎
Jun 12, 2017 ... BEIRUT • Images and reports from witnesses in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa suggest the US-led coalition battling ISIS militants there has ...
US Is Basically in an Illegal War With Syria and Nobody's Talking ...
theantimedia.org/us-illegal-war-with-syria/‎

Really and tell me how is Assad in control of areas controlled by the rebels?

Like I say, you do not understand international law

Again show me the international law

Not some opinion pieces

In your own time

I have given you the facts...


The USA have no UN mandate, they do not have permission from the Syrian national govt, they dont even have any authority from the US national congress as there is no congressional vote to allow any of it!!!


Now... maybe you can tell me what legal basis you think there is...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:I have given you the facts...


The USA have no UN mandate, they do not have permission from the Syrian national govt, they dont even have any authority from the US national congress as there is no congressional vote to allow any of it!!!


Now... maybe you can tell me what legal basis you think there is...!!!???

No you have given me a load of drivel.

The US is in places not under the Assad regime, but rebel control.

They are thus there legally and can protect their forces legally through international law and rules of engagement.

I already explained the legality on how both are signatories of the UN charter.

The Us does not require permission to use force on a foreign soil when protecting its forces or after they have been attacked

Do you need me to dumb this down further for you to understand?

I would have thought it was irrelevant that the rebels are in control of an area. Technically, it's still in Syria, which is a sovereign state.

You are talking nonsense...


Show me the legislation that gives the US the legal authority to engage in military action in Syria...!!!???


There is not even permission from the US congress with any vote in authorising it!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You are talking nonsense...


Show me the legislation that gives the US the legal authority to engage in military action in Syria...!!!???


There is not even permission from the US congress with any vote in authorising it!!!

I just did give you the legal legislation that allows nations to defend its forces

As to the US congress has nothing to do with your claim on international law

So again, show me the international law, which you have been asked 4 times now

In your own time

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought it was irrelevant that the rebels are in control of an area. Technically, it's still in Syria, which is a sovereign state.

Okay, so you are claiming disputed territory belongs to the nation?

So Israel legally owns the West Bank then?

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You are talking nonsense...


Show me the legislation that gives the US the legal authority to engage in military action in Syria...!!!???


There is not even permission from the US congress with any vote in authorising it!!!

I just did give you the legal legislation that allows nations to defend its forces

As to the US congress has nothing to do with your claim on international law

So again, show me the international law, which you have been asked 4 times now

In your own time

There is no basis in international law for the US to be in Syria or flying in Syrian airspace in any military capacity at all...


And furthermore... the US doesnt even have the permission to be anywhere there from its own US national congress, which means that the US govt does not even have the legal authority required from its own legislative govt to be there!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I just did give you the legal legislation that allows nations to defend its forces

As to the US congress has nothing to do with your claim on international law

So again, show me the international law, which you have been asked 4 times now

In your own time

There is no basis in international law for the US to be in Syria or flying in Syrian airspace in any military capacity at all...


And furthermore... the US doesnt even have the permission to be anywhere there from its own US national congress, which means that the US govt does not even have the legal authority required from its own legislative govt to be there!!!

So you keep claiming, without ever showing me a single international law

So you are out of the debate

Not going to go around in circles with you

Again the US has a right to defend its forces, it also has a right to defend Iraq from ISIS, as it has permission to be within its territory to do so, which allows for attacks into Syria in defense of Iraq against ISIS and its affiliate supporters.

The US is training forces in rebel held territory.

It can defend its forces legally under international law

You failed to show any of this is illegal

Thanks for your input, but now I shall await for Quills views

THE US HAS NO RIGHT TO HAVE FORCES IN SYRIA IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

SO HOW CAN THE US HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND US FORCES IN SYRIA THAT ARENT LEGALLY THERE!!!???


THE US GOVT DOESNT EVEN HAVE THE REQUIRED PERMISSION OF THE US CONGRESS TO BE ANYWHERE THERE IN SYRIA!!!


WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU DIDGE???

