Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
Have we then if you are in fact correct...as an assumption...then we are just as complicit in genocide as is Assad and Putin because we could have stopped if that had been any interesting in stopping it which I have not seen since 2012....the argument has always been ...it is not of a strategic importance to the US...but in the end it has become in fact "strategic important" as this turmoil will go on for another decade of so....

So yes based on the IHL and international treaties we are in fact complicit in genocide...

Unfortunately, international "law" isn't your strong suit. In terms of applying the "Responsibility to Protect" to the case of the Syrian Civil War:


  1. There must be "reasonable prospects" of success using military intervention. I doubt that this case can be made.

  2. The military action has to be authorized by the UN Security Council. Yeah, right.



Do countries with no military power projection capabilities have a duty to establish militaries solely for the purposes of intervening in foreign countries to protect civilians? What of Iceland?


So what of D.R. Congo and Burundi? Should the West not intervene there first as the area of greatest need?