Why can we support rebels in Syria and Russia can't support rebels in the Ukraine?

[uawchild]

This topic cane up down thread in another post, and I thought it would be interesting to explore on its own.

We are arming rebels in Syria and invoke the Responsibility-to-Protect principle as justification.

The responsibility to protect principle obligates nations as follow:

1.The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement.

2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;

3.The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

So, failing to protect your own citizens from war crimes , crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing would leave you open to international armed intervention. Pretty clear.

So the US CAN arm rebels in Syria since the Syrian regime is guilty of all those crimes.

Can the case be made that Russia can invoke the Responsibilty to Protect in a similar manner in the Donbas rebel territory?
The Ukraine government forces have turned to self formed ultranationalist battalions that have been since incorporated into their National Guard to fight the rebels.

Consider one such group, The Azov Battalion:

--------------------
Azov battalion has been connected in OHCHR reports to such violations of conduct of war as mass looting, use of torture and abduction of journalists[52][53] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated During the reporting period, OHCHR collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015[54] Another OHCHR report noted use of rape and torture writing: A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the ‘Azov’ and ‘Donbas’ battalions in August-September 2014. The victim’s health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital[55]

Azov members have been also accused by OHCHR of using torture and beatings to force confession out of detained civilian, including use of electricity and water-boarding[56]

he unit was described as having connections to neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia; the unit has neo-Nazis among its ranks. German ZDF television observed Azov battalion fighters wearing helmets with swastikas and "the 'SS runes' of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps", and on other occasions some of the soldiers have been reported to have SS tattoos.[57][58][59]



In writing about the battalion's ideology, Richard Sakwa states that its founding member Andryi Biletsky (leader of the Social-National Assembly) made statements about "historic mission" to lead "White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival ... a crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen"; according to Sakwa, this ideology has its root in national integralism of 1920s and 30s.[60]

Ivan Katchanovski in an interview with Radio Sweden described the ideology of the battalion in the following words: "The SNA/PU advocate a neo-Nazi ideology along with ultranationalism and racism. The same applies to the SNA/PU commanders and members of the Azov battalion and many football ultras and others who serve in this formation. Biletsky is called the 'White Leader'."[61]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Human_rights_violations_and_war_crimes
--------------------

So.... in light of Ukraine's use of ultranationalistic neo-nazi forces, like the Azov Battalion,who were/are committing war crimes that the Ukrainian government was/is not stopping, why doesn't Russia have the right to arm the rebels under the principle of Responsibility to Protect?

Is there a double standard here in objecting to Russia arming rebels in the Donbas and not the US arming rebels in Syria?

[TeddyR]

1. Is someone on DU really defending

Russia's imperialism? Didn't think we supported despots like Putin.

[uawchild]

3. No, actually

I think someone, me, is trying to out the neo-nazis like the Azov Battilion that are getting a free pass from, well, everyone almost.

Honestly, considering who and what Ukraine's Azov Battalion is, I don't see why Respondibilty to Protect can't be invoked against them by any country.

[stevenleser]

6. Any neo nazi groups on either side are disgusting but your use of them is a red herring.

Russia and Ukraine have a similar rating regarding antisemitism.

They are both pretty terrible. 38% of Ukraine citizens harbor some antisemitic feelings but so do 30% of Russians

http://global100.adl.org/#map/eeurope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_antisemitism#Europe

http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/09/17/unfavorable-views-of-jews-and-muslims-on-the-increase-in-europe/

Moreover, Jews in Ukraine reject Russias assertion http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29991777 that antisemitism in Ukraine is a reason for Russia to be militarily involved there.

So to sum up. #1 - Russia has nothing to talk about regarding antisemitism when it comes to Ukraine. and #2 - The use of antisemitism in the discussion regarding Russia's unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine is a red herring.

[uawchild]

14. Thanks for the detailed reply

I appreciate the points you made but I don't know of any neo-nazi battalions opperating so openly on the other side.

The Azov battalion are really a nasty piece of work.

There evil actions harm the general population, just as the WWII nazis murdered millions of non-Jewish civilians too.

So my objections to the Azov Battalion are not limited to anti-semitism but are more about there brutal conduct in general.

[JanMichael]

33. 8% plus or minus 5% is a pretty big swing.

one way ir the other. 2% one way russia up by 2. or ukraine up by 18%.

i lived in poland for several years. the moscow russians i met were still very left and anti fascist. the ukranians i met not so much. anecdotyl but what ever.

[stevenleser]

37. The Jews who continue to emigrate from Russia tell a very different story.

I'm fortunate here in NYC to be able to interact with a lot of Jews who emigrated from the former Soviet Union and from Russia afterwards. They all comment on how terribly antisemitic Russia has been and is.

I also have a lot of non-Jewish Russian friends and it has happened several times that I have had the discussion about Jews and they tell me they can't believe I am Jewish because I am atypical. The typical Jewish person, they go on to say, isn't someone they would like.

All the old prejudices are there unfortunately.

[uawchild]

41. At least there were Jews left in Russia

Honestly, Jewish people were expelled from the rest of Europe and could only find refuge in Poland and Russia mostly, as harsh as conditions were there too. Germany killed the Jewish population in Poland (and elsewhere in Europe where they held sway during WWII) leaving the bulk of the remaining Jewish people in Europe living in Russia.

[Igel]

56. Jews were alternately expelled and accepted back in many countries.

Russia had its Pale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement


The Pale was notorious for pogroms. But put them in areas sufficiently isolated, and they could survive.

There was a reason that much of Zionist thought originated in Odessa and Kiev. They were "Russian" cities where the Russians allowed jews to live. Of course, they weren't Russian, but just try telling that to the Russians. But the pogroms and anti-Jewish laws passed in the late 1800s forced massive waves of immigration.


They were all too happy to be allowed to leave in the '70s. At the time, they'd be harassed and persecuted until they got their formal permission to go.

Then they'd typically have a bit of a giving-away party. They'd get anywhere from 24 to 48 hours to leave, and were allowed one or two suitcases. No currency, no valuables. Clothing, pictures, that's about all. so they'd get together, sell what they could, give away would they could, and make sure others got whatever money was garnered. On the way out, their passports would be confiscated and they'd have to get alternative travel documents when they could. Until then, they were put in resettlement camps. Very often those responsible for issuing the emigration documents would be there, waiting to take receipt of furniture, vehicles if they had any, pianos, etc., for a pittance. And resell them at leisure. Nice people's commissars, looking out for their own wallets.

My teachers have included over the year White Russian refugees, who fled with little (and one teacher who refused to say much more than she was 14, had ballet lessons, and since her family couldn't leave and the front passed over her family's house a few times, she had to share a room with some Red army soldiers. She wasn't explicit, but it was understood that the price of being kept alive was to have nice pro-Communists rape her).

