Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria


#81

[quote=“hansioux”]Split Senate Panel Approves Giving Obama Limited Authority on Syria

nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world … ml?hp&_r=0[/quote]

I sense a disconnect here.


#82

I don’t follow the logic of any of this. So far 100,000 people have died in Syria. A couple of weeks ago, a thousand or so died when a chemical agent was used, and apparently that is an estimate by the US that cannot be verified (France says 350). So is it the new policy that only organic killing is OK? Is that why no one helped in Rwanda? Not much more organic killing than butchering people with machetes :unamused: So the US response is to drop bombs to stop chemical weapons. Bunker busters? ok. Cruise missles? Great. Nuclear weapons? Only for us. You put a chemical in that bomb? Tsk tsk, here we come :America:

This great article by Peter Hitchens pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter:

[quote]I make no claims to be a good person, but I am more and more annoyed by warmongers who dress up their simple-minded, vainglorious desire to bomb foreigners as moral… The moral bomber is one of the scourges of our age. He gets it into his head that he is so good that he is allowed to kill people (accidentally of course) in a noble cause.

The ‘West’ has no consistent or moral position at all. The ‘West’ readily condoned Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and ignored his use of them in Halabja for years, trying to blame others for it.
Saddam, later a villain, was then our ally. Hypocrisy continues to this day. The US and British governments, as they vapour about the wickedness of Syria’s government, refuse even to admit the obvious fact that the Egyptian military junta came to power by a bloody and lawless putsch. And, as they weep loud tears for the dead of Damascus (whose killers have yet to be identified) they are silent over the heaps of corpses piled in the streets of Cairo, undoubtedly gunned down by the junta, which used weapons paid for by the USA to do so, and didn’t even try to hide its actions.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … z2dzxrmKMs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/quote]


#83

[quote=“Cooperations”]I don’t follow the logic of any of this. So far 100,000 people have died in Syria. A couple of weeks ago, a thousand or so died when a chemical agent was used, and apparently that is an estimate by the US that cannot be verified (France says 350). So is it the new policy that only organic killing is OK? Is that why no one helped in Rwanda? Not much more organic killing than butchering people with machetes :unamused: So the US response is to drop bombs to stop chemical weapons. Bunker busters? ok. Cruise missles? Great. Nuclear weapons? Only for us. You put a chemical in that bomb? Tsk tsk, here we come :America:
[/quote]

any war activity is unfortunate, but indiscriminate killing is unforgivable, doing it to your own population is insanity. I am not saying that Rwanda’s genocide is any better in terms of tragedy lives lost, but at least killing people with machetes takes time and effort. Killing people indiscriminately with chemical weapons is terrifying already on a small scale, if one were to do it in the scale of what’s going on in Rwanda it’d be down right apocalyptic. It can contain machete killing inside a bounder, bio-chemical agents can get air-borne and kill who ever it finds.

Instead of saying all killings are equally bad, so stopping killing with killing is hypocritical, it’s more logical to say all killings are equally bad, we should stop them all, but first we’ve got to stop insane people killing thousands at the flip of a switch.


#84

Excuse me, but who’s the WE in that statement? America? So… America does not kill thousands at the flip of a switch? You may find it easier to breath if you pull your head out of the sand :astonished:


#85

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Cooperations”]I don’t follow the logic of any of this. So far 100,000 people have died in Syria. A couple of weeks ago, a thousand or so died when a chemical agent was used, and apparently that is an estimate by the US that cannot be verified (France says 350). So is it the new policy that only organic killing is OK? Is that why no one helped in Rwanda? Not much more organic killing than butchering people with machetes :unamused: So the US response is to drop bombs to stop chemical weapons. Bunker busters? ok. Cruise missles? Great. Nuclear weapons? Only for us. You put a chemical in that bomb? Tsk tsk, here we come :America:
[/quote]

any war activity is unfortunate, but indiscriminate killing is unforgivable, doing it to your own population is insanity. I am not saying that Rwanda’s genocide is any better in terms of tragedy lives lost, but at least killing people with machetes takes time and effort. Killing people indiscriminately with chemical weapons is terrifying already on a small scale, if one were to do it in the scale of what’s going on in Rwanda it’d be down right apocalyptic. It can contain machete killing inside a bounder, bio-chemical agents can get air-borne and kill who ever it finds.

Instead of saying all killings are equally bad, so stopping killing with killing is hypocritical, it’s more logical to say all killings are equally bad, we should stop them all, but first we’ve got to stop insane people killing thousands at the flip of a switch.[/quote] I never said that stopping killing with killing is hypocritical. Sometimes it’s the only way. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all. I agree that chemical weapons do possess something more heinous and require nuance in approach, but I also believe that alone it’s a very silly red line. What about death toll? Attempts to minimize collateral damage? Cruelty?

As for stopping killing done with the flip of a switch? Big eye roll :unamused: Let’s ban:




#86

[quote=“Cooperations”]

This great article by Peter Hitchens pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter:

[quote]I make no claims to be a good person, but I am more and more annoyed by warmongers who dress up their simple-minded, vainglorious desire to bomb foreigners as moral… The moral bomber is one of the scourges of our age. He gets it into his head that he is so good that he is allowed to kill people (accidentally of course) in a noble cause.

The ‘West’ has no consistent or moral position at all. The ‘West’ readily condoned Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and ignored his use of them in Halabja for years, trying to blame others for it.
Saddam, later a villain, was then our ally.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … z2dzxrmKMs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/quote][/quote]

Sounds like Pete is still pissed off at Chris.


#87

It’s tough to have a moral position when the pile of bodies you’re morally responsible for in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Gaza and the West Bank is higher than anyone else’s in the Middle East and you’ve condemned generations of Iraqi children to a toxic hellhole but you’ve got to give America points for caring.


