Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb Syria


#161

[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. [/quote] I don’t think the Constitution is capable of giving or taking a damn :ponder:

[quote=“jotham”]The Constitution only cares what Congress thinks.[/quote] Let’s ignore your use of cares, which the Constitution cannot do, and assume you meant something else. You’re still wrong, because Constitutional power does not rest solely with Congress.

[quote=“jotham”]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. [/quote] That’s rather obvious, even if very poorly worded.

[quote=“jotham”]What other countries policy is on war, whatever.[/quote] Can anyone provide an English translation of this?

[quote=“jotham”]Republican presidents don’t engage in keep-the-peace, or humanitarian wars, such as Kosovo. Only Democrats. [/quote] Right, like Iraq… humanitarian wasn’t one of the 37,567 reason given for that war.

[quote=“jotham”]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. [/quote] Like Shock and Awe. I remember. The war went on for how long after victory was declared?

[quote=“jotham”]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.[/quote] So democrats always micromanage wars, unless they don’t under the examples you have provided. You proved yourself wrong before you had finished the sentence.

I have to hand it to Jotham, he’s consistent: All posts are either incoherent or flat out wrong.


#162

uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-propos … ml#T3RFUbk

Maybe you will not have to go to war afterall. At least the plan has got a chance with Russian backing, might save a few eggs on faces as well.


#163

[quote=“Mick”]
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. [/quote]

Putin himself is down playing his ties with Bashar al-Assad. The key here is whether or not chemical weapon is unleashed. The existence of Al Qaedas backed rebel groups does not justify the use of chemical weapons.

[quote=“Mick”]
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 don’t 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.[/quote]

That is the price the US has to pay for W. Bush crying wolf. al-Assad and weapons deal (over $4 billion) from his regime makes them best friends with the Russians and the Chinese. Russia operates a navy port in Syria. Even if there isn’t a trust issue it’s likely they would veto any military action to begin with.


#164

[quote=“hansioux”][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.[/quote]
Congress usually gives out approvals for military action because the President asks approval because he wants the funding to be there. He will keep military action unsanctioned by the congress to a minimum scale because if Congress flipped out, they would take away his toys.

The anti-war protesters who disagree that military action isn’t war are splitting their own hairs and asking us to embody their beliefs about the matter into the Constitution, and it doesn’t matter what they opine in their personal politics. What matters is what the Constitution itself means when they wrote war, and no President has been or can be impeached for unconstitutionality just for simply exercising his function as commander-in-chief. The Constitution gives him that leeway; he is a free agent except to declare all-out war or fund his military actions. Believe me, the power of the purse is not insignificant in reining in a president. The Constitutional foresaw this as a balance of powers. It assures the very same cooperation between the branches that you are seeking (without necessarily compelling it).

[quote]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.[/quote]
    You’re looking at it in retrospective. No, they were quite confident of their sources, and only admitted there was fault with some of the evidence after the fact (except Tony Blair still stood by the uranium in Niger evidence that Bush later admitted was faulty).

#165

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.[/quote]
Whether or not it’s an act of war on their side, they had better be prepared for nothing less on our side because the government or party responsible will cease to exist, definitely if a Republican is president, and probably if a Democrat.


#166

[quote=“jotham”]. . . [quote]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.[/quote]
    You’re looking at it in retrospective. No, they were quite confident of their sources, and only admitted there was fault with some of the evidence after the fact (except Tony Blair still stood by the uranium in Niger evidence that Bush later admitted was faulty).[/quote]

Different? Ha, ha, ha. The only evidence I’ve seen so far is that you can fool most Americans all of the time:

[quote]This is a bit of a sensitive subject, but the administration has been honest that they have no smoking gun that the attack was ordered by Assad. The evidence of his involvement is circumstantial. . . . . The administration has said there’s no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. I know what that circumstantial evidence is, and I’m not impressed.[/quote] – Alan Grayson, Democratic congressman from Florida and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -by-assad/


#167

[quote=“BigJohn”][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.[/quote]
Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.


#168

[quote=“jotham”]Congress usually gives out approvals for military action because the President asks approval because he wants the funding to be there (like magic!). He will keep military action unsanctioned by the congress to a minimum scale because if Congress flipped out, they would take away his toys.

