RE: U.S. Attacks Syria

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

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

Message

Dvr22999874 -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 5:00:12 PM)
I'm with you all the way on this D.S....................and I keep thinking that if the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. did something another country didn't like ( gods forbid that should EVER happen !!) would that make it okay for said country to bomb, shell, throw spitballs or otherwise attack the U.S. ?

Kirata -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 5:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If I read Vince's post correctly, he's saying it doesn't matter if Assad used chemical weapons or not, there is no international law authorizing the US to drop bombs on Syria. I get that, and Musicmystery pointed out the same thing. But I still think it's the central question here, one might even say the elephant in the room, upon which any legal niceties will ultimately depend for their traction. K.

Kirata -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 5:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I'm with you all the way on this D.S....................and I keep thinking that if the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. did something another country didn't like ( gods forbid that should EVER happen !!) would that make it okay for said country to bomb, shell, throw spitballs or otherwise attack the U.S. ? I won't dispute the logic of your position, but it embeds and depends upon an assumption of equivalence -- what's fair for one is fair for the other -- which fails to convince when one of the parties is engaged in mass murder and the other is intervening to put an end to it. Circumstances matter. K.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 5:50:48 PM)
As far as I can tell though, the U.S. acted unilaterally before there was any proof of who REALLY committed that mass murder. Is there any proof yet ? What does your Congress have to say about it ? What does the U.N. Security Council say about it ? There are other war crimes than mass murder for which punishment can be meted out too kirata.....................attacking/bombing a sovereign state/country without a declaration of war, may be though to be one of them, even when there are few deaths. Pearl Harbour could be cited as one of those instances, although it was later found that war HAD been declared in that instance. But didn't the U.S. declare war on Japan over that before the facts had come to light ?

Kirata -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 As far as I can tell though, the U.S. acted unilaterally before there was any proof of who REALLY committed that mass murder. True. I was speaking generally, not in relation to Syria. quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 Pearl Harbour could be cited as one of those instances, although it was later found that war HAD been declared in that instance. But didn't the U.S. declare war on Japan over that before the facts had come to light ? Whether the Japanese message, which was delivered late, constituted a proper declaration of war is debatable. http://faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/japanwc/2.htm K.

thompsonx -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:14:08 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You get an 'A' for effort, though. More correctly she should get an a for being an asshole.

thompsonx -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:16:48 PM)
ORIGINAL: Aylee It is really self-defense. It is in our vital National interest that chemical weapons not be used. That it does not become a "new normal" to use them. Is amerika a signatory to the prohibition of chemical weapons?

Edwird -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:18:09 PM)
~FR~ Sorry, but when did N. Korea or Vietnam or Guatemala or Cuba or Nicaragua or Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran drop any bombs on the US? And why are so many braying their ignorance in asserting that bombing is the only way that the US or the UK or France or the Netherlands, etc. have ever impeded upon the affairs of another country? If this wakes people up (especially in the US) that the (at the moment) biggest and baddest country in the world does not by that position alone invite themselves to a bombing party, I'm on board with that. Just as I am on board with taking quick action against those who violate every international convention against chemical weapons, and let's hope that the US uses its position wisely for a change of pace. Again, I understand completely those who argue 'against war,' but those now commenting on the current situation who sat on their butt in 2003 are hereby excluded from any consideration on my part.

tamaka -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:19:05 PM)
Sometimes it seems like this whole thing is being orchestrated. The Syria thing, now S Korea's little performance today. It seems scripted.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: - 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. In any case it does not matter. There is no international agreement that permits the United States to take unilateral action unless it felt in imminent danger,* which was never claimed by the Trumpatoons. We don't really care Vincent. When push comes to shove, we do what we want. Because we can. In that case, Tamaka, all our work in forming the United Nations in 1948 was an exercise in futility. President Wilson's self-destructive attempt to construct the League of Nations in 1919 was just a silly play time. President Truman's successful appeal for authority to defend South Korea in 1950 was just a waste of time. GW Bush's failure to get approval from the UN to attack Iraq in 2003 was just showboating????? All that hard work and time put into drafting treaties to keep the world out of another World War were just what? Little hollow exercises? At the moment we have the most potent arsenal in the world. But ever we could not protect ourselves against a nuclear attack launched simultaneously by our current adversaries. "We don't really care Vincent. When push comes to shove, we do what we want. Because we can." All empires have mistakenly thought that at the height of their power, Tamaka.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:31:38 PM)
quote: Just as I am on board with taking quick action against those who violate every international convention against chemical weapons, and let's hope that the US uses its position wisely for a change of pace. We can't have it both ways. We can't have international conventions while at the same time tolerating quick action by rogue nations. Make up your mind. We may despair at the slow pace of the international conventions but how can we sanction rogue states attacking at will? How can we trust the powerful nations of the world let loose to work their will?

