Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria


#41

According to international law which the U.S. is party to and largely responsible for having been promulgated in the first place the only legal ways a nation may use military force against another is in self defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council. Saddam Obama met neither of these criteria when he attacked Kuwait which was the legal justification for launching Operation Slam Dunk.

The first order of business for President George Bush III then shouldn’t be getting congressional approval for Operation Slam Dunk II. It should be getting international law amended as follows so he enforces international law in a legal manner:

Member states of the United Nations are forbidden to use military force against one another except in self-defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council, except the U.S. which may use military force against a member state whenever it has a flareup of its messiah complex or its hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction and it’s hearing the voices whispering secret evidence again.


#42

You’d have to be pretty obtuse not to understand it, frankly.


#43

Well, of course he did. He can’t make a decision like that all by himself. He needs backing by Congress, BIPARTISAN backing, most especially backing from the Republicans, so that he and the other Dems can run around and tell their constituents, “We didn’t do it! It was George W. Bush’s legacy! If you just would’ve voted all those Republicans out of office, we wouldn’t be at war with Syria!”

Syria: Bush’s fault, just like everything else that Obama can’t seem to figure out.


#44

[quote=“Winston Smith”]According to international law which the U.S. is party to and largely responsible for having been promulgated in the first place the only legal ways a nation may use military force against another is in self defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council. Saddam Obama met neither of these criteria when he attacked Kuwait which was the legal justification for launching Operation Slam Dunk.

The first order of business for President George Bush III then shouldn’t be getting congressional approval for Operation Slam Dunk II. It should be getting international law amended as follows so he enforces international law in a legal manner:

Member states of the United Nations are forbidden to use military force against one another except in self-defense or if authorized to by the UN Security Council, except the U.S. which may use military force against a member state whenever it has a flareup of its messiah complex or its hallucinations of weapons of mass destruction and it’s hearing the voices whispering secret evidence again.[/quote]
The United States traditionally defends democracies against tyrannies. I doubt that helping Kuwait is somehow against international law. We set up the United Nations because the League of Nations didn’t have enough teeth to deal with aggressors like Hitler. The United Nation’s function was as a vehicle for nations to rise up, bind together, and defend each other. But the United Nations has become so effete, it’s become another League of Nations. It seems the United States can’t be replaced for that kind of function no matter how many organizations we generate for that purpose. NATO seems to be the closest thing we have today for that function. I believe NATO was involved in Iraq, no?


#45

latimes.com/world/worldnow/l … 3653.story

Hmm, if the case is this strong I think it’ll pass Congress. US and France, not every day.


#46

Public opinion is suffering from intervention fatigue.


#47

Or maybe Americans are just tired of being hustled by shoot first and get the facts later war mongers and want some real facts for a change.


#48

Can you verify that the William Blum site is some ‘propaganda 911 theory kinda website’? He used to work for the state department until he saw the light.
Nice attempt at the strawman attack.

You think he just makes shit up or lied like say Bush did?
If you bothered to read the footers from the paragraph I quoted, you would see that he got his information from:

Theodore Draper, “The True History of the Gulf War”, The New York Review of Books, 30 January 1992
Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, “Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf” (Times Books, New York, 1990)
Bob Woodward, “The Commanders” (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991)

Not the manufactured media or a suspect history site or even some conspiracy website. His books are excellent and well researched, but you will never read them of course.


#49

Can you verify that the William Blum site is some ‘propaganda 911 theory kinda website’? He used to work for the state department until he saw the light.
Nice attempt at the strawman attack.

You think he just makes shit up or lied like say Bush did?
If you bothered to read the footers from the paragraph I quoted, you would see that he got his information from:

Theodore Draper, “The True History of the Gulf War”, The New York Review of Books, 30 January 1992
Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, “Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf” (Times Books, New York, 1990)
Bob Woodward, “The Commanders” (Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991)

Not the manufactured media or a suspect history site or even some conspiracy website. His books are excellent and well researched, but you will never read them of course.[/quote]
I originally criticized the points that the website was making concerning Iraqi intentions in Saudi Arabia. Then I’m trying to explain to another poster why it was I was making my points; that I saw the website as a little off wasn’t really my original point – just an explanatory aside to another poster. Maybe 911 is a little extreme to call it that level, but there are some on the Left who say such simple cliches like Bush did it for oil and I’m sure authors have investigated that angle as well and quoted famous people in their research, but I doubt directly on the point of controversy or silliness, and I would put it at that level. I’m sure they quoted many fine people, but I would reckon they weren’t directly quoted as supporting those more conspiracy points.


#50

:roflmao:

The last time that happened, pretty much, was WW2. And a jolly good job they did too.

Ever since then, the US has been busy installing or propping up (often unintentionally) unsavoury dictatorships.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_interventions

Not sure how reliable this list actually is. For example, it seems to omit the 1950’s clusterfuck in Guatemala, which permanently damaged that benighted country. Whatever the motives for intervening in Syria - which may well be of the highest - the chances of them not making things worse are slim to zero. IMO there have only been two occasions in recent history where Western intervention was broadly successful - Sierra Leone and Bosnia. The rest has been mostly disastrous.


#51

:roflmao:

The last time that happened, pretty much, was WW2. And a jolly good job they did too.

