RE: U.S. Attacks Syria

RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 5:12:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 But seeing as Iraq is not ours to give, nor the Russians to accept, why not let the legal government and the people of Iraq keep it and get on with living their lives as best they can. That would be nice. But since Bush built the world's largest embassy there, clearly the intent is to keep it as a base of operations forever. And hence, part of why Russia will keep its bases in Syria.

BoscoX -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:16:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 But seeing as Iraq is not ours to give, nor the Russians to accept, why not let the legal government and the people of Iraq keep it and get on with living their lives as best they can. That would be nice. But since Bush built the world's largest embassy there, clearly the intent is to keep it as a base of operations forever. And hence, part of why Russia will keep its bases in Syria. You're the same mindless twat who bitches on and on whenever Hillary's or Obama's name is mentioned Hilarious "Bush" didn't do a thing. The government of the United States did it, and there are three branches just like you like to preach to others Then promptly forget whenever it suits your ridiculous propaganda memes Regarding Syria, thanks for reminding us again that the UN is as worthless than skin cancer

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:20:30 AM)
I see your ignorance extends to not recognizing the convention of referring to actions taken under a nation's ruler as accomplished by that ruler. But since you also clearly don't believe a ruler never really accomplishes anything, that it's a joint governmental effort, more likely you're just in your usual "OMG!!!! MM posted!!!! Must think up some bullshit to pretend I'm smart.!!!" Nonetheless, the world's largest embassy is there, in Iraq, built during the Bush Administration, and I doubt the US is giving it up, ever. And I doubt Russia is seceding control of the Middle East to the US, ever, so their bases in Syria are going to stay as well, as is the Russian/Syrian/Iranian alliance. After all, while US morons only see Muslims, the Russians/Syrians/Iranians see the Sunni they are fighting on behalf of the Shiite.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I think I would give the Russians Iraq if it would guarantee the birds don't fly, at least for a while, because when they do, this is not going to be like past wars where you could sit comfortably at home and read about in the paper or watch death second-hand on TV. When those birds fly, EVERYBODY within their range is in the front line................................. and then you get what is quaintly termed 'Collateral Damage' from the fallout, depending on how dirty the bombs are and which way the prevailing winds blow. 'On the Beach' could become a reality in those circumstances. I suspect the only deterrent is mutually assured destruction, which is certainly as mad and horrific as its initials suggest.

BoscoX -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I think I would give the Russians Iraq if it would guarantee the birds don't fly, at least for a while, because when they do, this is not going to be like past wars where you could sit comfortably at home and read about in the paper or watch death second-hand on TV. When those birds fly, EVERYBODY within their range is in the front line................................. and then you get what is quaintly termed 'Collateral Damage' from the fallout, depending on how dirty the bombs are and which way the prevailing winds blow. 'On the Beach' could become a reality in those circumstances. I suspect the only deterrent is mutually assured destruction, which is certainly as mad and horrific as its initials suggest. Then there's the leftist alternative, mass murdering communists win everything, every time

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:55:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 But seeing as Iraq is not ours to give, nor the Russians to accept, why not let the legal government and the people of Iraq keep it and get on with living their lives as best they can. But that is exactly the problem. . . they are continuing the millennial old sectarian Shia-Sunni religious battle. The Iraqi Shia with the assistance of the United States froze the Sunni out of any meaningful participation in governance. Hence, the rise of ISIL.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 6:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I think I would give the Russians Iraq if it would guarantee the birds don't fly, at least for a while, because when they do, this is not going to be like past wars where you could sit comfortably at home and read about in the paper or watch death second-hand on TV. When those birds fly, EVERYBODY within their range is in the front line................................. and then you get what is quaintly termed 'Collateral Damage' from the fallout, depending on how dirty the bombs are and which way the prevailing winds blow. 'On the Beach' could become a reality in those circumstances. I suspect the only deterrent is mutually assured destruction, which is certainly as mad and horrific as its initials suggest. Then there's the leftist alternative, mass murdering communists win everything, every time So, are you advocating a preemptive nuclear attack?