#88

So the evidence that chemical weapons were used is still piling up now Britain has supposedly got proof as well, a desperate attempt by the warmongerers in this world to get their own way or is it a massive disinformation campaign to cover up a more cynical truth.


#89

Personally I don’t care if they have Assad himself on video gassing civilians, it doesn’t change anything. We already know for a fact he’s killing many MANY people in his country. So we either attack Syria because there are intelligent reasons to think the people of Syria and the Middle East in general would be better off afterwards, or we leave them alone and let them deal with their countries development on their own. This distinction everybody is trying to make about how people killed by bombs and bullets is somehow different and more acceptable than chemical weapons is childish and silly to say the very least.

It sure would be nice if there were a few smart people in the United States who actually wanted to talk about the greater good for Syria and the Middle East rather than just talking about ways we can punish the big bad man for crossing a made up line.


#90

A pretty good article:

mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/2 … il1T9LddTZ


#91

The real lesson here is that a messiah complex isn’t the same thing as a conscience: hrn.or.jp/eng/activity/HRNIraqReport2013.pdf


#92

those weapons can’t kill thousands unless you have a lot of them have make some kind of effort to pack thousands of people into a very small and confined space. In any case, doing both requires flipping more than 1 switch. After the switch is flicked, aside from the people immediately hurt, no lasting damage is done to others or the environment.

bio-chemical weapons on the other hand can do large scale damage to an area with flipping just one switch, which is the point of my argument, but people keep coming up with reference to guns :unamused:


#93

Republican and Democrat represent ideas. You may be implying that some people vote superficially only Republican or Democrat because their family traditionally does without examining the true merits of the ideas, but certainly there are ideas behind the parties. It’s also the case that some politicians choose a party when such politician’s views are more in line with the opposite party. But that doesn’t obviate the fact that parties stand for real ideas, and we can discuss the discrepancies in light of understanding the framework of ideas in the parties.

I find people feeble-minded who are afraid to identify their beliefs as belonging to this or that party because they want to fool other’s into thinking they are somehow independent (that no party contains the ideas of such individual) and as such, that individual has no bias because they were independently derived and therefore objective “opinions.” ha ha. Hogwash.


#94

Well, I just think the US should go in and fuck that neckless Assad up. He is a well known sponsor of Hezbollah, and that alone merits a few daisy cutters stuffed up his rectum. Maybe I am oversimplifying the whole situation? We are not all intellectually and morally superior as certain posters. And when I say certain posters, I am not referring to Winston. O.k I am. Sue me.


#95

Naw, at this point, it’s a question of Obama’s credibility. Most the world knows we have a rookie president.

No, no, no. They are criticizing him for not acting like a leader during crucial times when he needs to act like one. They are criticizing him for flying by the seat of his pants, for being inconsistent and sending confusing signals to allies and enemies alike, making the United States seems like we’re more of a banana republic incapable of global leadership, which we are at the moment.

Yes, there is a point in quibbling about the phrase “declare war.” It would be ridiculous that only Congress has the authority to send troops abroad, or that such actions at all times are “war.” The president is the commander-in-chief, which gives him broad powers to use our military, including abroad, but not so broad as to engage in war with other countries, which country-altering power requires Congressional permisson. We were not at war with Kosovo or Serbia as far as I know. It would be ridiculous to declare war on Grenada when it just took a night to disinstall some new rookie government.


#96

NONONONONONONO!!! Gao Bohan, you have not followed the latest truth from the Ministry of Truth! Obama didn’t set the red line, the WORLD did! Therefore, Obama is not back-pedaling! You are being doubleplusungood!

edition.CNN.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/

Please adjust your vocabulary immediately or we will have to reeducate you inside the Ministry of Love. Remember the rats? You don’t want the rats again. Or do you?[/quote]
Oh gosh, what a wuss. He can’t make a decision and stand by it. When the heat turns up, he can’t own up to it, but has to find some other scapegoats. With Obama, you know the buck doesn’t stop there.


#97

Jotham, considering you’ve been arguing for dozens of pages over the definition of a word that everybody understands except you I am really cringing when I ask this but: Tell me, what ideas do they represent?


#98

As usual, you’re just here to bash Obama. You’re no different than the mindless Bush-bashers. You criticize every little thing Obama does; you are fully and completely against him in everything, so you have no credibility. Please do not address your posts to me, I have no interest in speaking with you.


#99

For anybody interested in serious discussion, the President does NOT have any authority to attack Syria. The War Powers Resolution clearly states:

[quote]50 U.S.C. § 1541 - Purpose and policy

© Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [/quote]

There has been no declaration of war. There has been no specific statutory authorization. There is no national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. As much as I admire and respect President Obama, he is simply WRONG that he has the authority to bomb Syria without congressional approval. He does NOT have the authority to do whatever he wants with the military. Unless the US is under attack, then Congress must either formally declare war or pass a specific statutory authorization to attack. Congress has done no such thing.


#100

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]For anybody interested in serious discussion, the President does NOT have any authority to attack Syria. The War Powers Resolution clearly states:

[quote]50 U.S.C. § 1541 - Purpose and policy

© Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [/quote]

There has been no declaration of war. There has been no specific statutory authorization. There is no national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. As much as I admire and respect President Obama, he is simply WRONG that he has the authority to bomb Syria without congressional approval. He does NOT have the authority to do whatever he wants with the military. Unless the US is under attack, then Congress must either formally declare war or pass a specific statutory authorization to attack. Congress has done no such thing.[/quote]

So if the Congress voted NO and he went ahead what would happen? He was asked that question today at the G20 but he refused to answer.