Paper Tiger?, NATO Air

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/af...fi.html?_r=1&hp

who knew?

If the French planes would not attack on their own when the British and the Americans did not yet wake up to reality, Gaddafi would still be in power now.

"Protect lybian civillians" huh? What a load of propagandistic crap. Like Yugoslavia , like Irak , like Afghanistan, i'm sure the only reason they bombed that country to the stone age and killed thousands is " to protect the civillians". Yeah right .

What's that saying " same Mary but with a different hat ". Or "We escaped the devil only to find his old man".

Current world politics are utterly disgusting.

This post has been edited by lancer21 on April 18, 2012 10:22 pm

Can you please point out an age or a time frame when politics where not disgusting?

Which would be legal basis for a foreign military intervention in Syria?

No one that really works, which could be really without fault. Don't forget that only two interventions (wars) were made with the "blessing" of ONU: war in Korea (1950-1953) and war in Irak (1991).
Pretext would be to stop the killing and to avoid the chaos to spread on entire Middle East.

We are constantly bombarded with news report about how wicked the Assad regime is when its army uses weapons to fight... Fight who? There are armed gangs on the "other side". Who are the guys who fight the government? Who arms them? Why are they given carte blanche? Why are all the demands for "cease fires" concentrate ONLY on the state's army and yet no such demands are made of the "other" armed faction?

I have no idea what is gong on, but to me it sounds like this demand for the national army to "cease fire" is in fact "unconditional surrender". But surrender to whom? Who are "the other side"?

Radu

No one that really works, which could be really without fault. Don't forget that only two interventions (wars) were made with the "blessing" of ONU: war in Korea (1950-1953) and war in Irak (1991).
Pretext would be to stop the killing and to avoid the chaos to spread on entire Middle East.

In this situation, an intervention is ilegal. It is not democracy anymore in Occident, but the right of the force, instead the force of the right. Of course is tragical civilians are killed by a dictator, but to start an atack against a country without legal basis is extremelly dangerous, creating precendents. But above all, it is IMORAL and ILEGAL.

For the intervention to be illegal the UN would have to say it is.

An intervention in Syria won't create precedents because the precedents already exist (remember Kosovo).

What says the International Right (Dreptul Internaţional) about such situations as in Libya, Syria, Kosovo and other examples? Does it allow a foreign power to intervene in the internal affairs of an souveran state and if yes, under what conditions?

That's really annoyed

I can see three reasons for which no intervention will take place in Syria too soon:
1. No oil there, thus no immediate interest
2. The coming US elections - "peaceful Obama" is a better tune to play...
3. The support from the other "Axe of Evil" countries such as China / USSR (no mistake here!)
IMO, at least!

The Syrian conflict is nothing more then an expression of the principal antagonism that is dominating the Islamic world,shia vs sunna.In a country where 70 % of the population are sunnis and they are ruled by an 12 % alawite minority,such conflicts,sooner or later,are bound to happen.

This post has been edited by guina on August 26, 2012 07:26 pm

Oh, is it that simple? Isn't there a "stick which stirs the s**t", handled by someone from outside?

The Syrian Civil War and Big Power Rivalry :
http://youtu.be/PuM9Kc2AfCI