Emigres from the 1970s. Mostly Jewish. And who were so glad to be away from that hell hole for so many reasons.

And emigres from the 1990s.

One thing I learned from my college Spanish teachers--the Castilian who fought with the Communists in the Spanish Civil War and the Cuban who resisted Castro and was forced to emigrate had much more in uniting them than dividing them. Authoritarians wear different badges, but apart from that they don't differ much in their human values.

[uawchild]

78. Selective outrage, once again, noted

You seem to have a selective memory and exhibit selective outrage, and honestly, seem to take any opportunity as a chance to go on about past Russian misdeeds. But you don't seem to hold other countries to the same standards, or at least not with the same degree of outrage.

Lets list those expulsions you just glossed over before your anti-Russian diatribe, watch out it's LONG:

1012 A.D.
Emperor Henry II of Germany expels Jews from Mainz, the beginning of persecutions against Jews in Germany.

1096 A.D.
First Crusade. Crusaders massacre the Jews of the Rhineland.

1144 A.D.
First recorded blood libel. In Norwich it was alleged that the Jews had "bought a Christian child before Easter, tortured him with all the tortures wherewith our Lord was tortured and on Friday hanged him on a rood in hatred of our Lord." (England)
This notorious allegation that Jews murder non-Jews, especially Christians, in order to obtain blood for the Passover or other rituals is a complex of deliberate lies, trumped up accusations, and popular beliefs about the murder-lust of the Jews and their blood-thirstiness, based on the conception that Jews hate Christianity and mankind in general. It is combined with the delusion that Jews are in some way not human and must have recourse to special remedies and subterfuges in order to appear at least outwardly, like other men. The blood libel led to trials and massacres of Jews. Its origin is rooted in ancient almost primordial, concepts concerning the potency and energies of blood. It is one of the most terrible expressions of human cruelty and credulity. These blood rituals are expressly forbidden in Judaism. (See Leviticus 17;11 etc.)

1190 A.D.
Massacre of Jews in England.

1215 A.D.
The Jewish badge introduced.

1240 A.D.
Talmud burned in France.

1290 A.D.
Jews expelled from England.

1298 A.D.
Massacre of thousands in Germany, in 146 localities.

1306 A.D.
Expulsion from France.

1348 A.D.
JEWS blamed for the BLACK DEATH. Charge laid to the Jews that they POISONED the wells to kill CHRISTIANS.

1389 A.D.
MASSACRES in Bohemia, Spain.

1421 A.D.
270 JEWS BURNED AT THE STAKE. In the 14th and 15th centuries the Inquisition was more intense because the Church and State joined forces. Just being Jewish guaranteed persecution

1480 A.D.
Inquisition in Spain - Jews and Christians burned at the stake.

1483 A.D.
EXPULSIONS from Warsaw, Sicily, Lithuania, Portugal.

1492 A.D.
ALL JEWS EXPELLED FROM SPAIN.

1506 A.D.
Murders in Lisbon - 4000, "conversos", men, women, and children thrown from windows to street mobs below, due to preaching by Dominicans against the Jews.

1510 A.D.
EXPELLED from Brandenburg, Germany.

1516 A.D.
Venice initiates the ghetto, the first in Christian Europe.

1544 A.D.
The Reformation. At the end of Martin Luther's life the German reformer vilified the Jews in violent pamphlets which could not fail to exert their influence. But because Calvinists were steeped in Old Testament theology, the Dutch people respected the Jews as "the Chosen" people; and were not anti-Semitic in their faith. The reformation was a time of turmoil as the Roman Church and feudalism lost their supremacy. There was a rising up of Nationhood and Luther was a German nationalist. The Talmud was seized and burned everywhere by Papal authority. Jews in Catholic countries and Polish Jews suffered greatly. Luther's anti-Semitic writings were later used in anti-Semitic literature.

1553 A.D.
Rome seized and burned the Talmud by order of the POPE.

1559 A.D.
12,000 copies of Talmud burned in Milan.

1569 A.D.
POPE PIUS V ordered all Jews out of the Papal states.

1593 A.D.
EXPULSIONS from Italy and Bavaria.

1598 A.D.
Ritual murder charge that sent three Jews to their deaths. Execution of the supposed guilty was done by QUARTERING. (In his book the "Birth of the Prison" Michel Foucault describes at length the quartering of a condemned man in 1757. It was done eventually by six horses instead of the four original ones and other means had to come in to play due to the failure even of six horses as the prisoners limbs were tied to ropes harnessed to the horses. Each horse pulled in a different direction. One horse fell to the ground unsuccessfully. Knives had to be used for severing...)

1614 A.D.
JEWS attacked and driven out of Frankfurt, Germany.

1624 A.D.
GHETTO established in Ferrara, Italy.

1648 A.D.
Leader of the Cossacks, in the Ukraine massacres 100,000 Jews and destroyed 300 communities.

1655 A.D.
Massacres of Jews in war against Sweden & Russia by Poland.

1715 A.D.
POPE PIUS VI issues edict against Jews.

1768 A.D.
20,000 Jews in Poland killed.

1805 A.D.
MASSACRE of Jews in Algeria.

1840 A.D.
BLOOD LIBEL in DAMASCUS.

1853 A.D.
BLOOD LIBEL in RUSSIA.

1858 A.D.
THE MORTARA CASE: Catholics abduct a 7 yr. old Jewish child. A Catholic servant baptized a Jewish child when the child was seriously ill and the church of Rome seized the child. Outcry had no effect on the POPE.

1879 A.D.
Word anti-Semitism comes into existence.

1881 A.D.
POGROMS BEGAN. The word is of Russian origin. It designates attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, rape. There were three major outbreaks in Russia. The word designates more particularly the attacks carried out by the Christian population. Each pogrom surpassed the other in savagery.
KIEV, ODESSA; Here murder of whole families was a common occurrence. Partial data are available for 530 communities in which 887 major pogroms and 349 minor pogroms occurred. There were 60,000 dead and several times that many were wounded.

1882 A.D.
FIRST ANTI-JEWISH CONGRESS HELD. In Dresden, Germany.

1894 A.D.
ALFRED DREYFUS TRIAL in France. Details follow further on in this summary.

1903 A.D.
APPEARANCE of a new issue of the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. In Russia.
This spectre of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy aiming at reducing the Gentiles to slavery or extermination loomed up in the medieval Christian imagination and grew out of legends about well poisonings and plague spreading. It was concocted in Paris by an unknown author working for the Russian secret police. It was an alleged conference of the leaders of World Jewry. It was translated into all the world languages. In 1963 a Spanish edition was published. During World War II, the Protocols of the elders of Zion became an implicit justification for the GENOCIDE of the Jews and Nazi propaganda relied on them until the last days of the Third Reich. Smaller pamphlets of it have been distributed in B.C. 1983 published in California... Required reading in most Arab countries, in schools, to this day.

