Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria


#141

I too am outraged by the silence of these prominent anti-war celebrities. Here Obama has assembled 150,000 US troops to invade Syria and overthrow its government …


#142

Looking ahead if things go the way they normally do for the Israeli Foreign Legion once It gets its way and Assad’s regime starts to wobble it will take a lot more than 150,000 troops on the ground to keep his deadly chemical and biological weapons arsenal from falling into the wrong hands.


#143

[quote=“Winston Smith”]
Looking ahead if things go the way they normally do for the Israeli Foreign Legion once It gets its way and Assad’s regime starts to wobble it will take a lot more than 150,000 troops on the ground to keep his deadly chemical and biological weapons arsenal from falling into the wrong hands.[/quote]

I imagine the rebels or also Hezbollah would be very happy to get their hands on some chemical weapons, if they haven’t already. This might also be what Assad means with “expect everything” in this interview:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601902/bashar-assad-tells-charlie-rose-u.s-should-expect-every-action-in-response-to-syria-strikes/


#144

Any hostile act within the territory of a foreign nation without its consent is an act of war. That is the standard definition within international law, and is common sense. If Obama bombs Syria, the US is going to war with Syria. It doesn’t matter if it lasts a day or a year, it’s war.

If the United States were bombed by a foreign nation, what would we call it? War! That’s exactly what we’d call it, because that’s exactly what it would be. It wouldn’t matter if people in neatly pressed suits signed a piece of paper declaring war on the United States or not. Would we say, oh, well, they didn’t officially declare war, and it only lasted a few days, and they only killed a few thousand. No. They bomb us, it’s war, period. It works the other way around too.


#145

[quote=“Chris”]Republican dilemma:

[/quote]

I think that’s largely accurate. I seriously doubt there would be much resistance by Republicans to bombing Syria if a Republican were in the White House. Democrats have less party discipline, so we’re seeing a bipartisan coalition against the war on this one. But will that coalition hold when a Republican returns to the White House? No, most likely. I think Rand Paul, his father’s son, would be opposed regardless of who’s in the White House. But most Republicans would just go along with it.

When it looked like Obama was going to move ahead with the strike without Congress, he was criticized by Republicans for not getting congressional approval. When he changed his mind and asked for congressional approval, he was criticized by Republicans for weakening the hand of future presidents. This is just opposition for opposition’s sake, a chance for Republicans to oppose the president. That’s what it comes down to, for most of them.


#146

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Any hostile act within the territory of a foreign nation without its consent is an act of war. That is the standard definition within international law, and is common sense. If Obama bombs Syria, the US is going to war with Syria. It doesn’t matter if it lasts a day or a year, it’s war.

If the United States were bombed by a foreign nation, what would we call it? War! That’s exactly what we’d call it, because that’s exactly what it would be. It wouldn’t matter if people in neatly pressed suits signed a piece of paper declaring war on the United States or not. Would we say, oh, well, they didn’t officially declare war, and it only lasted a few days, and they only killed a few thousand. No. They bomb us, it’s war, period. It works the other way around too.[/quote]
I don’t think the Constitution really gives a damn what the UN standard definition of anything is or international law for that matter. The Constitution only cares what Congress thinks. And if Congress doesn’t declare war because they don’t think it’s war, the President can bomb Syria out of Timbuktu and we still won’t be engaged in war, because only Congress decides that.

Certainly nations can mutually declare war on each other, but just because one nation does, (if Syria does, ha), doesn’t mean the other must. Of course we declare war on anyone that dares touch our territory because we don’t mess around. What other countries policy is on war, whatever.


#147

Yes, it’s about time for them to get piping up, or they will start looking incredibly political.


#148

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
I think that’s largely accurate. I seriously doubt there would be much resistance by Republicans to bombing Syria if a Republican were in the White House. Democrats have less party discipline, so we’re seeing a bipartisan coalition against the war on this one. But will that coalition hold when a Republican returns to the White House? No, most likely. I think Rand Paul, his father’s son, would be opposed regardless of who’s in the White House. But most Republicans would just go along with it.

When it looked like Obama was going to move ahead with the strike without Congress, he was criticized by Republicans for not getting congressional approval. When he changed his mind and asked for congressional approval, he was criticized by Republicans for weakening the hand of future presidents. This is just opposition for opposition’s sake, a chance for Republicans to oppose the president. That’s what it comes down to, for most of them.[/quote]
Republican presidents don’t engage in keep-the-peace, or humanitarian wars, such as Kosovo. Only Democrats. Standard Republican military philosophy is to get in there, really engage the enemy, conquer the whole country to win the war as fast as possible, and rely and trust on military brass advice as much as possible while you’re at it. Democrats always micromanage wars and generals, which is why they historically end up being so long, ineffective, and bloody. Until Clinton discovered the convenient, untroublesome (though inefficacious) air-force-strike way of war, and Obama loves his toy drones.