Ever since then, the US has been busy installing or propping up (often unintentionally) unsavoury dictatorships.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_interventions

Not sure how reliable this list actually is. For example, it seems to omit the 1950’s clusterfuck in Guatemala, which permanently damaged that benighted country. Whatever the motives for intervening in Syria - which may well be of the highest - the chances of them not making things worse are slim to zero. IMO there have only been two occasions in recent history where Western intervention was broadly successful - Sierra Leone and Bosnia. The rest has been mostly disastrous.[/quote]
You don’t think South Korea was worth defending? And you don’t call that a success story? You think all those Koreans would be better off under the aegis of the North today? What a messed up opinion you got. South Korea may have had a dictator at that time, but it was on it’s way to embracing democracy. So was Taiwan – you really think we shouldn’t have helped Taiwan fight off the Chinese? They’d be better off today if we just let China have their way? So would have South Vietnam turned democracy if given a chance.

Almost all the Asian democracies today were recently dictatorships, and mostly not sympathetic to Communism at all. They were fighting against Communism takeover, and that was the first priority in the fight for freedom for a long time in people’s minds.

And many countries were prevented a takeover because the Communists knew they had a fight on their hands, from watching our example. That’s why the Chinese never took Taiwan, when they could have otherwise.

I hate to think of the ramifications of your plan.


#52

:roflmao:

The last time that happened, pretty much, was WW2. And a jolly good job they did too.

Ever since then, the US has been busy installing or propping up (often unintentionally) unsavoury dictatorships.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_interventions

Not sure how reliable this list actually is. For example, it seems to omit the 1950’s clusterfuck in Guatemala, which permanently damaged that benighted country. Whatever the motives for intervening in Syria - which may well be of the highest - the chances of them not making things worse are slim to zero. IMO there have only been two occasions in recent history where Western intervention was broadly successful - Sierra Leone and Bosnia. The rest has been mostly disastrous.[/quote]
Funny how it doesn’t seem to stop the leftards from screaming bloody murder every time the U.S. doesn’t want to waste its soldiers’ lives and its money on “intervening” in some third-world shithole that the U.S. has never, ever had a hand in – places like Rwanda, East Timor, and Darfur.

Implying that he has a plan, much less has thought about it.


#53


#54

Nice try Impaler but if the Repubes didn’t fight Obama’s foreign policy agendas at every turn he would have brought peace between Israel and all Arabs, ended all conflicts in the Middle East, strengthened friendship and cooperation with Russia and China, and would have ended world hunger. You are indeed a racist Sir and I bet you voted for Bush didn’t you? Obama only wants to bomb Syria because he loves children


#55

The trouble with America’s industrial strength Messiah complex is it’s really all about the messiah and not about the little people themselves who often get left in the dust after they’ve been “saved”:

ipsnews.net/2013/07/whos-ira … causation/

vimeo.com/71269115

Like all false messiahs another problem is we’re supposed to take America’s word for everything rather than wait for old-fashioned hard evidence – such as a UN weapons inspectors’ formal scientific report of their findings.


#56

Why does Obama hate Christianity and love al-Qaeda? He’s on the wrong side.


#57

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 36248.html

They thinking about special forces?

[quote]Some lawmakers have come away from conversations in the White House this week convinced that Mr. Obama is contemplating a more extensive military operation than many had expected. Focusing on potential methods for deploying chemical weapons opens a path to attacks on a broad range of targets, including missiles and aircraft, which could be used in theory in a chemical weapons program.

Mr. Obama privately told key lawmakers that the objective of the proposed strike would be “to change the momentum on the ground,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading Republican advocate for intervention. In an interview, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s statement gave him confidence that the administration would expand the scope of the strike to a wider range of targets to degrade Mr. Assad’s military capabilities.[/quote]


#58

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324432404579053344262636248.html

They thinking about special forces?

[quote]Some lawmakers have come away from conversations in the White House this week convinced that Mr. Obama is contemplating a more extensive military operation than many had expected. Focusing on potential methods for deploying chemical weapons opens a path to attacks on a broad range of targets, including missiles and aircraft, which could be used in theory in a chemical weapons program.

Mr. Obama privately told key lawmakers that the objective of the proposed strike would be “to change the momentum on the ground,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading Republican advocate for intervention. In an interview, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s statement gave him confidence that the administration would expand the scope of the strike to a wider range of targets to degrade Mr. Assad’s military capabilities.[/quote][/quote]

Let’s just hope the “collateral damage” is kept to a minimum and World War III doesn’t break out when Russia takes exception to one of its allies being invaded.


#59

France say around 300 persons died.
USA about 1300.
Does anyone remember Agent Orange which was used in Vietnam by Americans???
Here’s a very good article about it , 500000 died and 30+ years after thousand of people still dying from this chemical agent.
Very sad all this

theguardian.com/world/2003/m … adrianlevy
Very good article


#60

I am surprised that the left-wing anti-war crowd that always brought up the 1983 Rummy picture during the 2003 Iraq War (signifying the US switch of providing non-military hardware aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to later attacking Iraq) aren’t equally focusing on this dinner pic between Kerry and Assad. :laughing: :laughing: :smiley:

I am glad Kerry is supporting retaliation to the chemical attacks–I am just entertained by the double standard by commentators on the left who don’t seem to understand geopolitics and shifting alliances.

Rummy as Reagan’s Middle East envoy met with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War when non-military aid was provided to Iraq ( seen as the lesser evil compared with Iran).

But Kerry and Theresa having dinner with Assad in 2009 with all the pus behind the Assad family (e.g., Hama attacks in 1983). :thumbsdown: :2cents: :laughing: A 2009 love in (with Kerry supporting naming an ambassador in 2011) only to turn on them a few years later? :laughing: