Not really. You need to take a closer look at the UN charter.
I thought I was familiar. Seems you are confident that I'm mistaken. Please provide anything within the UN charter which advocates/approves or defends the legality of the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq.
In some senses of the word the Russian intervention in Syria is legal. However aiding Assad who is quite clearly a war criminal brings to question that "legal" status in some ways. Then there's the quite clear case of the Russian interventions in Georgia and the Ukraine being illegal in the case of the Ukraine in at least two and probably more ways. As for no fly zones there are a number of ways of enforcing them or not. Note that she has specifically called for "deconflicting" this with regards to Russian operations. So it seams you are a bit off in saying she's calling for shooting down Russian planes.
The above is quite puzzling. If in "some senses" of the word it's legal then there must be some senses which it is not. Which senses/cases are those? Who exactly clarified that Assad is a war criminal? It definitely wasn't the UN. In fact in the French Comunique which was signed by several nations (US included) in 2013 made no mention of his so called war crimes or his need for immediate resignation. Furthermore, I believe it was Lavrov himself who stated that "if the US insists on Assad's removal than the US should scratch off it's signature from the document signed in 2013.
Again you mention of a "clear case" of illegal Russian intervention in Georgia... What case? illegal how? Russia was not the aggressor, Gergia was. It was Georgia who started the conflict by breaking the treaty and invading South Ossetia and done so while everyone had their back turned enjoying the opening ceremony of olympics games in China. Just to remind you, it was Georgia that broke the treaty which she was a signatory in by invading South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers were killed in the process. Interestingly enough, Russia after destroying the Georgian military was advancing unopposed on the main highway to the capital Tbilisi, when she simply turned around and went back home. Those are not the characteristics of an aggressive nation or of one bent on conquest. There wasn't even talk of sanctions after the fact.
So I ask again what did Russia do that was illegal?
Russia is not in Ukraine if she was there would be no denying it.
What has Russia done in Ukraine that's illegal?
Ukraine was the work of Vicky Nuland (she's not Russian).
Ofcourse Hillary Clinton called for Russia to "de-escalate" operations in Syria. That's because Russia began bombing US "moderate" allies which turned out to be not so moderate. It was in fact Hillary who wanted to arm these rebels (terrorists) in Syria prior to Obama (something I look forward to Trump bringing up in their debate). Syria is/was a sovereign state. Who gave the US permission to bomb it? It wasn't the UN (whom Russia got approval from) and certainly not Assad (the internationally recognized leader of Syria) whom Russia also got permission from btw. How can Hillary call for a no fly zone in a nation which the US is operating in without anyone's permission? This "no fly zone" advocated by Hillary and company was done so when Russia was already actively involved in Syria. Please help me understand the "numerous ways" in which she would have enforced this no fly zone without starting WWIII. This is actually the very same point which was correctly raised by senator Rand Paul when he addressed Marco Rubio's (another brilliant NeoCon) same comment in the republican debate.
I look forward to you directly addressing and answering these questions/points and please without the vagueness which some of us have grown accustomed to coming from your corner.
Edited by Sloniksp, 11 June 2016 - 09:42 AM.