|
should the US intervene in Syria? (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scratchula
Because it's a false country that doesn't have a right to exist. |
By that philosophy, European descendents don't have the right to live in the US without the permission of the Native Americans. And descendents of those who came out of Africa don't have the right to live in Europe or Asia.
It was agreed, by all relevant parties, that the UN would be the international body that would settle international disputes. That's as good as it gets - we won't be getting some ruling from on high.
People who don't agree to live within the rules of society shouldn't accept the advantages of society. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Okay, well from now on I'll refer to you as "Scratchula" |
Lol
I think what he means is Israel isn't a legitmate state like the USA their territory was either given to them or taken by force. Oh nevermind the USA was formered in pretty much the same fashion. Same could be said for every country in existence today. Ops forgot the quotes. |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lagrangian
There are various theories on the origin of these chemical weapons. Some say the US military gave them to the rebels, others say it is the rebels using chemicals. Of course, then the Jews come in with their "Israeli intelligence." Given that the Jews say it is Assad, I believe the theories saying that America is behind it. At the very least the rebels are using it, I find it hard to believe Assad is.
Even if Assad is the one using chemicals, so what? It is war! His country is in ruin, rebels are rampant. A leader should do what it takes at all costs to restore order and balance to his country. |
I mean if Assad already had the upper hand on the rebels, why would he deliberately go against a public warning from the US that chemical weapons were a red line? He didn't need to use them. It's obvious that the US has been chomping at the bit to take military action. This blatant excuse is what they're going to ride on. That's not even mentioning how we knowingly arm them when they have pledged allegiance to al qaeda
EDIT: and the thing said the Obama Administration. Meaning basically our government. Not just Obama |
|
|
| Lews |
| Oh God, so much expert law advice. Hope someone's writing these down and sending them to Congress! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
thank you for making my point. from the article you cited (i bolded the relevant part): |
That just meant it didn't work in practice. Which is quite true, but only because this very dialogue is taking place at all.
The letter of the convention states that signatories may not use them in a war, which is of course skirting the very same semantics that the US is possibly going to exploit to intervene, but precludes incidents like local or federal police forces using VX on drug dens, etc. Assad has asserted again and again that his country is at war with terrorist forces from within and without thereby elevating it from that of a mere civil conflict. And both the Criminal Trials for the former Yugoslavia and the International Committee of the Red Cross have established precedent and condemnation of their internal use. It doesn't matter if Syria agreed to the terms; as a sovereign nation, it is responsible for enforceable crimes against its people.
Regardless, these are all legal nuances that are going to internationally shake out in the end against either a free or a continuing Syria. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
Lets cut to the chase. If anything, this proves the old adage, "Might is right". International law is not what is written or what is agreed upon. International law are feelings and emotions
The UN secretary general stated a few days ago that the US can only legally attack Syria under the two conditions i stated earlier (self defense, and through the un security council). Obama is merely looking for a problem to justify his solution.
Given this, I really can't blame Iran or any other nation from pursuing nuclear bombs. I'd do the same and in a hurry. If anything, its probably the only thing from stopping the US or any other nation from doing anything it pleases. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
any other nation from doing anything it pleases. |
...like using nerve gas or other completely indiscriminate weaponry on its own people? |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
I know you guys are looking for any opportunity to argue over something but do you realize we're talking about Syria. Who really gives a ?
|
|
|
| Marcus Summers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jon_Snow
I know you guys are looking for any opportunity to argue over something but do you realize we're talking about Syria. Who really gives a ?
|
 |
|
|
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by LoveHate
I mean if Assad already had the upper hand on the rebels, why would he deliberately go against a public warning from the US that chemical weapons were a red line? He didn't need to use them. It's obvious that the US has been chomping at the bit to take military action. This blatant excuse is what they're going to ride on. That's not even mentioning how we knowingly arm them when they have pledged allegiance to al qaeda
EDIT: and the thing said the Obama Administration. Meaning basically our government. Not just Obama |
It was a hail mary pass. I think it's starting to dawn on him that he will have to stand accountable for the atrocities he's committed to stay in power.
Like I said earlier, this was his Halabja, or at least that was his intent. Nonetheless, For that to have been the result, he'd either have to go larger, or beat more rebels. If he had continued small-scale strikes like he has been doing all year, it'd probably be fine. Except for the UN inspectors that were on their way. That's why, given the volatility and trouble positively id'ing sarin use (they usually test hair for traces of fluorine, which would also be present if they use regular tooth paste), he tried to end his syrian an-anfal campaign just like the Iraqis did. Had he been just a little bit more offensive with this campaign, pushed the rebels just a little bit harder, I think maybe he'd succeeded. But that's not the case, and America is coming again to save the mother ing dayyyyeeeeeaaaaaAMERICAAAA YEAH!! |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
here is where we stand as of today( I'm an eighties guy myself (l missed the last years of the Cold War -- oh well, WWIII will more than make up for it!) )
All alternative media : Savage Jones Levine have been awesome this week.
| quote: | Russia, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina and Brazil were among those that refused to sign. But it was the absence of German chancellor Angela Merkel's signature that was the most frustrating – a result deemed to be a blow to the Franco-German alliance.
Obama, who will address the American people next Tuesday in a televised address, was equivocal on whether he would persuade Congress. "It's conceivable at the end of the day I don't persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do," he said. "And then each member of Congress is going to have to decide."
The president said he could ignore a rejection of military action by Congress, but hinted such defiance would be hard to justify. A resolution is likely to be voted upon in the Senate on Wednesday after it was formally introduced on Friday. Obama said during remarks at the end of the summit that he put the issue before Congress "because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States". |
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/obama-alliance-assad-chemical-weapons |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | FNC James Rosen note: states he was told that President Obama will carry out the military action regardless if Congress votes to approve use of force; click to read
See below the James Rosen note — it looks like military strikes even if Congress says NO to President Obama?
—-
A senior State Department official tells Fox News the president’s decision to take military action in Syria still stands, and will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes next week to approve the use of such force.
The official said that every major player on the National Security Council – including the commander-in-chief – was in accord last night on the need for military action, and that the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of them. However, the aide insisted the request for Congress to vote did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.
“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told me, adding that that was why the president, in his rose Garden remarks, was careful to establish that he believes he has the authority to launch such strikes even without congressional authorization.
Other senior administration officials, outside of the Department of State, would not confirm as much, telling reporters only that the door had been left open for the president to proceed without congressional authorization.
This was confided by way of seeking to refute suggestions that Secretary of State Kerry “lost” to the chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff in the interagency process. “Absolutely untrue,” the Kerry aide said, adding that everything Kerry said in his dramatic remarks on Friday was after “fully consulting with the White House.”
The State Department official emphasized that all of the president’s national security advisers were in agreement as of last night on the need to proceed with strikes – and that the president ultimately will.
This tracked with bulletins reporting that Kerry has spoken to the Syrian rebel leadership and conveyed to them the administration’s determination to respond to the August 21 attack.
———————
James Rosen
|
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/31/fnc-james-rosen-note-states-he-was-told-that-president-obama-will-carry-out-the-military-action-regardless-if-congress-votes-to-approve-use-of-force-click-to-read/ |
|
|
|
|
