by John » Mon May 28, 2018 1:07 pm
CH86 wrote:
> You might not like it, but that IS how the law has been
> traditionally interpreted. Globalists have always been lawless,
> however. Globalists ideologues need to understand that their
> doctrine is NOT the culmination of humanity's intellectual
> efforts.
Guest wrote:
> You have a habit of calling you opinion "the law." Humanity has
> several thousand years of tradition of nations intervening in the
> affairs of other nations: from when Israelites conquered Canaan to
> expunge the evil of the Ammorites, to when Pompay invaded Judea to
> solve a civil war among Hasmoneans, to when the United States
> supported a rebellion of Texans within the recognized borders of
> Mexico. You can argue the particulars of any of these cases, but
> it is impossible to support your argument that international
> intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a new
> thing or that it was invented by Boomers.
> The United States has never signed a treaty that says, "We will
> never intervene in the internal affairs of other nations." The UN
> Charter does not say this either and many UN members, including SC
> permanent members have conducted such intervention. The US
> Constitution doesn't require the US to wait until it is actually
> attacked: it only says, "Congress shall have the power ... To
> declare War;" and, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of
> the Army and Navy of the United States." This leaves ambiguity of
> what requires a declaration of War and what is simply a command
> decision of the President (I think that the Syrian intervention
> should have required a declaration of War by congress). But the
> US Constitution has never been and cannot be interpreted to mean
> that the US may not conduct military intervention until an
> international attack.
> You are not the law.
There are some points that have to be made here:
- As I keep pointing out, al-Assad has driven millions of
refugees into neighboring countries, destabilizing the entire region.
This is by no means an "internal Syria war," when millions of
refugees are being inflicted on the entire region. Syria has an
obligation to control its own population and, when it can't, affected
nations have a right to respond.
- Syria has now enacted "Decree #10" which makes it impossible for
refugees to return to their homes, even after the war ends, indicating
that the weaponizing of refugees was done on purpose with specific
objectives in mind. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what
is.
- The U.S. is not fighting Syria -- i.e., it's not fighting
regime forces (except in self-defense), it's not fighting to
kill al-Assad, and it's not fighting to defend the anti-Assad
rebels in Eastern Ghouta.
- The US has mainly been fighting ISIS. Al-Assad has an
obligation to keep ISIS under control, but has been unwilling or
unable to do so, and ISIS has been free to use Syria as a base
to launch attacks against Western targets. The US has a perfect
right to fight ISIS in its own self-defense.
- Under the ceasefire agreement worked out last year by Turkey, Iran
and Russia, and approved by Syria, the US is responsible for
maintaining the ceasefire in some of the de-confliction zones
including, I believe, the one in Daraa. So the US military has, in
fact, been invited into Syria, albeit for a limited reason.
- The US warning to Syria over Daraa is at least partially in
defense of Israel, since Hezbollah could use Daraa as a launching pad
for an attack on Israel. Israel is an ally with which we have a
mutual defense agreement. If al-Assad were allowed to take control of
Daraa, then Israel might get involved, and start a larger war. This
justifies the warning to Syria.
[quote="CH86"]
> You might not like it, but that IS how the law has been
> traditionally interpreted. Globalists have always been lawless,
> however. Globalists ideologues need to understand that their
> doctrine is NOT the culmination of humanity's intellectual
> efforts.[/quote]
[quote="Guest"]
> You have a habit of calling you opinion "the law." Humanity has
> several thousand years of tradition of nations intervening in the
> affairs of other nations: from when Israelites conquered Canaan to
> expunge the evil of the Ammorites, to when Pompay invaded Judea to
> solve a civil war among Hasmoneans, to when the United States
> supported a rebellion of Texans within the recognized borders of
> Mexico. You can argue the particulars of any of these cases, but
> it is impossible to support your argument that international
> intervention in the internal affairs of other nations is a new
> thing or that it was invented by Boomers.
> The United States has never signed a treaty that says, "We will
> never intervene in the internal affairs of other nations." The UN
> Charter does not say this either and many UN members, including SC
> permanent members have conducted such intervention. The US
> Constitution doesn't require the US to wait until it is actually
> attacked: it only says, "Congress shall have the power ... To
> declare War;" and, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of
> the Army and Navy of the United States." This leaves ambiguity of
> what requires a declaration of War and what is simply a command
> decision of the President (I think that the Syrian intervention
> should have required a declaration of War by congress). But the
> US Constitution has never been and cannot be interpreted to mean
> that the US may not conduct military intervention until an
> international attack.
> You are not the law.[/quote]
There are some points that have to be made here:[list]
[*] As I keep pointing out, al-Assad has driven millions of
refugees into neighboring countries, destabilizing the entire region.
This is by no means an "internal Syria war," when millions of
refugees are being inflicted on the entire region. Syria has an
obligation to control its own population and, when it can't, affected
nations have a right to respond.
[*] Syria has now enacted "Decree #10" which makes it impossible for
refugees to return to their homes, even after the war ends, indicating
that the weaponizing of refugees was done on purpose with specific
objectives in mind. If that's not an act of war, I don't know what
is.
[*] The U.S. is not fighting Syria -- i.e., it's not fighting
regime forces (except in self-defense), it's not fighting to
kill al-Assad, and it's not fighting to defend the anti-Assad
rebels in Eastern Ghouta.
[*] The US has mainly been fighting ISIS. Al-Assad has an
obligation to keep ISIS under control, but has been unwilling or
unable to do so, and ISIS has been free to use Syria as a base
to launch attacks against Western targets. The US has a perfect
right to fight ISIS in its own self-defense.
[*] Under the ceasefire agreement worked out last year by Turkey, Iran
and Russia, and approved by Syria, the US is responsible for
maintaining the ceasefire in some of the de-confliction zones
including, I believe, the one in Daraa. So the US military has, in
fact, been invited into Syria, albeit for a limited reason.
[*] The US warning to Syria over Daraa is at least partially in
defense of Israel, since Hezbollah could use Daraa as a launching pad
for an attack on Israel. Israel is an ally with which we have a
mutual defense agreement. If al-Assad were allowed to take control of
Daraa, then Israel might get involved, and start a larger war. This
justifies the warning to Syria.[/list]