No good shouting, you had your chance and fail to show at all this international law

This is what happens when you fail to back up your claims

This is what will happen every time now you failed to back up your claims

So have the last word, is not going to make you right.

It is you who has failed to show any laws that support US actions in Syria...

Tommy Monk wrote:It is you who has failed to show any laws that support US actions in Syria...

You have been talking about two different jurisdictions, and technically you are both arguably right.  Within the US, military action must be authorized by Congress under Article I of the US Constitution.  Internationally, Article 51 of the UN Charter says that the sole justification for resort to conflict is self-defense, “in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

As you know, the Republican Congress has refused to allow Obama to constitutionally enter Syria, despite the war bill he put on the Republicans' desk.  So, any action must be based upon pre-existing authorization.  ISIS is the former al Qaeda in Iraq, which is the former Baath Party, ruling party in Iraq.  So the limited action in Syria is based upon the supposition that the US is just chasing the bad guys out of Iraq, and alas, they have fled to Syria.  Also, note that ISIS is ISIL (reference is to the Levant, which includes Iraq), so here again, the US uses the 2002 mandate and argues that ISIL chooses the battleground.  It's the same war, the argument goes, so it's based upon the 2002 authorization.  

Note that it is a tenuous position for our presence in Syria, and the US uses it cautiously.  They really only have a defensive posture to stand on: We are protecting our own troops and those of our allies. Troops are ostensibly only for training purposes.  That's why you don't see a full-scale US presence in Syria as you did in Iraq.  Russia argues that the US has no lawful basis to be there, and they (Russia) are there only by invitation of the lawful government (Assad).

An argument that is akin to the defense argument is that there is an international mandate against terrorism.  That's a dangerous one as it would be easy to fabricate.  

The US Troop deployment in Syria has not been issued under international law. It is backed by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (aka AUMF). This is a post-911 document that was originally issued for president Bush to fight against Al-Qaeda. It has since been used (controversially) as a justification for many military actions due to the vagueness and broadness of the scope defined.

...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Ultimately, international law is not a law at all.  It is a good faith commitment to follow the standards of Article 51. There could be no real enforcement:

Most of the contemporary US military actions abroad are unjustified or barely justified by international law, but no one can do anything about it anyway. International law is followed by most states at most occasions, but everyone do so on a good faith basis - just like how we generally follow accepted rules of ethics and conduct. No one can force you to, but doing so is generally to the interest of everyone.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16319/under-what-international-law-is-the-deployment-of-u-s-forces-in-syria-justified

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It is you who has failed to show any laws that support US actions in Syria...

You have been talking about two different jurisdictions, and technically you are both arguably right.  Within the US, military action must be authorized by Congress under Article I of the US Constitution.  Internationally, Article 51 of the UN Charter says that the sole justification for resort to conflict is self-defense, “in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

You are conflating two parts of this charter, when forces can use armed action themselves on foreign soil.

There is also 3 justifications.

The first is to respond to threats to international peace. Chapter VII of the charter. Where the UN Security Council can authorize action.

The second is in self defense of its forces, of which this was. Of which also covers a preemptive strike. Article 51 of the charter.

Article 51 states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ....”

The third, is when a nation engages in widespread abuse of human rights of its citizens, that a Government loses a measure of its sovereignty.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

And an International law is binding, when both parties are signatories to that charter of which the US and Syria are. Hence why both the Russians and Syrians know that the US act of defense here binding and is backed by international law.

Thorin wrote:The first is to respond to threats to international peace. Chapter VII of the charter. Where the UN Security Council can authorize action.

The second is in self defense of its forces, of which this was. Of which also covers a preemptive strike. Article 51 of the charter.

As to your first and second reasons, the legitimizing conflict is with ISIS, outsiders in Syria.  Yet, Trump is attacking the host government...that of Assad.  Obama was much wiser, and strictly maintained a limited role.

