RE: U.S. Attacks Syria

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

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

Message

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 1:59:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Where does the US get the authority to warn them not to use illegal weapons in the first place? Where do the police get the authority to arrest you if you commit a crime? From the governmental body that is organizing that police force (City, County, State, Federal, etc.). The thing is, We the People have set up our governmental system and levels so as to govern ourselves. As such, we have granted the authority to the government level to set up a police force for enforcing of the laws. Since the authority begins with the People, any authority NOT granted to a government is one that government does not have. Plus, We the People did not grant the authority to the Federal Government to defend the citizens of other countries from their own government. That simply is not in the US Constitution. However, since we have entered into UN and NATO treaties, it's possible to derive the authority from those bodies, but there is no authority coming from NATO, since no NATO country has to be defended at this time, and the UN has not granted any authority for action to anyone. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Where does the authority come from allowing us to interject our will in the area? I think the fact that so many of our allies have supported the move despite the tensions caused by Trump's election speaks volumes. Would it have been okay for Russia to have bombed Alabama over the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments, if so many of it's allies supported the action? The US has directly invaded a sovereign country (as opposed to the indirect invasion we've been on about with the funding and supporting of anti-Assad rebels). Any country that does that to the US would have war declared on them before the bodies were done being counted. So many of our allies would support our getting rid of Kim Jon Un, but that doesn't make it right, authorized, or acceptable. So many of our allies would support our bombing of nuclear weapons facilities in Iran, but that doesn't make it right, authorized, or acceptable. 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.

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Not only cannot you keep up with history, you can't even keep up with today's world. The French input to start of the US absolutely flew over your head, no surprise. Article 6 of the US Constitution binds our behavior to treaties made with "foreign" bodies such as the UN and NATO. This is not history; it is current. Trump acted beyond the limitations imposed by the UN Charter. I agree with DS. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Reprisals are legal under the Geneva conventions - the customary laws of war. Of which both we and Syria are signatories.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:05:26 PM)
....which only means that now Syria can attack the US without violating the Geneva Convention.

Hillwilliam -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ....which only means that now Syria can attack the US without violating the Geneva Convention. Do ya really think Assad gives a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention?

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:29:54 PM)
No. Just responding to the silly nit-picking above.

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ....which only means that now Syria can attack the US without violating the Geneva Convention. No it doesn't. You obviously have no in depth knowledge about laws of warfare.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 2:41:01 PM)
I do, however, have in depth knowledge about the laws of writing. And what you wrote leads to what I wrote. If that's not correct, then you aren't correct. Maybe dig into your in depth knowledge about the laws of warfare and give it another go.

Aylee -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 3:11:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I do, however, have in depth knowledge about the laws of writing. And what you wrote leads to what I wrote. If that's not correct, then you aren't correct. Maybe dig into your in depth knowledge about the laws of warfare and give it another go. Counter-reprisals are against the customary laws of warfare.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Reprisals are legal under the Geneva conventions - the customary laws of war. Of which both we and Syria are signatories. I cannot agree with you Aylee. When a belligerent party is hurt by conduct on the part of its adversary that it regards as a grave breach or systematic encroachment of the laws of armed conflict, one possibility is to retaliate by means of an action that itself violates the same body of law. While recourse to such retaliatory action can be arbitrary and in total disregard of any constraints, rules of customary law have developed in the past that provide the limits within which retaliation could be regarded as a legitimate reprisal. SOURCE (1.)The United States has never declared itself as a "belligerent party" in the Syrian Civil War. (2.) The United States was not hurt in any way by the conduct of Syria. On neither count are reprisals legitimate or defensible actions in this situation. The U.S. had no justification for its behavior.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX When faced with a despicable enemy who recognizes no constitution, no law, and no rules, whose ideology is responsible for enslaving entire nations and the murder of over a hundred million civilians in the last century (Marxism), you do what is needed to win. You keep them out of power Otherwise everyone loses There are rules, even to warfare (which I admit I do find to be a bit of an oxymoron). What you're espousing is ignoring the US Constitution (more than the politicians usually do, anyway) for a "righteous" cause. While I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not supporting or defending Assad, we just can't go traipsing around the globe and attacking nations over what we deem a righteous cause. At some point in time, we're going to figure something is a righteous cause that others disagree with. Then what? You think the world despises American Imperialism now? Just wait until we decide something is righteous and other countries disagree.

DesideriScuri -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:14:08 PM)
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.

tamaka -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:30:02 PM)
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. We are the most powerful country on the planet.

mnottertail -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:39:54 PM)
Not really, not by any measure.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 4:58:55 PM)
So aylee, because the U.S. is ( possibly) the most powerful planet, it is allowed to make and break rules at it wishes and attack who it wishes ? What you are describing is a retaliatory attack, but retaliation for what and by whom ? Where was anything even remotely American attacked or injured. Once again, America butted into somebody else's (civil) war for some trumped up reason, hiding behind the term 'reprisal' ....................America attacked somebody who had not harmed them in any way. That calls for reprisal from the injured party and it's allies maybe ? And if the Russians had not got their men off that base before the attack, think what that reprisal could mean to all concerned.

vincentML -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 5:49:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka 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. We are the most powerful country on the planet. If we are prepared to sacrifice the lives of ten or twenty million or so young men and women. And if we can explain it to their moms.

tamaka -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 7:35:24 PM)
We meaning the US Military. That's what they are paid to do.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 7:38:33 PM)
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.”

Dvr22999874 -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 7:45:15 PM)
I wonder if Assad and his countrymen will look on this as a sneak attack and "A Day of Infamy etc.,etc.,etc". I'm sure you know the rest of the speech.

tamaka -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 7:47:43 PM)
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.” True and i would hope we could run a war without suffering that many casualties.

Musicmystery -> RE: U.S. Attacks Syria (4/12/2017 7:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 I wonder if Assad and his countrymen will look on this as a sneak attack and "A Day of Infamy etc.,etc.,etc". I'm sure you know the rest of the speech. Yeah, "pre-emptive invasion" was stupid when Bush did it, and this latest exercise did little but convince N. Korea getting nukes is the right thing to do when the US is in the picture.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625