#149

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]Translation: The Israelis were icing the champagne already, and are pretty miffed they may not get to drink it. So lets give a little nudge to Obama to get him to come to the party.

You can’t extrapolate much from this. First, the Iranians already know they can continue work on their nuclear program quietly, and no one is going to do anything. If they cross some kind of red line, the gloves will be back off again like that. Second, the controlling issue here is the evidence. Even the American public isn’t going to buy this stuff out of hand any more. That’s an issue of America’s credibility, not Obama’s. We all know who paved that road. Personally, I think that if the evidence were that good here, things would probably be happening already. Maybe the Iranians know they can get away with something if there’s not strong enough evidence of it. I think they knew that already though :slight_smile:[/quote]
I’m confused, are you talking about Iran, or were you going back and forth between Syria and Iran? If you’re talking about Iran, the Iranians haven’t kept anything secret…they keep telling the world they have the right to enrich uranium for what they call nuclear power, but you don’t need to enrich uranium for those purposes.

Certainly Israel is watching their progress on this. There is a red line with Israel and they definitely will do something about it! No questions asked, end of discussion.

If America, however, wants to keep Israel out, for fear of escalating Middle East problems, then they had better be ready to act before that red line is crossed. Obama has lost his credibility so that Israel can’t rely on him anymore if in fact the Iranians are not afraid of him and his inconsequential “red” lines.

That means Israel will need to defend itself since the USA cannot do anything with this impotent, rookie president, whether he wants Israel to stay out or not. Israel will defend itself, there’s no doubt about that!


#150

jotham, perhaps you could elaborate a little. It seems to me the US is engaged in the worst case of doublespeak of all time, you say "the President can bomb Syria out of Timbuktu and we still won’t be engaged in war, because only Congress decides that. " You seem to suggest the definition of war, comes from Congress approval. Surely this is not true. Would you also say Obama is free to bomb China, Russia, whatever he likes, and non of this will be considered an act of war, because Congress didn’t call it a war?


#151

Absolutely ! It’s so silly when people try to redefine the word war to suit their purposes. No it’s not a “war” it’s just a missile attack. Nope it’s not “war” because congress didn’t vote on it. No it’s not a “war” because we didn’t declare it as such… BS ! If we launch tomahawks into Syria, there’s no ifs ands or buts about it, it’s a war.


#152

It is doublespeak. It’s completely irrational. If we were to accept jotham’s definition, then the president could take the nation to war on the drop of a hat, so long as he doesn’t use the phrase “war”. Utterly absurd. I will repeat: If a foreign nation bombs the US, we’d consider it war, full stop. It works both way.

The Founding Fathers intentionally split the power to declare war and execute war between the legislature and the executive. Declaring war isn’t meant to be an empty concept that the executive branch can sidestep with a rhetorical flourish. The president is supposed to get approval from Congress before moving the nation into war. That is the clear and obvious intent.


#153

[quote=“Mick”][quote=“jotham”]
I don’t think the Constitution really gives a damn what the UN standard definition of anything is or international law for that matter. The Constitution only cares what Congress thinks. And if Congress doesn’t declare war because they don’t think it’s war, the President can bomb Syria out of Timbuktu and we still won’t be engaged in war, because only Congress decides that.
[/quote]

jotham, perhaps you could elaborate a little. It seems to me the US is engaged in the worst case of doublespeak of all time, you say "the President can bomb Syria out of Timbuktu and we still won’t be engaged in war, because only Congress decides that. " You seem to suggest the definition of war, comes from Congress approval. Surely this is not true. Would you also say Obama is free to bomb China, Russia, whatever he likes, and non of this will be considered an act of war, because Congress didn’t call it a war?[/quote]
You’re assuming a president will do crazy things. I suppose the president could push the nuclear weapon button if he were crazy enough. Congress has the power to impeach in cases like this. Even so, minus impeachment, Congress has the power to take away the purse just as parents have the power to take away dangerous toys from their wayward children. A president wouldn’t be able to get away with doing crazy things too long – there would have to be some kind of agreement with Congress in order to continue the funding.

This is what Iran-Contra was about. Reagan’s administration wanted to continue supporting the contras in Nicaragua, but the Democrats took away the funds, so Reagan officials sold weapons to moderates in Iran to keep funding the contras in Nicaragua. The crime wasn’t so much engaging battle in Nicaragua, which commander-in-chiefs can do – it was the illegal funding part, skirting around Congress.


#154

Most would agree there is a distinction between battle and war, no? The president engaging in what might be called a battle, or first battle, isn’t itself the war. Only Congress can decide on the utility of going all out macro war on a nation formally and officially, which could entail many micro battles. The president, as commander-in-chief is a free agent in fighting the micro battles that Congress has authorized either by declaring macro war or funding (or on the other hand, defunding) the president’s continuing battles.