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:17:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka We meaning the US Military. That's what they are paid to do. Yes, that was especially true in past wars. But, what is Trump's strategy and end game for Syria? Does he plan to fight the Russians and Iranians who have troops on the ground in Syria? Does he he plan to confront Russia's nuclear power? Will North Korea use the excuse of our confrontation with Russia and Iran to fire a nuclear war head at one of our West Coast cities, or to launch their fire power against Saigon which is only about 23(?) miles south of the armistice line? We have 50,000 or more Americans in South Korea, btw. It's all very interlocked, isn't it? I hope he moves and speaks carefully. I think the end game is that we don't want Russia and Iran to control Syria. Directly or indirectly. OK, that seems to be a reasonable answer, tamaka. Now question #2 . . . Why not? https://www.thenation.com/article/why-push-syrian-intervention-about-more-just-assad/ Yes, you are correct, Tamaka, but we have already taken steps to reduce our need for Middle East oil. Although it is a god-awful ecological disaster, Canada and the US have more shale oil reserves than are available in the Middle East. Additionally, we can build out our non petroleum energy infra-structure . . . . nuclear, wind, and solar energy sources. We don't have to need the ME.

BoscoX -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:26:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I think I would give the Russians Iraq if it would guarantee the birds don't fly, at least for a while, because when they do, this is not going to be like past wars where you could sit comfortably at home and read about in the paper or watch death second-hand on TV. When those birds fly, EVERYBODY within their range is in the front line................................. and then you get what is quaintly termed 'Collateral Damage' from the fallout, depending on how dirty the bombs are and which way the prevailing winds blow. 'On the Beach' could become a reality in those circumstances. I suspect the only deterrent is mutually assured destruction, which is certainly as mad and horrific as its initials suggest. Then there's the leftist alternative, mass murdering communists win everything, every time So, are you advocating a preemptive nuclear attack? So predictably juvenile [:D] That is a form of Godwins law...

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:30:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka We are the most powerful country on the planet. Whether you mean the US Military or the USA makes no difference. What you're supporting is more like tyranny. quote: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Recognize the quoted text? While it's not law of the land, what was laid out was the entire point of creating a government. quote: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; not the consent of the other countries in the world. quote: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... It is the "Right of the People" - which means "the governed" - to alter or abolish their government. It doesn't say it's the Right of the Citizens outside of those governed, to alter or abolish it. We (the USA or the US Military) are not the arbiters of justice. The strongest or mightiest shouldn't be the arbiters of justice based solely on that strength or might. Can you imagine if some countries banded together to bomb the US because they find it reprehensible that the Federal Government isn't paying for everyone's health care?

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:42:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Slave trade built many an expansive estate mansion in England and France and the Netherlands, and many a Barronancy and Lordship bestowed etc.as result, after they made laws against practice of slavery in their own immediate country, sorry you missed that one. You can 'blah blah' all you want, but you have made it plain that you have no appreciation whatsoever of any history, nor that I actually pointed out that it took forever to get the Protestants to get it straightened out among themselves what it was to be about to begin with. No matter how much you want to avoid it, this country started as result of disagreement on terms of whether the state (as in England) or the Protestant sect of whatever sort in Europe or the Colonies had rights to burn or drown 12 yr. old girls. But fell free to blah blah blah about a document conjured for convenient purpose at the time, which I don't entirely disagree with, as having anything to do with today's world. Falling back on a document that helped us win independence 240 yrs. ago in attempt to make a point against 'the government' in today's world of Google, Amazon, etc, is just plain silly. The history behind the US Constitution is immaterial, Which in such instance means that the document itself is immaterial. But carry on. Not at all. quote: quote: Do you think the US Constitution is a valid document by which the US Federal Government is bound? Does it's compromise beginnings make it a worthless document, regardless of time period? No, I rather think that your ignorance of how the government works as provided for by that document is yet another clumsy effort on your part to claim that the Constitution meant anything about a firm and inflexible set of rules bound to the business and industry and societal norms and acceptable conventions of that particular moment. Both the Constitution itself and the adjoining first ten amendments quite explicitly allowed for adjustment as various circumstances may require. What does the Amendment process have to do with the Constitution not granting authority to the Federal Government to bomb Syria because it believed* Syria used chemical weapons against it's own people? quote: Or are you trying to say that you are still against the women's vote? Seriously? What the fuck does that have to do with bombing Syria?!? quote: quote: Like it or not, we have a 240 year old Constitution that was ratified by the people in the States, forming our government. It has been amended as the majority of people in at least 3/4 of the States have seen fit. We don't get to pick and choose which parts we follow and those we don't. Read what you just said. This is what is referred to as "stepping in it." I know what I said. I wrote it. I read it. I changed it. I read it. I may have changed it a few times to please my sense of writing aesthetics. I wrote what I wrote because it's what I meant. I have made, and will make at some points in the future, mistakes in what I've written, including leaving out a word that completely changes what is written (left out a "not" once, making the phrase "I do not believe..." completely false). Edwird, do you believe the US had the authority to bomb Assad's assets because it believed* Assad used chemical weapons against innocent Syrian civilians? *- I do not know if Assad used the chemical weapons or not. I believe the Syrian Army is to blame, but I can not prove that (nor can I disprove it) it did. Thus, I have written that the US believes Assad's military used the weapons, which may or may not turn out to be true.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:14:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird In any case, I'm with Aylee on this one, she has it laid out simply and correctly; international law was clearly and blatantly violated by the Syrian government, and the response was a reprisal. For those in the US asking "who are we to say?", my response to you is "where were you 15 years ago? and why are you still making excuses for it?" Here's the thing about the invasion of Iraq. We actually did have the authority to do what we did. I'll pause here for you to collect the pieces of your head after it exploded from my comment. [:D] While all the reasons given by President Bush indicating why we should go to war, only one truly authorized the US to engage Iraq. quote: • Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. • Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." • Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." • Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". • Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. • Members of Al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. • Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. • Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. • The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. • The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. • The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. • Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. Source (Wiki) So, of the 12 reasons given as justifications for attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam, only the first one actually granted the US the authority to act. According to Paragraph 34 of the UN Resolution 687 quote: 34 [The UN Security Council] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. Source (UN Docs) I'm sure you'll blather on about whatever-the-fuck, but Bush had the authority to attack Iraq and depose Saddam.