1905 A.D.
Russian pogroms continue. Also in Morocco, Ukraine, 300 dead.

1919 A.D.
3000 Jews killed in Hungarian pogroms.

1920 A.D.
Appearance of ADOLPH HITLER. Also Henry Ford the 1st believes the Protocols; and publishes anti-Jewish articles in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent.

1925 A.D.
MEIN KAMPH appears. Hitler's Plan published in Germany.

1933 A.D.
HITLER appointed chancellor in Germany.

1935 A.D.
Hitler writes his Nuremberg Laws which lead to his Final Solution.

1938 A.D.
Burning in AUSTRIA & GERMANY of Synagogues. Jews sent to concentration camps. Beginnings of the Holocaust.

1939 A.D.
Germany overruns Poland.

1940 A.D.
Gassing, shootings in Polish Ghettos (Jewish).

1941 A.D.
EXPULSION of Jews from the German Reich to Poland. Riots against Jews in Iraq.

1942 A.D.
Mass transports of Jews to Belgium & Holland.

1944 A.D.
EXTERMINATION OF HUNGARIAN JEWS.

1945 A.D.
HOLOCAUST Final Count: 6,000,000 Jews slaughtered.

1946 A.D.
Pogroms in Poland - 42 Jews murdered.

1948 A.D.
BIRTH OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Also Jewish intellectuals shot in Russia.

1952 A.D.
Jews murdered byCommunists, and others disappear. Prague trials. Murder of Yiddish intellectuals in Russia and many sent to work camps..

1956 A.D.
Jews expelled out of EGYPT.

1967 A.D.
SIX DAY WAR. Also new publication of Elders of Zion in Arabic.

1968 A.D.
Emigration of last remaining Jews in Poland.

1969 A.D.
JEWS EXECUTED IN IRAQ.

1970 A.D.
Beginning of imprisonment in Russia of PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE. ("Refuseniks&quot

1980 A.D.
Russian imprisonments carry on throughout the 70's to the 80's.

1982 A.D.
War in Lebanon begins after many years of terrorist attacks against the Jews in the Upper Galilee area from the vantage point of Beaufort Castle. Many Lebanese killed over long period of time, but was ignored by the News Media. War in Lebanon gets slanted coverage.

1983 A.D.
Word from Christians in Israel that the PLO planned their next battleground to be Canada via Quebec. Documented proof that Russia planned in 1982 to attack Israel.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/expulsions.html

[JanMichael]

42. maybe it was the 90's and maybe hearing it from people there is different from those that leave.

please remember that people that actually live for half a decade in those places will hear a different narrative.

i also know a great deal of folks that dont give the prior system shit all of the time. it is very much about perspective.

that said the early to mid 20th century pogroms were all over poland, ukraine, the ussr, and other places. nasty nasty sad activities by those on the left and right.

[arely staircase]

2. Pootin is a fascist dick. There is that. NT

[uawchild]

9. Thank you for your thoughtful reply

Lol not really, but you know I expect replies like this too. I thought I laid out an interesting point and appreciate any discussion of it.

And thanks for reading and replying.

[arely staircase]

11. Well your post is no more reasonable or thought out.

Just verbose.

[uawchild]

15. No it is well laid out

and it leaves the matter open for discussion , which is the whole point of it.

[arely staircase]

17. Well I answered your question. Putin is a fascist dick.

The details are known to most and available to all, and you obviously have internet service.

[uawchild]

18. And thanks for replying

Seriously, thanks. All viewpoints are welcome. I meant this to be a discussion.

[pottedplant]

40. putin is the bogeyman of the moment

The powers that be want to reignite the Cold War. It's sickening. Plenty more Breedloves trying to stir up a frenzy. Someone needs to rein in these lunatics.

[stevenleser]

43. Engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression will do that, just like with George W. Bush.

And I think it's right that committing the war crime of engaging in an unprovoked war of aggression should make you a worldwide bogeyman and pariah.

[pottedplant]

48. Please

The Saudis are destroying Yemen with our help, committing humanitarian atrocities left and right. When do we get to demonize them? I mean considering they were instrumental in 911 and all forgive me if I see Crimea as an afterthought. Moreover, what the USA has accomplished with covert operations toppling democratically elected leaders and propping up sociopathic tyrants is every bit as evil as what you cite.

[stevenleser]

49. Please yourself. It won't whitewash what Putin did no matter how many other countries

you list.

At the end of whatever list you come up with Putin, like George W Bush before him engaged in the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression and thus deserves being a pariah.

[Matrosov]

52. Yet that's not at all a consideration when it comes to foreign policy

Fascist dicks are great as long as their actions are in line with our interests

Good people are the enemy if their actions are not in line with our interests

Though to be fair, that's not an American thing, it applies to international politics in general

[arely staircase]

67. So? What nations interests should the US Gov. be looking after

LIchstenstein?

[Matrosov]

71. Everyone looks after their own n/t

[arely staircase]

91. Sure. Everyone looks after their own. Fascists dicks like,Putin and Bush

do it through wars of aggression.

[uawchild]

93. God help me

You keep making points that I agree with. Well, some of them.

"Fascists dicks like,Putin and Bush do it through wars of aggression." Yes, and some do it by covert funding of moderate jihadist rebels -- which ties this all back to the OP! Yes!

Again, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[arely staircase]

94. So you are really comparing one nation annexing the soveriegn

territory of another with US not picking the same side as Putin in the Syrian civil war? Syria is a soveriegn nation. Who is its legitimate leader is a three way dispute between Asaad, Daesh and the handful moderate rebels tha bother you.

[uawchild]

95. woah woah there...

No I am comparing Bush's Iraq War invasion with our current funding of moderate jihadist rebels in Syria. The point being there is more than one way to wage war.

One was a brutal over the top shock and awe fiasco and the other is a stealthy hidden circuitous enflaming of a civil war that is killing thousands and thousands.

Sorry if that doesn't fit the Russia (alone is) Bad! narrative.

And didn't we already cover the annexation of Crimea and found that only 6 people were killed during it? And that was probably because it was done peacefully with the willing cooperation of the Crimean people? That they were frightened by the coup in Kiev and dismayed that their elected President was disposed, and hence sought refuge from the chaos by joining Russia?

Why, yes, I believe we already have. You wanted to include the donbas casualties too, as I recall. Lets not start repeating ourselves, OK?

