46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 07:05 am
@spendius,
He's got something to grin about. I never imagined this would deliciously end up making Cameron look like such a dickhead internationally.
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 07:41 am
There's no proof. None of the evidence shared has demonstrated sufficient proof to start dropping bombs. Obama should bring it to Congress and make them all vote on dropping more bombs. Then the electorate can decide whether or not that decision matters enough to make some significant changes in our congressional make up. Making this decision on his own simply because the War Powers Act allows it (kinda, sorta) is the wrong way to go. Let Congress Vote!
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:02 am
Gary Johnson on Syria

Quote:
Former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson has issued a statement regarding potential U.S. military intervention in Syria. It is a much stronger statement than Rand Paul's. Here is the full Johnson statement:

No one disagrees that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is despicable, and the results tragic. However, those facts alone do not make going to war either justified or even a good idea. And while the Administration can parse words all day long, launching missiles or dropping bombs constitutes going to war.

There is no clear U.S. interest in what is, in reality, a civil war on the other side of the globe. Likewise, there is nothing to indicate at this time that intervening in that civil war will benefit anyone -- either here in America or in Syria.

The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.Source
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:19 am
@JPB,
I completely agree with him.

The seeming principle of limited humanitarian intervention - which I took from the article I linked by Kurtz about Samantha Powers a few pages back - is described as dumb on the face of it in the article, and in this case I agree.



(Samantha Powers, our UN rep and long time Obama advisor)
0 Replies
 
George
 
  5  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:37 am
Chemical weapons aside, people are being burned, blown up and drilled full
of holes in Syria. It is an ongoing horror. For the US to go in and burn, blow
up and drill people full of holes by way of stopping the use of chemical
weapons just adds to the horror even if -- if -- it stops the chemical warfare.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:43 am
@JPB,
Quote:
The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification..


That does rather depend upon what " meaningful strategic or national defense justification" consists of and on whether anybody knows what it means.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:44 am
The concept of "we've got proof we can't show you" will never (hopefully) pass again.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:46 am
@spendius,
and, certainly, "meaningful" is subjective.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:48 am
@JPB,
Quote:
The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification.The consequences of our military actions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan should be a lesson to President Obama and others who appear determined to act without any meaningful strategic or national defense justification..


That does rather depend upon what " meaningful strategic or national defense justification" consists of and on whether anybody knows what it means. It could partake of being so egotistical that it is assumed that anything leaving the lips must be true as hawk suggested.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 08:55 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I never imagined this would deliciously end up making Cameron look like such a dickhead internationally.


Maybe. It might be he got what he wanted in that we don't join in because we can't afford it and it's not his fault that we are not doing. He busted a gut didn't he? It's the Labour Party that the Yanks will be miffed with.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:05 am
@spendius,
What yanks? I know, I know, at least the white house, but from my glances around, it looks to me like a lot of our population is against our shooting some missiles to give Assad what-for. On the other hand, I don't read every article out there.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:09 am
@spendius,
Miffed perhaps, but Cameron has proved he's all mouth and trousers, Milliband delivered.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:13 am
@ossobuco,
I think it's quite telling that the two democracies who are talking about military action, are those who don't need parliamentary approval to go ahead, France and the USA.

If Obama and Hollande had to go through the same process as Cameron they might end up with similar results.

Actually I lied, strictly speaking the UK does not need parliamentary approval, but since Iraq, it's inconceivable that any prime minister would dare to act without it.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:25 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I think it's quite telling that the two democracies who are talking about military action, are those who don't need parliamentary approval to go ahead, France and the USA.



it does however skewer your usual argument that the elite should be the bosses and run things. Obama launching a pointless and illegal attack on Syria is nothing but a continuation of the recent history of the elite operating on their own allegedly on the authority of the people and mucking it up.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:27 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It's the Labour Party that the Yanks will be miffed with.

Why do we have to be miffed with anyone?

As far as I'm concerned, our friends can come along and join the war if they wish, or not come along and join the war if they wish.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:33 am
@izzythepush,
It should be inconceivable here as well.

Quote:
It could be mere days until President Barack Obama orders strikes on Syria in response to the apparent use of chemical weapons by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad last week.

Some lawmakers say Obama can’t legally use force without a vote, as was the case prior to the Iraq invasion in 2003. But it’s looking increasingly likely the president will act without waiting for authorization from Congress, just as he did in Libya two years ago.
So what, exactly, is the law?

Constitutional expert and American University professor Stephen Vladeck calls this “one of the more perversely gray areas of U.S. constitutional law.”

snip

While support from the British and from NATO would help make the case for attacking Syria in the court of public opinion both in the United States and abroad, there’s no legal requirement that Obama have international support for an attack.

Vladeck said, “So long as President Obama is complying” with the War Powers Resolution “which includes reporting to Congress within 48 hours of the onset of hostilities, it’s an uphill battle, at best, to argue that the use of force in Syria would be unlawful until and unless the War Power Resolution’s own constraints kick in.”More
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:54 am
@hawkeye10,
You are a bloody idiot. I've never said the elite should be bosses and run things. That sounds like the sort of moronic drivel you usually come out with.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 09:58 am
@George,
True dat, George, and the US has got so many other countries where they haven't finished killing, raping, torturing, ... everyone. Don't start a new one until you've finished your other jobs.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 11:06 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Why do we have to be miffed with anyone?


Not miffed??? Kerry--France--"our oldest ally". And France is not there yet and if it gets there it will be more to do with traditional French interests in Syria and Lebanon than anything else. And there is a "leftie" government there as well as in the US.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 11:10 am
@George,
George, I agree totally with you! Our adding to their misery will not stop the misery. Look at Iraq today; they have bombings almost every day that kills dozens of people. What did we really accomplish in Iraq? We ended up killing tens of thousands of innocent people, spent billions (if not trillions), lost many of our soldiers with death and injury, and they're back to where they were before we got involved in their country.

Obama scares me. He even approves torture of American citizens without legal representation if they charge any American as a "terrorist."

He needs to look in the mirror.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 04:59:46