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:18:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee DS, You are asking under what authority did Trump bomb Syria? The term you want is "reprisal." Using chemical weapons is against the customary laws of war. The ONLY way to enforce the customary laws of war is through reprisals. As far as National Security goes, you REALLY do NOT want folks to start thinking that it is okay to use nukes, bugs, and gas. Such things need to be stopped immediately. Hence, reprisals. No, no, no! Who are we to decide who gets reprisals? Who are we to be the arbiters of justice when someone runs afoul of the customary laws of war? Who are we to be in that role, when we're guilty of also running afoul the customary laws of war? I hope you realize that damn near anything can be rationalized as a threat to National Security. China and Japan are threats to National Security since they own so much of our debt. Russia is a threat to National Security since they could launch nukes. France, Israel, Pakistan, and India are among the nuclear armed countries. They pose a threat. Syria did not, and does not, post a threat to US National Security. There is no basis for us having the authority to bomb Assad's assets. http://www.cwc.gov/cwc_treaty_article_12.html Or are you suggesting that we violate the treaties and conventions we are signatories to even though doing so would be unconstitutional?

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:19:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, it isn't. As Patton put it, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” Bingo

BoscoX -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:22:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, no, no! Who are we to decide who gets reprisals? Who are we to be the arbiters of justice when someone runs afoul of the customary laws of war? Who are we to be in that role, when we're guilty of also running afoul the customary laws of war? I hope you realize that damn near anything can be rationalized as a threat to National Security. China and Japan are threats to National Security since they own so much of our debt. Russia is a threat to National Security since they could launch nukes. France, Israel, Pakistan, and India are among the nuclear armed countries. They pose a threat. Syria did not, and does not, post a threat to US National Security. There is no basis for us having the authority to bomb Assad's assets. We are who we say we are, and we say that you have been outvoted.

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:28:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka We meaning the US Military. That's what they are paid to do. Yes, that was especially true in past wars. But, what is Trump's strategy and end game for Syria? Does he plan to fight the Russians and Iranians who have troops on the ground in Syria? Does he he plan to confront Russia's nuclear power? Will North Korea use the excuse of our confrontation with Russia and Iran to fire a nuclear war head at one of our West Coast cities, or to launch their fire power against Saigon which is only about 23(?) miles south of the armistice line? We have 50,000 or more Americans in South Korea, btw. It's all very interlocked, isn't it? I hope he moves and speaks carefully. We pay them to die? What has happened to this country's sanity? We pay them to be willing to die for their country. Yes that's right. No. Not exactly. We pay them because soldiering is a profession. It takes a lot of skill and training to be an effective modern military fighter. (I hesitate to use the term "warrior" because of some of the connotations.) Typically, soldiers do not fight and die for their country. The fight and die for the guy on the right of them and the guy on the left of them.