The anti-war protesters who disagree that military action isn’t war are splitting their own hairs and asking us to embody their beliefs about the matter into the Constitution, and it doesn’t matter what they opine in their personal politics. What matters is what the Constitution itself means when they wrote war, and no President has been or can be impeached for unconstitutionality just for simply exercising his function as commander-in-chief. The Constitution gives him that leeway; he is a free agent except to declare all-out war or fund his military actions. Believe me :laughing: , the power of the purse is not insignificant in reining in a president. The Constitutional foresaw this as a balance of powers. It assures the very same cooperation between the branches that you are seeking (without necessarily compelling it).

You’re looking at it in retrospective. No, they were quite confident of their sources, and only admitted there was fault with some of the evidence after the fact (except Tony Blair still stood by the uranium in Niger evidence that Bush later admitted was faulty).[/quote]
There is not a single coherent sentence in this post. Though most of the underlined bits gave me a nice hearty chuckle, especially:

What matters is what the Constitution itself means when they wrote war
The Constipitutional wrote itself :whistle:


#169

[quote=“Winston Smith”]

[quote]This is a bit of a sensitive subject, but the administration has been honest that they have no smoking gun that the attack was ordered by Assad. The evidence of his involvement is circumstantial. . . . . The administration has said there’s no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence. I know what that circumstantial evidence is, and I’m not impressed.[/quote] – Alan Grayson, Democratic congressman from Florida and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -by-assad/[/quote]

actually he is implying even if al-Assad did order the attack, the strike would be meaningless. here is the premise of his argument:

  1. The strike can not target chemical weapon stockpiles because it will only spread the agent.
  2. The strike is not aimed as a regime change.
  3. Therefore the strike aims to hurt Assad’s efforts as an incentive to not use chemical weapons or come to the negotiating table, and not hurt his efforts so much that it gives away the battle to some of the rebel groups backed by al-Qaeda.

he argues:

a. such surgical objective can’t be achieved in war.
b. If we assume strikes would sway Assad to not used chemical weapons, then we are assuming Assad is rational.
c. Though if Assad is rational, he wouldn’t have ordered the use of chemical weapons in the first place, making the strike meaningless.

I think he makes a good case for the futility of a limited strike, but at the same time the conclusion here doesn’t seem to be “so we should do nothing.” It seems to me that the major powers needs to figure out who ordered the use of chemical weapons, and if putting men on the ground is the only way to stop it, then that should happen, instead of sitting by to allow more use of chemical weapons. Yeah, any conclusion that asks for the direct involvement of troops churns my stomach, but looking back in history, usually sitting back in situations ends up even more ugly for the troops. But since politically that is not likely to happen, they are aiming for a symbolic strike is better than nothing. I mean it’s not like they haven’t tried sanctions and other measures…

Though asking Assad to surrender all chemical weapons to avoid attack is a good one. Now what if he doesn’t?

By the way, the reporter gave Alan Grayson a bit of a challenge when he pointed out the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a direct response to the use of chemical weapons.


#170

Of course it would be meaningless. You’d have to be pretty dense to have not learned the lessons of history by now. Yeah I know, forget all those other times we tried this crap and it backfired, THIS TIME it will work. :astonished:


#171


#172

He could point out what happened to the last two dictators who did give up their weapons of mass destruction – Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi – versus the one who didn’t – Kim Jong Il and son.

Not much of a challenge in my view pointing out that The War About Nothing wasn’t about chemical weapons.


#173

#174

[quote=“jotham”]
Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.[/quote]

Hey buddy, it’s all the same to me, but you might want to aim before you shoot. I’m just sayin.

http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-hastings.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England#11th_century


#175

It looks like Syria is willing to surrender its chemical stockpile. The stockpile will first be placed under international control, and then destroyed. This is breaking news, so it’s not clear yet if President Obama will call off the strike.