As to humanitarian intervention, the UN Charter does not allow a nation to interfere in the affairs of another nation, without involvement of the entire UN.  So far, all we've got is a good advocate in Adviser Adama Dieng:

“The Government of Syria is manifestly failing to protect its populations,” the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, said in a statement in December 2012. “The international community must act on the commitment made by all Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including their incitement,” said Mr. Dieng.

Original Quill wrote:
As to your first and second reasons, the legitimizing conflict is with ISIS, outsiders in Syria.  Yet, Trump is attacking the host government...that of Assad.  Obama was much wiser, and strictly maintained a limited role.

As to humanitarian intervention, the UN Charter does not allow a nation to interfere in the affairs of another nation, without involvement of the entire UN.  So far, all we've got is a good advocate in Adviser Adama Dieng:

“The Government of Syria is manifestly failing to protect its populations,” the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, said in a statement in December 2012. “The international community must act on the commitment made by all Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including their incitement,” said Mr. Dieng.

Incorrect again, as ISIS are fighting in both Syria and Iraq. Trump has only once been the aggressor in attacking Syrian forces on an airfield. After the Syrians attacked and bombed their own civilians with chemical weapons. Even then that was in retaliation to a crime against humanity, a war crime. Hence getting permission from the security council to use armed response is impossible. When Russia is a permanent member of the security council. Who has constantly vetoed any action against Syria. Which brings the validity of  R2P of the charter into the forefront. When a nation engages in widespread abuse of human rights of its citizens, that a Government loses a measure of its sovereignty. Of course this is constantly being contested and argued over and is a grey area within International law. Though I do not see any criminal charges being brought forth by Syria on this do you, to the international criminal court?

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

Hence where you have permanent members like China and Russia who deny action when there is mass abuse of human rights, we are seeing the legal right to take action. However, that is in regard to the retaliation strike on the Syrian airfield. This is about a Syrian warplane attacking a camp with US forces and chapter 51 legally allows the US to defend its forces.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would have thought it was irrelevant that the rebels are in control of an area. Technically, it's still in Syria, which is a sovereign state.

Okay, so you are claiming disputed territory belongs to the nation?

So Israel legally owns the West Bank then?

It's not disputed territory as in another country claiming it. The rebels want Assad out - different situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Okay, so you are claiming disputed territory belongs to the nation?

So Israel legally owns the West Bank then?

It's not disputed territory as in another country claiming it. The rebels want Assad out - different situation.

The rebels are claiming it, just as ISIS claim for themselves a Caliphate state, which its territories cover areas of both Iraq and Syria.

So disputed territory, which is in the middle of war.

The rebels are in control of territory are they not?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not disputed territory as in another country claiming it. The rebels want Assad out - different situation.

The rebels are claiming it, just as ISIS claim for themselves a Caliphate state, which its territories cover areas of both Iraq and Syria.

So disputed territory, which is in the middle of war.

The rebels are in control of territory are they not?

It doesn't matter - the rebels are not the legitimate Government. Syria is still a sovereign country, including the bits which the rebels are fighting over.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The rebels are claiming it, just as ISIS claim for themselves a Caliphate state, which its territories cover areas of both Iraq and Syria.

So disputed territory, which is in the middle of war.

The rebels are in control of territory are they not?

It doesn't matter - the rebels are not the legitimate Government. Syria is still a sovereign country, including the bits which the rebels are fighting over.

The US, as well as other western nations thinks they are legitimate, and that is what matter here.
So again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't matter - the rebels are not the legitimate Government. Syria is still a sovereign country, including the bits which the rebels are fighting over.

The US, as well as other western nations thinks they are legitimate, and that is what matter here.
So again you have no idea what you are talking about.

You've only just come out of the basement, and you're still trying to shout others down and insult them.

If a load of people took over Leeds, would you say that it was "disputed territory"? Would you say the US had the right to send forces to Leeds to help take it over?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The US, as well as other western nations thinks they are legitimate, and that is what matter here.
So again you have no idea what you are talking about.

You've only just come out of the basement, and you're still trying to shout others down and insult them.

