Defensible, legal!

Where were you Kellie the day Mr Hitler invaded Poland or when his storm troopers were gassing and cremating millions of unarmed non combatants!

Where was the strongly worded letter, with the power of the law backing it, as this was allowed to occur? Or again and again in the Palestinian states as illegal settlement after illegal settlement was imposed by force?

A lot of blow hard empty words with the full power of the law backing them also failed to prevent Putin from annexing the Crimea, nor prevent hundreds of thousands being butchered by a mass murdering Syrian Tyrant, who only has one rule of law, his and whatever he says it is! And acquiesced to by Putin's man in Washington?

And there you were, advocating for a self imprisoned rapist? Who continues to violate his victim with claims that four or five unprotected sexual penetration events in a single night were consensual? Why? Because a girl probably with paralyzing rohypnol added to her drinks? Was incapable or saying no or resisting?

And don't try to tell me this completely immoral bail jumping criminal, is hiding out as a voluntary prisoner, for any other reason than to AVOID having his "EVIDENCE" tested in the courts of the sovereign nation where these violations were perpetrated!?

Advocating for the Angels now is a bit rich Kellie, when you've spent so much time as the devil's advocate!
Alan B.

George Orwell in his 1950's novel, 1984 wrote WAR IS PEACE. It was one of the slogans used to brainwash the public about how the government "Looks after" them. The idea was to have continuous wars against ever changing foreign enemies in foreign places in order to maintain peace in the home country. Orwell rings so true regarding our involvement in the Middle East and our war against "Terror".

I have two points on all this;
First the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York.
It was followed up with an attack on Al Quida in Afghanistan.
The attack was from the territory of a country not at war with US.
The action if not legal aught to be legal.

Second, what does it matter, this is the continuum of a war that has
been underway for 1400 years and the Middle East under the banner of
Islam is at war with everyone.

To my mind an attack anywhere in the ME is justified if it serves to
defeat Islamists of whatever variety.
Moslems cannot escape responsibility as it is their religion and
governments for which they are responsible.

Kellie

Even you would agree that Responsibility (of major Powers) to Protect (R2P) civilians is often justified. R2P initiatives can occur when the civilians' own government has lost control of humanitarian conditions within its territory - like Syrian.

So Australia, the UK and France can justify their flying intervention into Syria under Responsibility to Protect Syrians against Islamic State.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

I don't think we should been in Syria without Assad's approval.
It does not pass the stiff test, smells like BS.

In my opinion the right the US and Coalition forces claim to be there is annulled by the fact the rebels are supported by US allies and using American supplied weapons.

If the US stopped its supply of weapons there would be no war, therefore the US has no legal right to be in Syria, especially when they oppose Assad.

This in my opinion makes them an invasion force (they are not an ally of Syria), and there is plenty of evidence they have deliberately targeted Syrian infrastructure.

Here's a recent report on the September attack on SAA forces.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-strike-syrian-troops-report-data-contradicts-mistake-claims-1291258286

So you an add 'War Crimes' to 'Invasion Force'.

But thats ok because people are idiots, and if we just use the word 'regime' to describe a democratically elected leader then no one will care.

Why Everything You Hear On Aleppo Is Wrong
http://youtu.be/I8mA0h7dCKI

Remember This?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-coalition-intelligence-operations-room-inside-syria-destroyed-by-russian-missile-attack-thirty-israeli-american-british-turkish-saudi-qatari-intelligence-officials-killed-report/5547099

Aleppo is almost fully liberated now...
http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/13-december-syrian-rebel-official-says-a-full-ceasefire-is

I've got one more point to add.
(Why couldn't you just put all your comments in the one response?)
Yeah I know, sorry.

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when this war began.
Remember what she said about Ghaddifi?
"We came, We saw, He died" [Cackles uncontrollably]

Saudi Arabia was one of the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation, (as was Julia Gillard).
Do you think this war has been handled any differently than her botched, corrupt and fraudulent election campaign together with the complicity of the corporate media?

And that's not even going into the fact that General Wesley Clark after 9/11 laid out the plans to take out 7 countries in 5 years, including Syria and Iran.

I'll go back to my original comment - It all smells like BS to me.

Any analysis of Australia's re-engagement in the M-E that doesn't mention the Yazidi is, to my mind, utterly suspect.

Remember that we only started shooting again in response to the attempted genocide of the Yazidi people and that the only way to ensure that they and similar groups are safe, or safer, is to destroy ISIL.

Sure, doing so is messy and innocents suffer. But not doing so is also messy and innocents will also suffer. "War is always a matter of doing evil in the hope that good may come of it." (Liddell Hart).

Destroying ISIL means saving Assad. So be it. One enemy at a time. People fetishising of the legalities of this or that action, ought to spend a little more time over the legalities of selling 10 yr olds on the slave market.

Wouldn't you think that in all this mess, there would be a good way for a smart lawyer to make a few quid? If they can only find the right angle, of course there is, & it will probably be taxpayer funded.