US shoots down Syrian plane.

Whilst I think the Kurds in Iraq may stand a chance at independence, (if they don't start fighting amongst themselves). Syria I doubt it, if it eventuate it probably won't last, neither Assad, Iran nor Turkey would support it and that's pretty big odds stacked against you...even with the US on your side... US can't stay forever.

 

I try to follow the politics of the region closely, but even I get confused with all the various Kurdish groups and who they are close to and who they oppose!

 

The US would love to stay forever. I happen to think that a permanent or semi-permanent military presence in Iraq was a significant part of why we invaded in the first place. That didn't go so well.

But bases in Kurdistan? Sign us up.

You can bet that this discussion is happening in Washington. But the fact is that an independent Kurdistan poses too many risks.

I guess we'll see what happens in September.

 

As far as I can find it, the coalition where the US is in said so in a statement.

 

The US is in Syria for two purposes; two eradicate daesh and support the insurgency against Assad.

Although Assad may also seek to eradicate daesh, he wants to eradicate the insurgency against him too.

The US would be intervening in Syria even if daesh were eradicated, as long as there was an insurgency against Assad.

 

Well, as much as I like jokes - are you sure this is normal, what USA does? Drones shot down, jet shot down, plane of our minister of Defence disturbed? I find that being pretty much agressive behaviour, behaviour of agressor. All that does not sounds like random or isolated incidents, it sounds like a threat.

I know you are australian, so I am asking your opinion - as a distant observer - does that chain of events looks like an agressive demonstration of force, a threat from USA?

 

It does seem so, at least a change in tone, less 'pussyfooting'.

 

Is respecting other countries' right to exist now a pussyfooting?

 

We need to get the hell out of that failed state.

 

National borders should be respected, but there are exceptions recognized under international law and in international relations. One of these exceptions is in the struggle for self-determination, which ostensibly could apply to the Kurds. If the US recognized secessionist Kurds in Syria, military support could be legitimate. Moreover, a sovereign which does not recognize the legitimacy of some tyrant, can legitimately support an insurgency to overthrow him. In this case it would seem US support for insurgents seeking to overthrow Assad and secessionists seeking to carve out a chunk of Syria are both legitimate.

I don't think the US is that interested in supporting the Kurdish effort to secede, but in exchange for their outstanding effort to eradicate daesh such support seems ok.

 

No we need to deny ISIS territory from which to operate. But we should work much harder on getting help from our Allies. What we really need to do is declare war on ISIS and invoke article V NATO. Let's see how strong that alliance really is and get ISIS out of all NATO countries and defeat them wherever they are.

 

No it is part of denying ISIS operational freedom by removing them from occupied territory. It is an act of war whether you have declared it or not. The problem is how to declare war on an enemy which occupies a state already sovereign and in this instance the sovereign is also an enemy. Rather complicated.

 

On what basis? Let's concentrate on that part of your statement. Where this legitimacy comes from?

 

It gets easy by giving aid to government of the country in which the rogue terrorist state operates.

 

No, we don't. We've done enough. If we left, ISIS would focus its war on Assad, then Assad gets to bomb the **** out of them. Not our prob no more. Time to go

 

Custom in international law. Customary practice among nations (a primary source of international law) allows a sovereign to recognize revolutionary groups, rebels, insurgents and such -as long as they don't recognize the sovereign government these are fighting against. There have been and are plenty of examples of this, and not just by the US. Once the rebels, insurgents or revolutionaries have been recognized, the sovereign doing so can provide them with support, and this can be military. Sovereign support for insurgents, rebels or revolutionaries has most often been under the guise of their claim for self-determination, in most cases (especially in Africa) this involved actual colonial situations, but in some cases (especially in Latin America) those receiving the support were confronting a formally recognized sovereign government they claimed was illegitimate.

 

N in my opinion Assad is deliberately pushing the Americans, so that they react exactly as they have (by shooting at "allies" in Syria) and this will place international pressure on the Americans to leave.

As an Australian I don't want our government involved... and until the Americans leave we will be involved... so yes for what it's worth, I want America out of Syria and Iraq

 

We're not just fighting ISIS but fighting for who gets Syria once the music stops. We need to counter Russian influence. It tooks a long time to rid the ME of Russia's influence and thanks to Obama we're fighting that fight all over again. Wish we could walk away, too. Wish we had more allied help. Wish we could get NATO involved.

 

We're giving aid to Syria?