If a load of people took over Leeds, would you say that it was "disputed territory"?

I suggest you read the rules, as you just broke one and no insult was given, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. That is stating a fact

Part 2: Basement-worthy infractions
"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

As to your point on Leeds and there was a rebel army supported by the west, the same would apply.

I will also give you a glowing example in history Rags.
Where the French aided and sent troops and weapons to the US rebels in their war of Independence from the British. They were Rebels that held territory in a land that was sovereign to the UK.

Would you like anymore history lessons?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You've only just come out of the basement, and you're still trying to shout others down and insult them.

If a load of people took over Leeds, would you say that it was "disputed territory"?

I suggest you read the rules, as you just broke one and no insult was given, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. That is stating a fact

Part 2: Basement-worthy infractions
"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Who am I conspiring with, and who am I trying to get banned? I suggest a new rule. As soon as you start telling people they don't know what they're talking about, you've lost the debate and should retire from the thread as it clearly shows that you have nothing useful to say.

Thorin wrote:As to your point on Leeds and there was a rebel army supported by the west, the same would apply.

Leeds would still be part of the UK, and the US would have no business here.

Thorin wrote:I will also give you a glowing example in history Rags.
Where the French aided and sent troops and weapons to the US rebels in their war of Independence from the British. They were Rebels that held territory in a land that was sovereign to the UK.

Would you like anymore history lessons?

The US was a different country.

You just lost the debate ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:I will also give you a glowing example in history Rags.
Where the French aided and sent troops and weapons to the US rebels in their war of Independence from the British. They were Rebels that held territory in a land that was sovereign to the UK.

Would you like anymore history lessons?

The US was a different country.

You just lost the debate ...

Really?

So you are saying there was no rebellion and sovereignty to the British?

Worst revisionist history going

You need to take a history course

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I suggest you read the rules, as you just broke one and no insult was given, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. That is stating a fact

Part 2: Basement-worthy infractions
"Gang activity" -- any members conspiring to get other members banned or otherwise punished will be basemented (rendered inactive) for a term subject to moderator discretion.

Who am I conspiring with, and who am I trying to get banned? I suggest a new rule. As soon as you start telling people they don't know what they're talking about, you've lost the debate and should retire from the thread as it clearly shows that you have nothing useful to say.

Last chance or you get reported. 
You are misdirecting and looking to have me punished, based off being punished recently by claiming I insulted you.
I suggest you grow up and stick to the points and stop acting like a child when wrong

Keep to the debate

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:As to your point on Leeds and there was a rebel army supported by the west, the same would apply.

Leeds would still be part of the UK, and the US would have no business here.

Would it?
So if then they became independent like we saw with say Bosnia, which was part of former Yugoslavia, which the Serbs rejected then, the US and the west would have no business?

How about Kosovo, a disputed territory, that broke away from Serbia, which saw previous western intervention in the Kosovo war?

Anymore history lessons?

You see I can keep giving you history lessons all day long

You are wrong didge.

My first reaction was .....  the possibity of so called friendly fire????

God knows there were enough of those during the Iraq & Afganistan conflicts!!

Thorin wrote:After the Syrians attacked and bombed their own civilians with chemical weapons. Even then that was in retaliation to a crime against humanity, a war crime. Hence getting permission from the security council to use armed response is impossible.

The remedy is to seek a UN resolution, not to unilaterally invent a war with Syria. Read on, with respect to Right to Protect.

Thorin wrote:When Russia is a permanent member of the security council. Who has constantly vetoed any action against Syria.

Which is Russia’s right according to the UN Charter, and its position on the UN Security Council.  I'm not championing Russia's cause here, but this is not where you attack them.  You attack them on the facts.

Thorin wrote:Which brings the validity of  R2P of the charter into the forefront.

The Right to Protect has as its basis, paragraph 139 of the UN Charter:

“The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the [UN] Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing ...