[arely staircase]

96. Both the US and Russia are backing their favorite side in a 3 way civil war

Russia is the only one of the two annexing its neighbors. Yes I am aware of the Mexican American War. I am refering to the past 150 years.

[uawchild]

97. "I am refering to the past 150 years." GOTCHA!

Then you just blew up your own argument.

The US annexed Hawaii in 1898. lol

You just lost. Oh... the humanity. Pardon the humor, I am sure you can back pedal away from this last mistake.

lol Sooo... according to your math, the annexation of Crimea will be considered legitimate in just, oh, 118 years -- that is the time since our annexation of Hawaii. Time passes quickly on the world stage.

Thanks for the continued discussion.

[arely staircase]

98. Yeah you got me there.

Forgot about that one.

You win.

[uawchild]

99. Thank you.

Most people can't admit a mistake. Thanks for owning up.

[stevenleser]

4. Very simple. Syria is violating UN Security Council Resolutions regarding human rights

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2165(2014)

Strongly condemning the continuing widespread violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities, as well as the human rights
abuses and violations of international humanitarian law by armed groups,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a list of UN Security Council Resolutions regarding Syria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Syria and you can see in the ones that started in 2012 that several have to do with the conduct of the Syrian government and how it is unwilling to heed various UN Resolutions.

Note: I happen to think US involvement in Syria is a mistake and should not be done.

However, involvement in a civil war against a government that has repeatedly been flaunting international law and UN Security Council resolutions is very different than involvement in a civil war because you want to control a country and absorb its territory.

[uawchild]

5. Thanks for a thoughtful reply

It was the type of post I was hoping to engender.

Question though, how many war crimes need be committed and ignored before Responsibility to Protect can be invoked?

Did Libya also qualify in your estimation? Responsibility to Protect was cited for that too.

[stevenleser]

16. The best answer is...

... that unless the UN Specifically sanctions military action regarding a country, any justification for military action against them is tenuous.

As an example -
There were multiple specific UN resolutions authorizing the use of force in the case of the first gulf war for instance, because Iraq had engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression against Kuwait.

Regarding your specific question about Libya, I'm still not sure whether I support our involvement but the government of Libya was the first referred to for prosecution in the new UN Criminal court due to its violence against its own civilians. You can read more about all of that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1970

A further UN Security council resolution authorized no fly zone and "to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 which is exactly what NATO did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya so in terms of international law, it was followed to the letter.

[uawchild]

19. Thanks again for an informative post n/t

[arely staircase]

20. Yeah but by that standard Clinton's better late that never

attacks on the rump Yugoslavia in the 90s would be a bad thing. I supported that then and stand by it today.

My criticism of BC was how much he let them get away with before hitting them.

[uawchild]

24. are you sure?

That there were no UN resolutions against Serbia's actions in Kosovo prior to the sir strikes?

[arely staircase]

25. NATO acted under their own resolution. But there was no UN resolution

of force. At least not in one of the two wars, Bosnia or Kosova. Maybe neither one.

[uawchild]

27. Thanks

So there is something of a precedent then to invoke the principle of Responsibility to Protect without a UN resolution. Thanks again for making this clear.

[nationalize the fed]

47. Clinton's 78 day bombing and invasion of Serbia was a PNAC project

as you can see here (the PNAC website newamericancentury.org has expired but the wayback machine has it). There was no UN resolution because we were told by the liars that there "was no time" to do things with authorization.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205133621/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm



How much evidence of "genocide" did the UN and FBI inspectors find after the war?

All this "Responsibility to protect" nonsense is just a way to dress up a war of aggression in nice language.

Countries do NOT "Protect" people by bombing them. If "Protection" was the goal there are other ways to do it.

The real reason for these endless wars was explained in a 1999 article called
"Backing Up Globalization with Military Might"

Backing up Globalization with Military Might
New World Order Onslaught
by Karen Talbot
Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999

McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas To Flourish

An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

If there was only one article to read about what has been happening that would be it. Highly recommend. Few want to actually confront that reality, which is why the US is still bombing and invading.

Great thread by the way.

[stevenleser]

108. Nah, PNAC was a broken clock on that one. So this was their one time they were right.

But they weren't behind Clintons decision making.

[stevenleser]

28. In my opinion to act without UN authority is tenuous. It might be necessary at times but its tenuous

And ultimately you may find yourself on the wrong end of war crimes proceedings or negative UN resolutions if the world doesnt agree with you.

[uawchild]

23. Is there a Responsibility to Protect the Palestinians?

I have been blown away by the information content in your replies so let me impose upon you with one more question ...

Can the Responsibility to Protect be invoked against Isreal for its treatment of the Palestinians and their continued occupation?

[stevenleser]

38. I think my #16 and my #28 above address that but to be clear...

... if you act without UN Resolutions specifically authorizing use of force, you may find yourself on the wrong end of war crimes proceedings or negative UN Resolutions authorizing other countries to come after you. So you better be sure you are on the right side if you do that.

There are multiple UN Resolutions condemning both Israel and the various Palestinian factions for actions against civilians. Certainly there are more against Israel.

And the US and various other countries are certainly involved there. The question is, if you led a country, to what end would you intervene and what are the long term prospects for the success of whatever you were trying to do? Those questions are a big part of why I was and remain dubious of our intervention into Libya and still think Syria is a bad idea. Neither Israelis nor the Palestinians will back off just because you intervene. They might temporarily curtail some of their operations but will start again the moment you leave. Your intervention would need to last scores and perhaps hundreds of years and still might not succeed.

[malaise]

7. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a violation of UN rules as well

That didn't matter to the West.


Ukraine is Russia's neighbor - explain America's reason's for invading and occupying Iraq.

Fess up folks - you have no problem with the US empire.

[stevenleser]

10. It mattered to many people in the West including me, the governments of France and Germany

and countless others. Lets make this simple.

1. The war in Iraq was an unprovoked war of aggression.

2. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was and is an unprovoked war of aggression.

3. The idea of involvement in the civil war in Syria is much more complex due to the UN Security council Resolutions on the subject. But one in my humble opinion the US should not be involved in.

I am not sure what that has to do with the idea of a US empire.

[uawchild]

21. Thanks for making that point

The question of double standards is the first thing that gets brushed aside.

Personally, I am concerned that one sided demonization of a country in our media boils down to war mongering and propaganda.

[stevenleser]

39. The easiest way to avoid that IMHO is to pay attention to Security Council resolutions.

And to not intervene without them.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. If you don't care for double standards, perhaps we should talk about the Crimean Tatars

and how Stalin forceibly relocated hundreds of thousands of them in 1945, clearing them from their home of hundreds of years.
In regard to this thread, it is very interesting that Stalin's excuse for removing a vast Muslim native population was that he accused a few of them of being Nazis. Maybe a few of them were. But they were collectively punished and their lands taken from them.