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/13/2017 7:35:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I'm with you all the way on this D.S....................and I keep thinking that if the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. did something another country didn't like ( gods forbid that should EVER happen !!) would that make it okay for said country to bomb, shell, throw spitballs or otherwise attack the U.S. ? I won't dispute the logic of your position, but it embeds and depends upon an assumption of equivalence -- what's fair for one is fair for the other -- which fails to convince when one of the parties is engaged in mass murder and the other is intervening to put an end to it. Circumstances matter. K. I appreciate the moral position you take, K. But, structure and law matter also.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/14/2017 8:27:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee It is really self-defense. It is in our vital National interest that chemical weapons not be used. That it does not become a "new normal" to use them. It is not self-defense if we're not defending ourselves. We weren't attacked, Aylee. quote: It is quite possible that in the last hundred years, people have forgotten just how terrible chemical weapons are. How much of an atrocity they are. It may be that people need a reminder of why Chemical WMDs are on the 'Must Not Use' list? Maybe provide Assad the means to whack one of his own cities so hard that no one can live there for fifty or a hundred years? I personally hate having to say this, but it may come to pass that such an atrocity has to happen. And, if it has to happen, maybe inside of Syria is the best place for it to happen. Imagine Tokyo, or St Petersberg struck by a massive WMD attack, or Chicago, because ISIS thought they would not be punished for it. Such an attack on the US or Russia would result in genocide of course, with the US or Russia actually creating, then using agents that would blister the skin and lungs of their victims, before their eyeballs melted and their bones splintered from convulsing agents. That's the horror if we can't stop it here... Are you 100% sure that Assad dropped CW-laden bombs, and not that his bombs hit a rebel-held CW cache? 100% sure. Not 99%, or 99.999%, but 100%? Where does your "self-defense" argument stop? Do we get to attack Iran or North Korea because the are not friendly to the US and are thought to either have, or close to having, nukes? It would be in our best National Defense interests to obliterate them, wouldn't it? FFS, we could just nuke the living hell out of the entire ME and claim we were just defending ourselves. Carpet bomb every ME country but Israel, even. Let's attack Russia because they pose a threat! Where does it end? Do you really think ISIS is thinking about not being punished for a CW terror attack? Aren't people fighting ISIS over non-CW terror attacks?

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/14/2017 8:45:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML In that case, Tamaka, all our work in forming the United Nations in 1948 was an exercise in futility. Considering how impotent it has been, and how corrupt it's been before, it may still be fact that it was an exercise in futility. Lofty ideal, but it's still being filled by humans, so there will always be the threat of a abuse within the system. quote: President Wilson's self-destructive attempt to construct the League of Nations in 1919 was just a silly play time. President Truman's successful appeal for authority to defend South Korea in 1950 was just a waste of time. GW Bush's failure to get approval from the UN to attack Iraq in 2003 was just showboating????? All that hard work and time put into drafting treaties to keep the world out of another World War were just what? Little hollow exercises? At the moment we have the most potent arsenal in the world. But ever we could not protect ourselves against a nuclear attack launched simultaneously by our current adversaries. While we may not be able to defend ourselves against an all out nuke attack, we rely on the threat of mutually assured destruction (as you've mentioned) to limit the risk of that happening, and we've enough controls in place that even a "surprise attack" isn't enough of a surprise that we can't hold up our part of the mutual destruction. quote: "We don't really care Vincent. When push comes to shove, we do what we want. Because we can." All empires have mistakenly thought that at the height of their power, Tamaka. That's a sobering though, Vince.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/15/2017 1:29:13 PM)
Well, we either bomb each other through all eternity, or at some point, we sit down and talk. It may not be going splendidly. But it's a start. "70 ways the UN makes a difference" http://www.un.org/un70/en/content/70ways

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/15/2017 6:13:38 PM)
quote: While we may not be able to defend ourselves against an all out nuke attack, we rely on the threat of mutually assured destruction (as you've mentioned) to limit the risk of that happening, and we've enough controls in place that even a "surprise attack" isn't enough of a surprise that we can't hold up our part of the mutual destruction. Except maybe in the case of a non-state agent or a rogue nation. In those cases we are in serious jeopardy because we don't know from whence the bomb came. Well, maybe I overstate the concern somewhat. I am confident that our information services are not too lame to get wind of another 6'4" wannabe son of Mohammad hobbling about the mountains in East Pakistan carrying a nuclear bomb hidden under the cloth covering of his dialysis machine. I think even Trump would have sufficient notice to sell off his hotels.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/16/2017 2:59:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, we either bomb each other through all eternity, or at some point, we sit down and talk. It may not be going splendidly. But it's a start. "70 ways the UN makes a difference" http://www.un.org/un70/en/content/70ways Thus far, we've tried the "sit down and talk" stuff, and it's worked in some cases and not worked in others. And therein lies the big problem. Much of the issues in the ME are either coming from rogue organizations (al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.) that don't have a seat at the table in the UN. I'm not sure if they had one, it would ever be filled, or if the organization was actually interested in sitting down and talking. At some point in time we're either going to destroy civilization because we can't sit down and talk things out like adults, or we're finally going to sit down and talk things out like adults I hope for the latter, and hope that it starts relatively soon. Until then, we're likely to see more and more bombings, and more and more destruction, and greater and greater TNT-units of munitions used.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/16/2017 3:37:51 PM)
We've also tried the bombing stuff. Look where we are. Better for talking to go on forever than bombing.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/17/2017 3:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We've also tried the bombing stuff. Look where we are. Better for talking to go on forever than bombing. I stated I prefer the sit down and talk strategy more than ever more bombing. At some point, though, you have to get their attention, and dropping some yuge munitions certainly can do that.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375