https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zj7rz3l4o
in what experts say may be a violation of international law
I like how Turkey and Israel, countries who currently hate each other, both bomb Syria at the same time without actually working together. Middle East is such a mess
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They bomb different targets. Turks bomb Kurds who support U.S. and are neutral to Assad. Israel bomb Iranian groups that support Assad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure, but it's still funny. And it's even funnier that Syria isn't reacting to either of them crossing it's borders to kill random targets. It's just absurd from the perspective of countries with more stable borders.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The absurdity comes from the invention of national sovereignty. For most of history, one or more foreign countries would have conquered Syria by now. Today, however, we believe in "national sovereignty", so everyone pretends like "Syria" is a real country and not a playground for a dozen militaries
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Realistically, even if international norms did allow countries to just wholly conquer and annex their weaker neighbors, who would want Syria? Almost by definition, any country that would be easy to conquer also isn't functional enough to be profitable to its invaders. The only exceptions AFAIK are natural resources, strategic value, and cultural ties. Syria does have oil, but not that much and inevitably dealing with the terrorists would make it more trouble than its worth. Driving out the terrorists wouldn't redound to many benefits since they would just redirect their attention (probably at you). And no one wants to be associated with Syrians so no one wants to develop cultural ties.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context