#176

[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“jotham”]
Nonsense, William the Conqueror took England in one day at the Battle of Hastings. That wasn’t a war or part of a war. Yet it changed history dramatically.[/quote]

Hey buddy, it’s all the same to me, but you might want to aim before you shoot. I’m just sayin.

http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-hastings.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_England#11th_century[/quote]
That isn’t anything. It’s just a category for any conflict. They place rebellions as “war” as well; conflict would be a better worded category. They’re just playing loose with the meaning of “war” to make a nifty little category. You’re really desperate if you think this proves anything. To make the “Norman Conquest of England” a war in which the only military part of it was the Battle of Hastings is really grasping for straws. Why don’t you use the standards you expect of me: find it in the literature.


#177

It could be a delaying tactic, I just hope the Russians are sincere at least the Syrians are more likely to listen to them. I suppose now we will have all the arguments about how many they have got and where they all are. If the plan goes ahead I hope the Americans retreat gracefully and allow independent assessors in to oversee the plan, I would rather hear from neutral sources that Syria have complied.


#178

I think the words Russians and sincere are mutually exclusive.


#179

Americans retreat gracefully? Bwa ha ha. They’re laughing at us. This is a grand strategy, I would say Putin is genius for this, but on the other hand, what do you expect with a rookie president we have? This Putin coming in as deus ex machina and taking the place of messiah, taking Obama’s place, (and to a lesser extent America’s place as world solver).

He’s checkmated Obama. Obama put himself into a rock and hard place, and Putin, his foe, saved him and saved the day, saved America. It may very well divert strikes, but there’s a whole lot going on behind the scenes here. Putin knows how to make Obama look the fool. A lot of this was going on during Carter too, they were dancing and running circles around us because of our weakness.

RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT GLOATS AS PUTIN CHECKMATES OBAMA OVER SYRIA

[ul][color=#000080]Monday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry made what an administration official called a “major goof” with a never-going-to-happen hypothetical that suggested Syria could avoid American airstrikes by surrendering their chemical weapons. Even the State Department walked Kerry’s statement back. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately seized upon Kerry’s flub, and now a member of the Russian parliament is gloating over Putin’s checkmate of Obama.

Watching one administration bungle after another unfurl, Alexi Pushkov , the chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, is publicly mocking Obama. Via Twitter, Pushkov wrotethat this mess “knocks the ground out from under Obama’s plans for a military strike.”

Kerry’s flub played right into the Russians hands; and by breaking weak, stepping back from his own red line, and embracing Kerry’s hypothetical proposal during a round-robin of network interviews Monday night, President Obama chose to repeat Kerry’s mistake. Russian President Vladmir Putin now looks like the world’s peacemaker and Syria can dig in and drag this out forever as the West tries to figure out how to secure and destroy a thousand tons of chemicals weapons without putting “boots on the ground” in the middle of a civil war.

The real win for Syria and Russia, though, is that when this diplomatic quagmire is all over, Assad remains in power. This, after Obama said he must go.

As I write this, Assad is already taking advantage of the Putin/Kerry monkey wrench. For the first time since the talk of America military action began, today Syria resumed its bombing attacks against the rebels.

From Obama’s off-script red line comment last year to Kerry’s off-script second red line yesterday, the only thing driving American foreign policy regarding Syria are administration blunders.

Today, even Israel is laughing at us.
[/color][/ul]


#180

Americans retreat gracefully? Bwa ha ha. They’re laughing at us. This is a grand strategy, I would say Putin is genius for this, but on the other hand, what do you expect with a rookie president we have? This Putin coming in as deus ex machina and taking the place of messiah, taking Obama’s place, (and to a lesser extent America’s place as world solver).

He’s checkmated Obama. Obama put himself into a rock and hard place, and Putin, his foe, saved him and saved the day, saved America. It may very well divert strikes, but there’s a whole lot going on behind the scenes here. Putin knows how to make Obama look the fool. A lot of this was going on during Carter too, they were dancing and running circles around us because of our weakness.

RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT GLOATS AS PUTIN CHECKMATES OBAMA OVER SYRIA[/quote]

Well I was just being polite when I said gracefully Jotham.Anyway it just goes to show what happens when you keep sticking your nose in other peoples business doesn’t it. I really don’t care too much what goes on behind the scenes . I think America needs to take a good look at themselves and work out where they are going wrong preferably starting with foreign policy. So you could say its Russia 1-0 USA at the moment.