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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
We are the most powerful country on the planet.

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.

quote:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

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...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.

quote:

Or are you trying to say that you are still against the women's vote?

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."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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?"

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)

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)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.