Also, my Ukrainian friends always say to question those who call Ukraine 'The Ukraine' because they said those persons use 'The' to imply it is not a country but rather just a region of Russia.

So. That does seem to be important context. It is never, ever mentioned and that suggests that those failing to mention it know that to do so would weaken the case they make.

[uawchild]

77. Thanks for making my point about DOUBLE STANDARDS and LIVING IN THE PAST. lol

So... we have to go back 70+ years to the middle of WWII to bash Russians now? lol OK, lets compare double standards.

I am part Tartar myself, my great grandfather Vladimir was a Tartar from Ukraine, not sure if he was from Crimea but I don't think so.
So, yeah, WHAT double standard? Who is saying that the expulsion of the Tartars was a good thing? Certainly not me.
It was done on a paranoid feeble excuse you are right.

Just as OUR OWN "internment" of Japanese Americans was during WWII was done on a paranoid feeble excuse too. Your failure to mention the imprisonment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during THE SAME TIME FRAME as the Tartar expulsion seems, what, oh I know -- A DOUBLE STANDARD.

Here, let this article jog your selective memory, maybe, just maybe, it will mollify your SELECTIVE OUTRAGE.

The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in camps in the interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[2] people of Japanese ancestry who had lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[3][4] President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the incarceration shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[5]

Incarceration was applied unequally due to differing population concentrations and, more importantly, state and regional politics: more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, nearly all who lived on the West Coast, were forced into interior camps, but in Hawaii, where the 150,000-plus Japanese Americans comprised over one-third of the population, 1,200 to 1,800 were interned.[6] The internment is considered to have resulted more from racism than from any security risk posed by Japanese Americans.[7][8]

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the deportation and incarceration with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed regional military commanders to designate "military areas" from which "any or all persons may be excluded."[9] This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire West Coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in government camps.[10] Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans voluntarily relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942,[11] and some 5,500 community leaders arrested after the Pearl Harbor attack were already in custody.[12] But, the majority of nearly 130,000 mainland Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

And for the record, I know a lot about the atrocities that Eastern Europeans have done to each other, my relatives and ancestors are from what's now Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and Belorus -- they're all from the border regions where the old Austro-Hungarian Empire pressed against the old Russian Empire pre-WWI. Their religions spanned the gamete from Catholic Christian, Orthodox Christian, Islam, and Judaism. Each branch has accusations against the other for past wrong doing, and some of them still love reveling in the past. For example, did you know that the Poles and Ukrainians actually ethnic cleansed each other after WWII? I do because my relatives argue about it still.

The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland - MIT
http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/migration/pubs/rrwp/9_resolve.html

Here's an abstract about it all:

The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing 1943
Timothy Snyder
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600827?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[mythology]

89. You complain about living in the past

But in this thread you present a list of complaints going back to 1012 AD.

I don't have to go back in time to find reasons to know Putin is a war criminal. His actions in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnya speak for themselves. His crackdowns on gays and political dissidents speak for themselves. No how much you may want to pretend otherwise, we aren't the same as Putin.

[uawchild]

90. That was in reply to igel's own trip down memory lane.

I was being both sarcastic and yet informative. My bad.

Your strawman comment, "No (matter) how much you may want to pretend otherwise, we aren't the same as Putin." is what it is. A strawman.

But thanks for joining the discussion.

[uawchild]

92. Do our actions in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan also speak for themselves?

No? Yes? Maybe not as loudly to some people?

I am sure you agree that we have our own politicians who are also war criminals. Bush ring a bell? Rumsfield?

Putin's reputation is well earned, but it wasn't the topic of discussion in the OP. The question being asked, in essence, is how many war crimes are necessary to justify invoking the Responsibility to Protect and military action.

But, again, thanks for joining the discussion.

[Iggo]

8. Because we're the good guys, ain't ya heard?

[arely staircase]

12. Relative to Putin.

Pretty much.

[uawchild]

22. Who has killed more people since WWII?

The US or Russia? We had a long thread on this question just recently.

You might be surprised at the results.

[arely staircase]

26. That is a wierd and arbitrary moment in history to pick.

I give up. Who?

How about the past 5 years?

100 years?

I.have a feeling you are going with a point in history that will.back up your point.

The is a great book called How to lie with statistics. Maybe you have it.

[uawchild]

30. Explanation of time frame

I jokingly brought this up now and don't want to go off on it as a tangent.

But the idea was the end of WWII saw the emergence of the US and Russia as super powers. It's also not the distant past but is s long enough period(70 years) to judge countries' behavior over time.

Check out the thread if you want , but you can probably guess the consensus based on me mentioning it in reply.

In any case it's the type of thought questions I like to bring up to see how people respond and to challange rigid mindsets.

Hey, thanks again for your participation in this discussion.

[arely staircase]

32. Conveniently leaves out Stalin's greatest cimes..

Why not just go all the way back to 1776 and compare the two countries if you want a grand overview.

Advice. Your point is probably worth making. Why dont you say "simce the end of the cold war."

I am sure we have killed more since then

But to include the Stalin years, but post Great Terror/WWII is wrong and opens you to all manner of criticism.

[JanMichael]

34. all based on right wing celebrity robert conquests bullshit numbers. nt

[uawchild]

35. Leaves out slavery and American Indian genocide too

And we discussed all that in the thread.

It was a lively discussion.

Many people were embarrassed to compare the last SEVENTY YEARS' death tolls and kept wanting to go back to more and more remote time periods.

The time frame was both long enough to really discern patterns yet within living memory. And it seemed right to start in the post world war modern error to make any associations to the current geopolitical landscape.

Guess what, I at first thought Russia would have had the higher death toll in that time period because of their post WWII treatment of German prisoners. I just thought the US total would be high too and would make people stop and think.

Check out the thread.

[arely staircase]

36. Yeah but it includes Stalin...just not the years in which he killed millions

that alone makes it pointless.

[uawchild]

44. How is Stalin relevant in today's geopolitical landscape ?

Stalin is as relevant to what Russia is today as Hitler is relevant to what Germany is today.

And , again, the last SEVENTY post WWII years does seem like plenty of time to discern national character. The US has simply killed too many people during that time span. it's the modern era and it's bloody. Feel free to castigate other savage nations also, just please don't make too many excuses for our own misdeeds.

[stevenleser]

51. Actually Stalin is very relevant to what Ukraine is today and thus to your OP also

Without the Holodomor, Ukraine would not have the areas that have such high percentages of ethnic Russians. It also tended to stamp out the Ukranian efforts to be free of Russian influence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[DetlefK]

59. 50% of Russians adore the murderous dictator Stalin. That's why he's relevant in today's Russia.

[uawchild]

61. another push poll? Probably

Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 06:34 AM - Edit history (1)

But then maybe their perspective is still skewed by the 20,000,000 civilian Russian deaths in WWII and they are mistakenly crediting Stalin fir defeating the Nazis.

Please give a link to your poll so we can see who conducted it and what questions actually were asked. I am SURE they did not ask if Russians approved of the Stalin attrocities , they vast majority of which were GASP against the Russian people.

Wanna bet the real response was more along the lines of "Stalin was s monster but he saved us from a bigger monster, Hitler"

Show us the ACTUAL POLL.

But Stalin is ancient history, but a convienient hammer to bash today'Russia with, no?

[DetlefK]

63. Stalin is present in Russia. Because the Russians are deciding to make him present.

https://www.rt.com/politics/337183-sympathy-for-stalin-among-russians/

“In Russians’ opinion Stalin as a national leader was the best option in a time of war, in critical times that required a strong arm. This makes him a more appealing figure today, but Russians would not like to live in such times,” the researcher said.

The controversy surrounding Stalin makes him an ever-popular figure among all Russian politicians. While right-wing parties put the stress on the horrors of Stalinist purges, the left-wing, especially the Communist Party, emphasize his successes in the Soviet Union’s industrialization and in keeping corruption at extremely low levels.

In December, Communists in the central Russian city of Penza unveiled their plan to mark the 80th anniversary of the 1936 USSR Constitution by declaring 2016 the ‘Year of Stalin’ and opening a museum dedicated to the Soviet dictator.

...

“It is a testimony not even of the citizens’ attitude to Stalin, but rather of the relations between the state and a person. Stalin is perceived as a symbol of a powerful and potent state. The fact that Stalin and his policies were inhumane becomes of secondary importance,” Roginsky told reporters.



"Oh, he did horrible things, but at least he was a strongman."

What does that attitude say what Russia is capable of doing with respect to Ukraine? Or Russia's support for a murderous thug like Assad?

"Oh sure, terrible things happened, but that's okay because Russia came out stronger."

[uawchild]

66. Obviously 20,000,000 million civilian deaths

Are skewering there perspective some.

So it is a matter of Stalin was a monster but he saved us from a worse monster, HITLER.

Good lord that RT article you linked says as much!

They do have a point, somewhat. Stalin did hold it all together in the end, even though his purges weakened the Red army before the war.

[arely staircase]

64. Other than Putins man crush on him? nt

[DetlefK]

58. Who has killed more people since WWI? The US or Russia?

[arely staircase]

65. I know, right? I love how they want to include Stalin, minus the Great Terrot

Terror.

[guillaumeb]

13. Because the US is the self-appointed world decider.

Only the US can declare the entire globe an area of vital interest. Only the US can surround other countries with military bases and claim self defense.

Only the US can bomb and invade other countries with impunity.

[840high]

53. .+1

[The2ndWheel]

82. The US did sort of set up the international system we have today

Sort of won the 20th century, so it gets to make the rules. It's also basically the military of the developed world, but it's only US taxpayers paying for it. Countries in Europe are ok with that, because they then get to spend their money on social programs, instead of what they used to spend it on when the had their own empires.

[Matrosov]

29. Realpolitik

There are no moral reasons at play here.

The West has decided Assad needs to go, possibly because he's interfering with the planned gas pipeline that's supposed to run from Qatar to Turkey and into Europe, as well as because of his business relationships with Iran and Russia. The rebels might be the best way to get rid of him, therefore Western support of the Syrian rebels is seen as a positive.

Russia wants to keep as much of Ukraine under its sphere of influence, and the West wants to pull as much of Ukraine under its sphere of influence. Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine are interfering with the Western plan, therefore Russian support of those rebels is seen as a negative.

Assigning moral reasons just make it sound nicer. It's just like nobody cared about Saddam gassing his own people as long as he kept killing Iranians, which was in line with Western interests. Once he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, which wasn't in line with Western interests, he suddenly was dismissed as an evil dictator that eventually had to be removed to help the Iraqi people.

[uawchild]

31. Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply

Thanks for popping the propaganda bubble.

[840high]

54. Thank you. +1

[DetlefK]

60. Excellent try at propaganda. My respect to your craft.

There is just this itsy-bitsy tiny fact of Assad being a murderous dictator liberally oppressing, torturing and killing Syrians that you forgot to mention.

[uawchild]

70. Wrong I did say we have a right to bomb Syria

Did you even read my OP?

Sure seems like you did not. It's there in black and white. I said under Repobsibility ti Peotect we have a clear right to intervene in Syria.

You should apologize, but we all know you will not.

[DetlefK]

75. HAHAHAHA! That's possibly the lamest ad hominem attack I have ever seen.

Who is "we"?

Dude... that's sooo weak.



This post sought to equate Ukraine and Syria, with the roles of the US and of Russia reversed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7999617
To which I responded that the situations aren't equal because Assad is committing war-crimes on a large scale while Ukraine is not.


Your OP's question is:
"So the US CAN arm rebels in Syria since the Syrian regime is guilty of all those crimes.

Can the case be made that Russia can invoke the Responsibilty to Protect in a similar manner in the Donbas rebel territory? "

And the answer is the same: Ukraine and Syria aren't comparable because Assad is committing war-crimes and Ukraine is not.

[uawchild]

79. " Assad is committing war-crimes and Ukraine is not."

Did you even READ the OP? Seems not again.

Seems you missed this:

"Azov battalion has been connected in OHCHR reports to such violations of conduct of war as mass looting, use of torture and abduction of journalists An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated During the reporting period, OHCHR collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015 Another OHCHR report noted use of rape and torture writing: A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the ‘Azov’ and ‘Donbas’ battalions in August-September 2014. The victim’s health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital

Azov members have been also accused by OHCHR of using torture and beatings to force confession out of detained civilians, including use of electricity and water-boarding"

The OHCHR is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

So, BBZZZZZTT, seems you made an incorrect assertion here.

But has Assad committed MORE warcrimes than Ukraine, oh, absolutely.

The question being asked is HOW MANY war crimes are needed before the Responsibility to Protect can be invoked. That's the whole point of this discussion. Try to keep up.

[DetlefK]

85. Two things:

My bad for skipping wall-of-text, but that's not what you wrote. Your OP frames it as a question of Ukraine in general, the urkainian rebels in general and an intervention in general.





As for the question how many war-crimes are necessary before somebody has to say stop... That's tricky. I would say it depends on where the people committing the war-crimes are in relation to the rest of society:

* The people of Nazi-Germany who had industrialized mass-murder, who experimented on humans, who planned and perpetrated genocide... they were an integrated part of german society. They were no outsiders or extremists. They were mainstream. That's why the aggression against Germany was justified.

* Something similar can be said about the murderous regimes of Cold War-era South-America or Yugoslavia. The people who committed the war-crimes were in the center of society. That's why the bombing of Serbia was justified.

* The people ordering the war-crimes in Syria are politicians and those committing the war-crimes in Syria are militaries. They too are in the center of syrian society. That's why the hostility towards Assad is justified.

* The Azov bataillon is not under the control of the ukrainian politicians and not part of the ukrainian military. Actions against the Azov bataillon would therefore have to be made in a way to fight Azov but not fight Ukraine. And arming the rebels fighting Ukraine does not do that. A better way would be to put pressure on Ukraine to make THEM stop Azov.

[uawchild]

87. "The Azov bataillon is not under the control of the ukrainian politicians"

"The Azov bataillon is not under the control of the ukrainian politicians and not part of the ukrainian military. Actions against the Azov bataillon would therefore have to be made in a way to fight Azov but not fight Ukraine."

Stop just stop. You are so wrong it is painful. The Azov Battalion is now part of the Ukrainian National Guard. For you to make such sweeping and mind staggering WRONG statements like this has me at a loss for words.

If you are so uninformed on such a crucial point of WHO controls the Azov Battalion, how can we give credit to your arguments?

In addition, IF a Rouge Battalion is committing war crimes in a country, that country IS responsible to stop it. Sheeshh.

But more about Ukraine forming and embracing the Azov Battalion:

The Azov Regiment ,Ukrainian: Полк Азов, is a National Guard of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4] The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3] Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National Guard of Ukraine.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

On 13 April 2014, Arsen Avakov, the new Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine after the overthrow of the Yanukovich government, issued on a decree authorizing creating the new paramilitary force from civilians up to 12,000.[13] Avakov's deputy adviser Anton Heraschenko was tasked with overseeing the process of establishing the new security force created from civilian volunteers.[14]

The Azov Battalion was formed on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Among the patrons of the battalion are a member of the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky.[14] The battalion started in Mariupol where it was involved in combat,[3] and was briefly relocated to Berdyansk.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Azov Battalion spearheads Ukrainian counter-offensive
http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/kyiv-post-plus/azov-battalion-spearheads-ukrainian-counter-offensive-380136.html

That's the Kyiv Post there extolling the near suicidal bravery of the Azov Battalion!

So, simply put, Ukraine IS RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the Azov Battalion. The only question is whether you will unequivocally admit you were mistaken, or will you try to back pedal. What will it be?

[DetlefK]

102. Okay, I was wrong. But by that standard the situation only gets more complicated.

The Russians harassing the crimean Tartars, terrorizing, arresting them under false pretenses and beating them up, those are the responsibility of Russia.

The crimean Tartars are leaving Crimea en masse because of this treatment as unwelcome second-class citizens. This is ethnic cleansing.

At what point does Ukraine have a moral obligation to invade Crimea to protect its former citizens, the Tartars?

[uawchild]

105. More ignorance

You are so misinformed it's sad. I have already shown how wrong you just were, please try to read up on the actual facts.

The majority of the Zcrimean tartars voted yes to be annexed by Russia. Pardon me if I don't respond to your misstatements in the future.

Only six people died during the annexation dispute, 6.

Compare that to all the unarmed black men being killed by police here in the US. Perhaps the question to be asked is whether the Responsibility to Protect could be invoked against the US to protect black Americans, hmm?

[DetlefK]

106. How about we start comparing sources?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/opinion/russia-is-trying-to-wipe-out-crimeas-tatars.html?_r=0
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/03/crimea-annexation-critics-attacked-and-silenced/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/03/russia-continues-oppress-crimea-tatars-160308054208716.html



You bring up discrimination of African-Americans, I bring up the discrimination of caucasian Natives in Russia.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/06/07/racism-russia-how-moscow-capitalizes-xenophobia

And after that I will bring up the discrimination and deaths-by-torture of homosexuals in Russia.

And after that I will bring up the law that allows the russian attorney-general to unilaterally destroy any russian organization that uses foreign funding, at his personal discretion, without trials or hearings of any sort.
And how russian NGOs receiving foreign funding in Russia have been branded with a term that has a historic connotation with being a traitor.

[Matrosov]

72. Not propaganda, just international politics

Assad being a murderous dictator liberally oppressing, torturing and killing Syrians that you forgot to mention.

That doesn't influence foreign policy.

I mentioned Saddam. He was oppressing, torturing and killing Iraqis, but that was perfectly alright as long as he was killing Iranians. When he became an 'evil dictator,' his great crime wasn't oppressing, torturing and killing Iraqis but threatening Western oil supply. His oppressing, torturing and killing Iraqis only became an issue when President Bush ran out of other excuses for invading Iraq.

[DetlefK]

76. But the OP is about comparing Ukraine and Syria, not Iraq. Or Chechnya.

And Ukraine and Syria are two totally different scenarios.

You bring up Iraq, I bring up Chechnya. Chechnya tried to secede from Russia but a bloody invasion, a few ethnic cleansings and a strongman later Putin is getting 99% in the polls in Chechnya? Fair and square? Sure...



I suggest that we stick to the OP.

[Matrosov]

101. Saddam is an excellent example of how morality is used as an excuse

to put a warm and fuzzy blanket around the real but cold and detached reasons behind international politics, especially war. That's why I mentioned him, to show how morality usually plays little to no role.

It applies to Chechnya as well. Of course the official reason that Russia gave for invading Chechnya - especially under Putin for the second Chechen war - was one of morality, that Russia had an obligation to protect the people from terrorism. If a village was burned down, they claimed it was a terrorist stronghold. If Russian soldiers came into a house and dragged someone off - probably never to be seen again - they were just 'interrogating' a possible 'terrorist.'

The real reason for the Chechen wars and Russian behavior in Chechnya was of course that Russia wasn't interested in losing any more influence and territory, but admitting to that would be an impossible sell, especially when it comes to the burning villages and disappearing people. The excuse of morality, of fighting terrorism, is much easier to sell to the people and thus more convenient.

[Scootaloo]

80. So are the Saudi royals. We're good buddies with them

And as far as Syria is concerned, Assad is actually kind of low on the list of "murderous assholes." I mean he's definitely on the list, but you gotta consider, Daesh, al-Nusra, their compadres...

[DetlefK]

83. Two things:

1. The Saudis, for all their faults, are not bombing their own people to fight rebels. There aren't mass-arrests to catch a few dissidents. The Saudis, for all their faults, are not kidnapping saudi citizens. The Saudis, for all their faults, do not run torture-dungeons.

