This is tantamount to trolling.

obiwanobiwan: Uh-huh. Well, both the U. K. and France are only intervening in Iraq because they hold this curious conviction that blatently breaking international law is wrong.

I agree with you--

I'm being specific to the moment...

The US *is* bossy, and more often than not.

But there's a time and a place to quibble about that, and complaining about intervention against ISIS isn't it.

But Putin and Lavrov are right; military intervention in another country requires either governmental request or UN Security Council approval.

1. That wouldn't be so much of a problem except for the fact Putin has consistently stonewalled intervention in Syria for the last few years...so I'd rather that ISIS be attacked now rather than another round of Stallin' with the Stalinist.

2. Putin is in NO POSITION to lecture the rest of the world about "military intervention in another country" right now...that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I saw it...

So to summarise, Putin's right, but obi is outraged because it was Putin who said so.

Mega post in 3...2....1.....

1. Russia "stonewalled" intervention against the Syrian government. The Syrian government is not the Islamic State.

2. Off topic

3. You're playing a game called Diplomacy. Surely you might imagine that a responsible diplomat could convince Lavrov to back intervention. Russia is more threatened by Islamic extremism than the United States and Europe put together. Ban Ki-moon is calling for intervention against the Islamic State, for crying out loud. Even if Russia had misgivings and thought U. S. intervention would backfire (this is its stated position), do you really think that it would veto a resolution authorizing force against the Islamic State? It would be much more likely to abstain or simply vote against the resolution without issuing a veto.

"So to summarise, Putin's right, but obi is outraged because it was Putin who said so."

No, I'd be outraged if it were Russia, the UK, Israel, any nation saying that with that track record.

And it's NOT off-topic, not when they made reference in that same speech to the US supporting the "coup" in Ukraine...makes me rather hard to take a nation seriously on not invading without permission when said nation has not only done just that, but has sectioned off a piece of that nation in the process, whereas *we* are "invading" to try and stop people getting their heads lopped off.

You don't think that makes them sound just the tiniest bit hypocritical?

"Even if Russia had misgivings and thought U. S. intervention would backfire (this is its stated position), do you really think that it would veto a resolution authorizing force against the Islamic State?"

I honestly don't know...some here didn't think they'd go so far as to actually steal Crimea...

If they felt that US intervention will somehow jeopardize Assad's long-term grasp on the region, they might. ISIS poses a threat to Assad now, obviously, but if we intervene for any length of time, it's hard to see the West just letting Assad stay in power...

With all the talk about Israel and Hamas facing war crimes charges, that could full well be used against Assad as well.

All of the "powerful" countries are bossy. Don't those traits go hand in hand?

I'm not sure why I'm even engaging with obiwan, but...

Bombing ISIS will not help in the long run, and will merely pour oil on a fire that has been caused by imperialist western foreign policy.

http://stopwar.org.uk/images/documents/why%20we%20shouldnt%20bomb%20A4%20StW.pdf

A statement can be hypocritical and still be true.

The West is the best.
Give in, we'll do the rest.

obiwanobiwan: You sound like one of the so-called 'realists' of international relations. Does it even occur to you that sincerity can change someone's mind?

@bo_sox: Yes, thank you...

@Jamiet: What would you do, then, since doing nothing to stop ISIS from doing this is unconscionable, and I don't just think sitting down and negotiating will stop a group doing this. I'm not saying negotiation shouldn't be part of the process, but it can't be the only part of the process, so what would you propose, when Russia has (again) stonewalled on Syria again and again, thereby weakening Western powers' faith that they won't vote yes and allow for much-needed action?

Syrian civilians have needed help for years, and Russia has stalled that...so, fair or not, they have a track record (and, again, demanding permission to invade a nation, with Russia, this year...just a little hypocritical?)

@JECE: First, Diplomacy and WebDip as much as anything crushes my belief in sincerity. ;) (I kid, I kid.) But what evidence would you present to say Russia would change their mind, when they both have a track record of stonewalling on this exact issue and have invaded a nation without asking permission and are now condemning such action...

If there's no reason to believe the other side will change its mind or practice what it preaches, operating as if they might seems a losing strategy to me.

A month or so back Stephen Cohen, an expert on Russia, was on the the John Batchelor radio show (audio recording available on Youtube). He spoke about the deep impact the NATO intervention had on Russian thinking.

He spoke of two significant impacts:
1) The Russians consider Obama's word to mean very little. The played ball and agreed to a UN resolution. NATO went much further than this. Is there any wonder why they would fear a repeat of this?

2) The Libya fiasco significantly weakened Medvedev standing. He was in line as Putin's successor at the time. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Putin resumed his old position soon after. It is ironic as Obama still makes little references lamenting Medvedev's departure despite, again according to Stephen Cohen, initiating his sidelining.

NATO intervention in Libya

@obi - the west reaction to Russia annexing Crimea is laughable. Whilst the referendum about succession was flawed, do you or anyone actually believe that it didn't represent the will of the people? Also, and I have asked you this before, could you find just one instance of the west caring about the Crimea being gifted to another country on the whim of one person. Just one link would suffice, I don't need an essay.

Again, you seem to have inverted logic. You start with Russia going anywhere near Crimea was wrong, but use this as a reason why the USA should be allowed to go into Syria.

With regards to what we (the west) should do. I think the battle against IS is a battle if ideas. Assisting refugees, setting up and running field hospitals, providing non-lethal defence equipment etc would all help progress that cause. These things wouldn't get so much news coverage and probably don't play well in election years, but longer term they would be far more effective.