Robin Hood wrote:It was tongue in cheek but, ......... what seems to be missing from your argument is that any action by coalition forces in Syria is ILLEGAL under International Law, as is supplying weapons to an irregular military trying to overthrow the recognised government of Syria. The US and the Allies have one reason to do that and that is to achieve Regime change ...... which is also illegal under International Law.
One reason I oppose US actions is because of their arrogance in declaring themselves to be the ‘irreplaceable and exceptional’ Nation. Which roughly translated says ‘F**k you lot .... we are THE Mighty USA and do what we want because we are above the Law.’
One more thing, the Syrian Government does not speak on behalf of all Syrians. It is the Syrian people who are the sovereign owners of Syria, and not Assad, his Baathist Party or his Alawite sect.
Since he has denied the Sunnis, Kurds and Christians their own voice, is it acceptable to you as a matter of principle that these sovereign people's of Syria have a right to request assistance from coalition countries so that they may protect themselves from both DAESH on the one hand and a dictator on the other who has killed thousands of Sunnis and who has denied them their sovereign rights to their own country?
At what point will you consider the voice of 13 million Syrians as the sovereign voice of the Syrian Government in forced exile by a ruthless despot?
Do you AGREE that they too have rights? Hence, do you still believe that our involvement in Syria is illegal?
I do not believe it is illegal at all.
If you do agree that the 13 million have as much right to Syria as the Alawites, then you would understand the coalition's position a bit more.