It is clear that this paragraph addresses “diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means”, and does not apply to any military engagement.  If it were intended as a justification for military intervention, it would be a warfare breeder...all you would need is the allegation of "genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing" to invade a sovereign nation.  Czechoslovakia comes to mind.  Besides, humanitarian intervention has not heretofore been the US justification for being in Syria, and to argue it now would be to search for a justification...think, tail wagging the dog.

Thorin wrote:When a nation engages in widespread abuse of human rights of its citizens, that a Government loses a measure of its sovereignty.

This extraordinary statement requires argument, and factual support, of which you present none.

Thorin wrote:This is about a Syrian warplane attacking a camp with US forces and chapter 51 legally allows the US to defend its forces.

In this convoluted situation, the Syrian aircraft was arguably defending its own nation from insurgents.  Hence, the US is aiding an incursion, not defending it’s forces.  Moreover, the Right to Protect is not military, and in any event, would require concerted action by the entire UN.  There has been no such resolution.

Original Quill wrote:

Which is Russia’s right according to the UN Charter, and its position on the UN Security Council.  I'm not championing Russia's cause here, but this is not where you attack them.  You attack them on the facts.
The Right to Protect is In reference to paragraph 139 of the UN Charter:
It is clear that this paragraph addresses “diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means”, and does not apply to any military engagement.
This extraordinary statement requires argument, and factual support, of which you present none.
In this convoluted situation, the Syrian aircraft was arguably defending its own nation from insurgents.  Hence, the US is aiding an incursion, not defending it’s forces.  Moreover, the Right to Protect is not military, and in any event, would require concerted action by the entire UN.  There has been no such resolution.

It is Russia's right, but this highlights the problem now with the UN, where Autocratic members now outnumber the democratic ones. Where those who abuse the most on human rights now protect each other from any action taken against them. Hence  R2P of the charter.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml

As countries protect each other from the need to use action against those who abuse many within their nation, that is why this legal premise has come about. To stop those protecting those committing the worst abuses to human rights.

Though the above is irrelevant to the act to defend, in this situation with the Syrian warplane. As the US can defend based off article 50 of the charter

You are now speculating on the Syrian aircraft when its known it did target and use bombs around the base. That makes it a legitimate threat. Of which legally the US can respond by taking down the aircraft. As article 50 is explicit in the use of armed response to protect its forces and allies

Your argument to go rogue outside the UN, is essentially to invite anarchy on the international front.

What you are saying is, wherever we find the UN and it's provisions are inadequate, we abandon any and all international law, and invent our own.

The UN was created to introduce a degree of government into the international arena.  Whenever we find a problem within the international sphere, the answer is to turn inward and discuss the issue, not to ignore the UN and each nation, individually, to invent its own answers (go rogue).

What you suggest is that we abandon international law whenever we find it lacking.  I think that's the wrong solution.

Original Quill wrote:Your argument to go rogue outside the UN, is essentially to invite anarchy on the international front.

What you are saying is, wherever we find the UN and it's provisions are inadequate, we abandon any and all international law, and invent our own.

The UN was created to introduce a degree of government into the international arena.  Whenever we find a problem within the international sphere, the answer is to turn inward and discuss the issue, not to ignore the UN and each nation, individually, to invent its own answers (go rogue).

What you suggest is that we abandon international law whenever we find it lacking.  I think that's the wrong solution.

1) That is your mistaken perception. As again the US in line with article 50 can defend its forces. Your issue issue is you clearly have not read the charter or the fact by nations are signatories. So again this is one of the 3 times armed action can be taken on foreign soil.

2) The Un is already unfit and why the US may well pull out of this body as it has ceased to stand for what it was created for. This would be the best way going forward and for other nations as they are being denied be able to protect those who are oppressed. As those who do oppress protect each other from any resolutions.

3) Not suggesting we abandon any law, show me anywhere that I have? I never have and you always do this Quill when you have little knowledge of international law. and you like Tommy can not show any law that I suggest to break. I have given the 3 provisions on where action can be used and has indeed been used.

Saw the UN in action in Bosnia, totally fucking useless !