The War on Terrorism was to be fought with many battles in different countries against the same enemy – terrorists.


#155

[quote=“jotham”]Most would agree there is a distinction between battle and war, no? The president engaging in what might be called a battle, or first battle, isn’t itself the war. Only Congress can decide on the utility of going all out macro war on a nation formally and officially, which could entail many micro battles. The president, as commander-in-chief is a free agent in fighting the micro battles that Congress has authorized either by declaring macro war or funding (or on the other hand, defunding) the president’s continuing battles.

The War on Terrorism was to be fought with many battles in different countries against the same enemy – terrorists.[/quote]

while I agree with Obama and believes action should be taken in Syria to prevent further use of chemical weapons, I do think the war debate is just word play.

It’s crystal clear that only congress can declare war, and congress usually gives out approvals for military action against another nation even if they don’t declare war. The commander-in-chief usually will try to keep military action unsanctioned by the congress to a minimum scale, so congress wouldn’t flip out. However, most soverign nation considers being bombed by the US as an act of war. And “anti-war” advocates usually are against all military action. So saying military action isn’t war is somewhat splitting hairs from the view of those who don’t agree with it.

This is how I think Obama and Syria is different from W. Bush and Iraq:

  1. W. Bush or at least his advisors knew fairly well that the source on weapons of mass destruction is unreliable, yet they went on to present the case as if they were absolutely certain. That purposeful deceit makes that war and the lost of life especially appalling.

  2. Obama and his advisor on the otherhand have been giving us what they know. There are some non-absolute evidence of chemical weapon use, and they can’t be certain which side used it. The last time Obama had intel about something that had 30 or 90% certainty, and he decided on taking action, Seal team 6 killed Bin Ladin. So I have more confidence in their educated guesses, and what information is given to us.

  3. When W. Bush was trying to fool everyone, France and parts of the British intellence were screaming “No, there’s no weapons of mass destruction! the sources you have are feeding you lies, why are you buying this?” Syria was a French colony, France is the first ones to say the Syrian government is using chemical weapons, they are backing Obama in taking international action. Record and history points to they are probably right on this one again.

I don’t want to see American soldiers in Syria, it is going to be way too confusing. If there is a way to stop the use of chemical weapons without landing our troops there, then that action should be tested first, but something should probably be done.


#156

If the United States was suddenly bombed by another country, would you consider it an act of war, or you know, shrug, just a battle? Complete absurdity. War is war.


#157

Of course she has been. And so has Asner, and all the other Hollywood leftards.

skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAK … IA-1469304

[quote]

Asner also claims that there is another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria - for fear of being called racist.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said in the article which can be found here . [/quote]


#158

Look out folks, jotham is trying to redefine things again. For those who didn’t see it, he just spent 6 pages trying to redefine the definitions of the most basic scientific terms. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next 10 pages here are spent on him coming up with his own definition of war.


#159

Of course it is. Everyone knows it, and so does jotham. We have even learned to expect it. Susan Rice was out yesterday making the case for bombing and claiming it would be proportional, although why after her comments on Benghazi anyone would believe anything she said is a mystery. Putin calls Kerry a lying sack of shit for playing down AlQaedas level of involvement , and hardly anyone blinks, no one seems in the least bit surprised.

Obama was recently on the record trying to refute claims by Edward Snowden that the US isn’t backing up and storing peoples communications on an unprecedented scale, and I dont think many people believe him. They call torture “enhanced interrogation”, yet everyone knows the US is torturing people, it’s just another example of doublespeak that has become the norm. The UK wont be drawn in to using military force again after the faulty intelligence surrounding non existent WMD in Iraq. China and Russia are not going to approve anything in the UN after limited a no fly resolution passed in the UN turned into a much wider military campaign.

No one is fooled anymore. Not the rest of the world, and from what I see, not the Americans themselves. The ones I know are more upset about the state of affairs then anyone else I know, a few have told me they have lost hope that either party will represent the people.


#160

[quote=“jotham”]Most would agree there is a distinction between battle and war, no? The president engaging in what might be called a battle, or first battle, isn’t itself the war. Only Congress can decide on the utility of going all out macro war on a nation formally and officially, which could entail many micro battles. The president, as commander-in-chief is a free agent in fighting the micro battles that Congress has authorized either by declaring macro war or funding (or on the other hand, defunding) the president’s continuing battles.

The War on Terrorism was to be fought with many battles in different countries against the same enemy – terrorists.[/quote]

The terminology “War on Terrorism” is political rhetoric, as is “the War on Drugs”. Did these require an act of Congress for constitutional reasons?

In the actual meaning of war we are discussing vis a vis Syria, the distinction between a battle in a war is simply that a battle is part of a war, not distinct from it.

Attacking another country deliberately is an act of war.