tamaka -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:40:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka We meaning the US Military. That's what they are paid to do. Yes, that was especially true in past wars. But, what is Trump's strategy and end game for Syria? Does he plan to fight the Russians and Iranians who have troops on the ground in Syria? Does he he plan to confront Russia's nuclear power? Will North Korea use the excuse of our confrontation with Russia and Iran to fire a nuclear war head at one of our West Coast cities, or to launch their fire power against Saigon which is only about 23(?) miles south of the armistice line? We have 50,000 or more Americans in South Korea, btw. It's all very interlocked, isn't it? I hope he moves and speaks carefully. We pay them to die? What has happened to this country's sanity? We pay them to be willing to die for their country. Yes that's right. No. Not exactly. We pay them because soldiering is a profession. It takes a lot of skill and training to be an effective modern military fighter. (I hesitate to use the term "warrior" because of some of the connotations.) Typically, soldiers do not fight and die for their country. The fight and die for the guy on the right of them and the guy on the left of them. True enough. But my point is, the idea that you might actuallly die because you signed on the dotted line when you join is what reality is.

BoscoX -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 8:48:14 AM)
You fight, to make the communist or the Koran-carrying jihadi die for HIS country, cult, or ideology

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 11:02:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee DS, You are asking under what authority did Trump bomb Syria? The term you want is "reprisal." Using chemical weapons is against the customary laws of war. The ONLY way to enforce the customary laws of war is through reprisals. As far as National Security goes, you REALLY do NOT want folks to start thinking that it is okay to use nukes, bugs, and gas. Such things need to be stopped immediately. Hence, reprisals. No, no, no! Who are we to decide who gets reprisals? Who are we to be the arbiters of justice when someone runs afoul of the customary laws of war? Who are we to be in that role, when we're guilty of also running afoul the customary laws of war? I hope you realize that damn near anything can be rationalized as a threat to National Security. China and Japan are threats to National Security since they own so much of our debt. Russia is a threat to National Security since they could launch nukes. France, Israel, Pakistan, and India are among the nuclear armed countries. They pose a threat. Syria did not, and does not, post a threat to US National Security. There is no basis for us having the authority to bomb Assad's assets. http://www.cwc.gov/cwc_treaty_article_12.html Or are you suggesting that we violate the treaties and conventions we are signatories to even though doing so would be unconstitutional? Trump went rogue, Aylee. None of the conditions of the treaty were met before Trump set off his Tomahawk missiles: ARTICLE XII MEASURES TO REDRESS A SITUATION AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING SANCTIONS 1. The Conference shall take the necessary measures, as set forth in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, to ensure compliance with this Convention and to redress and remedy any situation which contravenes the provisions of this Convention. In considering action pursuant to this paragraph, the Conference shall take into account all information and recommendations on the issues submitted by the Executive Council. 2. In cases where a State Party has been requested by the Executive Council to take measures to redress a situation raising problems with regard to its compliance, and where the State Party fails to fulfil the request within the specified time, the Conference may, inter alia, upon the recommendation of the Executive Council, restrict or suspend the State Party's rights and privileges under this Convention until it undertakes the necessary action to conform with its obligations under this Convention. 3. In cases where serious damage to the object and purpose of this Convention may result from activities prohibited under this Convention, in particular by Article I, the Conference may recommend collective measures to States Parties in conformity with international law. 4. The Conference shall, in cases of particular gravity, bring the issue, including relevant information and conclusions, to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 11:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, no, no! Who are we to decide who gets reprisals? Who are we to be the arbiters of justice when someone runs afoul of the customary laws of war? Who are we to be in that role, when we're guilty of also running afoul the customary laws of war? I hope you realize that damn near anything can be rationalized as a threat to National Security. China and Japan are threats to National Security since they own so much of our debt. Russia is a threat to National Security since they could launch nukes. France, Israel, Pakistan, and India are among the nuclear armed countries. They pose a threat. Syria did not, and does not, post a threat to US National Security. There is no basis for us having the authority to bomb Assad's assets. We are who we say we are, and we say that you have been outvoted. Once again you are wrong. You may return to your catatonic slumber.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625