2. "Your honor. I know my client killed those people, but you have to look at this from another point of view: He isn't Hannibal Lecter! I mean, doesn't that count for anything???"

[uawchild]

86. DISPATCH Saudi Arabia Is Committing War Crimes in Yemen

How can the United States, Britain, and France keep shipping Riyadh arms when its pilots are dropping bombs on innocent civilians?

It was a hot, dry day in early July 2015. Salah Basrallah, a farmer in Yemen’s northern region of Saada, stood among a cluster of nine houses that used to comprise his little village of Eram. He surveyed the pulverized scene in silence. He had lost 21 family members in four consecutive airstrikes on his village, including his six children and wife. Nearby lay the remnants of an MK-80 series bomb, similar to those found at many other coalition strike locations and which the United States is known to supply to Saudi Arabia.

The attacks killed 55 people in total, according to local authorities in Saada, including 35 children. Several people were killed in follow-up airstrikes, as they tried to rescue people in the aftermath of the first bombing. It took survivors five days to dig out all the bodies; many had been shredded to pieces.

Fast forward to this year. With the coalition bombing campaign hitting the one-year mark, airstrikes continue to devastate the lives of innocent Yemeni families. In the capital of Sanaa, all that remains of the home where Judge Yahya Rubaid and his family once lived is a metal skeleton, chunks of concrete dangling from what used to be his living room. An airstrike hit at 1:30 a.m. on Jan. 25, as the judge and his wife, children, and grandchildren slept. A second strike followed shortly after, the sound echoing through the city.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/25/civilian-casualties-war-crimes-saudi-arabia-yemen-war/

And the Saudi's war in Yemen still continues...

Can the Responsibility to Protect be invoked against Saudi Arabia for it's war crimes in Yemen?

[DetlefK]

103. Now you are mixing domestic and foreing politics.

We were talking about problems within Ukraine and within Syria. Those are sovereign states. But the situation of Saudi-Arabia and Yemen includes two sovereign states.

[uawchild]

104. That made no sense.

War crimes are war crimes

[DetlefK]

107. It's right there in your OP.

3.The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.


Ukraine and Syria are domestic wars. Yemen is a war between two countries.

[Scootaloo]

100. Saudi Arabia is waging war against civilians in Yemen

And absolutely engages in mass arrests, disappearances, and public executions. They absolutely do torture, and were one of the Bush Administration's stop-points for "extraordinary rendition."

Hannibal Lector is a fictional character, while Daesh and their like are very, very real, As i said, Assad is certainly on the list of murderous assholes in Syria, but he's not near the top. He's probably lower or on par with the "rebels" we keep assisting (and who keep taking our aid and going to one of hte more murderous factions)

[Albertoo]

45. The OP is so unbalanced it verges on Russian propaganda

There are big difference between the two cases:
- democratic expression of the popular will
- intent by the government to kill civilians or not

• Syria: Bachar repressed peaceful civilian demands for reforms by widespread violence.

The protesters' demands until 7 April were predominantly democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, more freedom, abolition of the emergency law and an end to corruption. After 8 April, the emphasis in demonstration slogans gradually shifted towards the call for overthrowing the Assad government. Protests spread: on Friday 8 April, they occurred simultaneously in ten cities. By Friday 22 April protests occurred in twenty cities. On 25 April, the Syrian Army started a series of large-scale deadly military attacks on towns, using tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to hundreds of civilian deaths.

• Ukraine: the government did not set about to kill civilians, and there had been no popular expression of demands. Extremists excited and supplied by Russia took directly to arms in the Donetsk and Dombass regions to take power. A situation to which any federal government would react.

[Night Watchman]

46. WE are Good

THEY are EVIL!

[Matrosov]

50. "Do as I say, not as I do" n/t

[840high]

55. Always.

[DetlefK]

57. Assad is torturing prisoners to death and is willing to kill 100s of civilians to get 1 rebel.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/they-were-torturing-to-kill-inside-syrias-death-machine-caesar
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/05/04/assads-dungeons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks



I have yet to hear about Ukraine kidnapping people, Ukraine torturing people to death and Ukraine wiping out villages for the crime of not liking the government.


Nice try, you troll. How's the weather in Moscow?

[Albertoo]

69. I fear we are the lone voices of reason on this thread :)

[KG]

62. america spends more on military, has bases everywhere, drops bombs anywhere, yet some here would

have you believe russia is the real threat to the world.

[geek tragedy]

68. Only a Putin flunky would refer to the Russian insurgency as 'self-defense forces'

their purpose is to break off a piece of Ukraine (with the accompanying natural resources and strategic location) and place them under Moscow's control.

What Russia is doing has nothing to do with defending people from human rights violations.

Also, Syria engages in industrial scale human rights violations which vastly exceed anything done by a couple of rogue elements fighting on their behalf.

Keeping in mind that the Russian insurgency is the reason there's any fighting in the area to begin with.

[uawchild]

81. Are you replying to me?

Where did I refer to the Russian insurgency as 'self-defense forces'?!?

Was it a phrase in an article or something, or did you reply to the wrong person?

And let me take the opportunity to say that YES Syria has committed innumerably more war crimes than Ukraine has.
The question I raised though, is how MANY war crimes by those"rogue elements", which by the way are now part of the Ukrainian National Guard, are needed to invoke the Responsibility to Protect. That is what this discussion is all about.

Steve Leser has made an articulate case that it should only be done after UN sanctions have been made in any case. Another poster, a rely staircase, pointed out that no such UN sanctions were in place before NATO's actions in Kosovo. The question asked in my OP is a legitimate one to raise, especially since the Responsibility to Protect is being used increasingly to justify military actions.

[AngryAmish]

73. The Responsibility to Protect is an affirmatively evil principle.

It is only invoked by folks whose sons will never have to go to war.

[LanternWaste]

84. Realizing the both nuance and context exist prevents us from entertaining that hobgoblin of little m

As the US government is not an accurate representation of my own concerns, I feel pretty free to criticize any conflict or occupation or support for either any time I feel so inclined.

I also do my best to understand that no one conflict is in any way like another... as each has its own genesis, catalyst, dramatic persona and agenda, independent of other conflicts. Our foolish consistency in attempting to force every conflict to mirror the others is just that-- a foolish consistency.


Realizing the both nuance and context exist prevents us from entertaining that hobgoblin of little minds. And it allows us the added bonus of discussing A independent of discussion B.

[uawchild]

88. Indubitably!

Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2016, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Are your posts computer generated?

This one reminds me of a Carnegie Mellon University computer science AI project in its style.

In any case, thanks for joining the discussion. And yes, context is often everything.