by Jack
Russian warplanes began bombarding Syrian opposition targets in the war-torn nation’s north Wednesday, following a terse meeting at the Pentagon where a Russian General gave US officials one hour to clear out of Syrian air space.
Russian airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by Russian bombers. The strikes hit targets in Homs and Hama. ISIS does not operate in those areas, the Russians were deliberately hitting the Free Syrian Army and other anti-Assad groups.
Thus Putin scored another victory as he outmaneuvered Obama. The US can’t legally intervene in Syria and if we tried to approach the UN for permission, Russia holds veto power. This means Putin can do as he wishes – Obama can’t, at least not inside Syria.
The latest development came after Moscow said it intended to conduct airstrikes against ISIS on behalf of Assad; they wanted the US planes out of the way. The formal request turned into a heated discussion between US military and a Russian three-star general at the American Embassy in Baghdad. Unfortunately, the Russian General had a UN Treaty on his side.
Things in the Middle East have been going downhill ever since Obama’s reluctance to use US power to destroy ISIS in Iraq. Now Putin sees this “vacancy’ as an opportunity to be exploited. And so he has. Putin gains new allies, prestige, and influence on the world stage, much to the chagrin of the US and our allies. This was a huge tactical victory for Putin and a big zero for President Obama. Clearly, Obama doesn’t have what it takes to be leader. Our frustrated allies have given up on us and our enemies, well, they no longer fear us…we’re just a paper tiger now.
For over a year ISIS has been using civilians as shields against US air attacks, but that may soon change. The Russians don’t recognize human shields, they don’t care about collateral damage, they only care about killing their enemy. This makes civilian hostages worthless and their airstrikes more effective. Unlike Obama’s rules of engagement, the Russians scoff at the absurdity of asking soldiers not to shoot back at the enemy in order to avoid civilian causalities. Russians will shoot and bomb any targets, any time and without hesitation. The Russians do not allow their combat units to be degraded for the sake of a social experiment, like Professor Obama has done to ours. The Russians have only contempt for Obama and they regard him as a fool, to be played for their own advantage.
Russia’s true intentions in Syria can’t ever be known for sure until its too late, but this much is certain, in the absence of any substantial US policy, Russia, Syria and Iran have formed an alliance for their mutual benefit and the United States has been kicked to the curb.
“There is a general prohibition against the use of force in international law. This prohibition is clearly codified in the United Nations Charter under Article 2(4) which requires states “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force.”
The UN Charter does recognize two exceptions to this general probation. States may use force in self-defense (Article 51), and the UN Security Council may authorize the use of force for the purpose of protecting international peace and security (Chapter VII).
On 14 August, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2170 deploring the terrorist acts of Isil, and “its continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights.” Acting under Chapter VII, it urged all states to protect the civilian population and to cooperate in bringing Isil to justice. However, the key phrase, to use “all necessary means”, which in UN-speak is code for use of force, is missing.
The closest the resolution comes to this is when it calls upon “all states to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts.” Lawyers have not read this as UN authorization to start bombing Isil. This, then, leaves the legal right of self-defense.”
Well geez…what do you expect. Here is a comparison of the two.
http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html
And don’t go messing with the Rooskies…
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f7/e1/9e/f7e19e111984d4d9b797680f191a8d05.jpg
“This, then, leaves the legal right of self-defense.”
Does that include invasion by the enemy along with fleeing “refugees?”
Probably not, too judgmental.
What’s a country to do? The UN needs to be abandoned, it’s purpose has not been fulfilled and it’s need for control has gone way beyond the original boundaries of a place where nations can peacefully discuss problems..
If Obumble’s ears weren’t so clogged by his ideology and useless rhetoric, he’d be able to hear the laughter echoing from the Kremlin over his “leadership.”
“Things in the Middle East have been going downhill ever since Obama’s reluctance to use US power to destroy ISIS in Iraq.”
“Reluctant”, my butt. We’ve been bombing the bejeebers out of them (quite illegally) for two years … which will hinder them, but not irradicate them, as everyone but you seems to grasp. (Can you have forgotten the carpet bombing of Vietnam … already? And what a happy little Communist state it is today?)
So, unless you have some ungodly plan to conscript all the homeless guys in the land (cause nobody else is volunteering) and mount an invasion (which will fail), let’s just let Pooti conscript all his homeless guys and see what he can do.
Liberals don’t read for comprehension. Example:
Jack: “Obama’s reluctance to use US power to destroy ISIS in Iraq”
Libby: ““Reluctant”, my butt. We’ve been bombing the bejeebers out of them (quite illegally) for two years … which will hinder them, but not irradicate them”
If Obama didn’t intend to eradicate them he had no business bombing the bejeebers out of them. If you’re going to go to war have the intention of winning for heavens sake! All that destruction for nothing is STUPID.
In Vietnam we did the same thing we are doing now…we pulled back because the left doesn’t have the stomach to do what was necessary to win.
A history lesson you wouldn’t learn at Berkeley, “When US Troops Left Too Soon, by Jeff Jacoby – TownHall
If you commit to war, and our Congress did, then it’s imperative that the nation put all it’s energies toward winning, even if, as a citizen against, you have to do it in silent protest. Anything less is sabotage that ends very very badly. Obama never committed to eradicating the enemy. he’s too busy trying to be impressive on the world stage.
Tina: “In Vietnam we did the same thing we are doing now…we pulled back because the left doesn’t have the stomach to do what was necessary to win.
No, we left because we had no business being there in the first place.
I’m genuinely curious: do you think if we had stayed in Vietnam longer, Communism would have fallen more quickly?
If not, what would have been accomplished by staying?
Chris I think if we had fought the war to win there would have been much less bloodshed and later misery. The Viet Cong were pretty much destroyed after the Tet Offense in 1968. Anti-war protesters wore down the nation’s resolve and people like Jane Fonda, aiding and abetting the enemy didn’t, help either. Had we fought to win, the people of Vietnam and Cambodia wouldn’t have been left to suffer the ruthless tyrants that took control. Our leaving was just the final straw in a war waged stupidly!
Have you read much about suffering under communist rulers? Both the Vietnames and the Cambodians would have been much better off had we won the battle against the communist takeover of Vietnam.
The world needs a benevolent strong nation willing to confront tyranny and murderous evil. the alternative is chaos and death.
The mess in the ME today is, IMO, the result of a war waged stupidly with no real strategy, no real commitment, and failed diplomacy. All three have given America (and our leader )a terrible reputation seen as a nation that cannot be counted on to get the job done.