Here it comes: Syria
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadsword:
Your arguments are worse than "disingenuous"... It is against international law to target civilians, (though how you manage that in a civil war I'm at a loss), but around 10 times the number have died by conventional means that died by unconventional ones but I didn't see you bleating then... I suppose, in your mind, it's ok to shred a few civvies and their kids with shrapnel yet leave them alive or maybe your preference is the horrendous burns inflicted on the same. Either way we heard bugger all from you about it over the last 2 1/2 years... Funny how thay outrage works eh?
Like Egypt and Libya, sometimes having a dictator in place that is either pro your country's interests or at least scared to get into conflict with you is better for them, better for their people and better for the region. As we have seen in Egypt and Libya when the dictator is simply removed the vacuum is usually filled by the group you least wanted, the people really don't need and the region detests...
You keep going in that silly, weak, socialist utopia of yours. The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time...
Simplistic and disingenuous. It is an attempt at distraction by those who wish to divert attention from punishing the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.
Like Egypt and Libya, sometimes having a dictator in place that is either pro your country's interests or at least scared to get into conflict with you is better for them, better for their people and better for the region. As we have seen in Egypt and Libya when the dictator is simply removed the vacuum is usually filled by the group you least wanted, the people really don't need and the region detests...
You keep going in that silly, weak, socialist utopia of yours. The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time...
So Secretary Kerry is now saying that the US cost of military action will be paid for by Arabs.........................So now US Military is GCC's Bitch and just a load of Mercaneries sold to highest bidder.
Can Kerry get much worse ?
Can Kerry get much worse ?
I am totally diabused of the stupid assed notion Wars are about sending messages, firing shots across the bow, diminishing the military of a nation, leveling the playing field between two warring parties, acting as warning to a Third Nation, reminding Despots of International Accords, and all this other crap the Lefties, Liberals, Progressive Ding Dongs keep running out to justify the use of their nation's or some other nation's military when they think it is the cool thing to do.
War is a simple concept and has exactly one singular purpose.....to kick your opponents ass until he is either dead, rendered incapable or unwilling to resist. You do that by the use of unlimited, unrestrained violence, mayhem, and destruction of his People, Resources, Assets, belongings, and motivation.
Every time we do other than that.....we lose.
If the dummies in Washington vote to attack Syria....then we should go at it Hammer and Tongs....and see just how many of them we can kill, wound, and maim.....destroy every bit of their infrastructure, government, economy, and just plain lay waste to as much of the Country we can.
We do that....thumb our nose at the rest of the World....tell them if they don't like it....we got plenty of Nukes laying around idle that we can light off in their neighborhoods.
If the Arabs want to pay us to be Mercenaries then lets take their money and when we finish with their enemies....we turn on them and do them in too.
Way too much talk folks.....lets just roll up our sleeves and get after it!
The problem really is that War is not fought these days as Wars have been fought in the past. We somehow think War can be limited, humane, nice neat and orderly.
Sadly, it cannot. It is a terrible business that once started for whatever reasons given....it always takes unintended paths and escapes from the cage we had hoped to keep it contained inside.
This thing in Syria is going to turn ugly if we do what the Obama Administration wants us to do.
Nothing good shall come of this.....Nothing.
You Nimrods that are all for this.....I pity you as you simply lack any commonsense.
So please....stop bothering us with the rant we "must" do something about those who were gassed. That was their bad luck....as horrible as it was....but their being murdered by their own government does not require "Us" to do anything.
We should punish Assad and his Regime for that horrible atrocity....and all the other atrocities that have been committed....but likewise the Insurgents do not have clean hands either.....so we should hold them accountable exactly as we do the Syrian Government.
Let the UN form a War Crimes Commission....start gathering evidence....at some point one side or the other will win....peace of sorts will take hold....then the UN can investigate, arrest, and put on Trial....those who are culpable of War Crimes.
Going to War is not the way to handle this.
War is a simple concept and has exactly one singular purpose.....to kick your opponents ass until he is either dead, rendered incapable or unwilling to resist. You do that by the use of unlimited, unrestrained violence, mayhem, and destruction of his People, Resources, Assets, belongings, and motivation.
Every time we do other than that.....we lose.
If the dummies in Washington vote to attack Syria....then we should go at it Hammer and Tongs....and see just how many of them we can kill, wound, and maim.....destroy every bit of their infrastructure, government, economy, and just plain lay waste to as much of the Country we can.
We do that....thumb our nose at the rest of the World....tell them if they don't like it....we got plenty of Nukes laying around idle that we can light off in their neighborhoods.
If the Arabs want to pay us to be Mercenaries then lets take their money and when we finish with their enemies....we turn on them and do them in too.
Way too much talk folks.....lets just roll up our sleeves and get after it!
The problem really is that War is not fought these days as Wars have been fought in the past. We somehow think War can be limited, humane, nice neat and orderly.
Sadly, it cannot. It is a terrible business that once started for whatever reasons given....it always takes unintended paths and escapes from the cage we had hoped to keep it contained inside.
This thing in Syria is going to turn ugly if we do what the Obama Administration wants us to do.
Nothing good shall come of this.....Nothing.
You Nimrods that are all for this.....I pity you as you simply lack any commonsense.
So please....stop bothering us with the rant we "must" do something about those who were gassed. That was their bad luck....as horrible as it was....but their being murdered by their own government does not require "Us" to do anything.
We should punish Assad and his Regime for that horrible atrocity....and all the other atrocities that have been committed....but likewise the Insurgents do not have clean hands either.....so we should hold them accountable exactly as we do the Syrian Government.
Let the UN form a War Crimes Commission....start gathering evidence....at some point one side or the other will win....peace of sorts will take hold....then the UN can investigate, arrest, and put on Trial....those who are culpable of War Crimes.
Going to War is not the way to handle this.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS:
So... Really... You're just recommending nuking the whole damned place...
I can live with that and it sends the right message to the rest of them...
so we should hold them accountable exactly as we do the Syrian Government
I can live with that and it sends the right message to the rest of them...
the most horrendous breach of international law in recent history.
And I'm not sure which is more horrendous, killing a few hundred from over 100000 deaths just because one particular type of weapon was used? Or perhaps the execution, by beheading, of POWs and Christian clerics? Or perhaps the ethnic cleansing that is going on all over Syria?
And Obama sure looks like he's trying to spread the responsibility for his red line in the sand (I wonder if I kept a copy of the cartoon of Obama painting an ever retreating red line in the sand from last year?).
And as Syria are not signatories to the Chemical Weapons ban how can they be breaking "international law"?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ask yourself:
What can America actually achieve, by bombing Syria?
Now ask- how could this go wrong, and 'are the yanks doing this to avoid losing face?
These cnuts should be locked up.
What can America actually achieve, by bombing Syria?
Now ask- how could this go wrong, and 'are the yanks doing this to avoid losing face?
These cnuts should be locked up.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey SAS.
I buy into your 'total war' concept.
Only thing is- they done nothing to you.
So, if you bring the 'TW' thing to them, without them doing a sweet thing to you- then you are the aggressor- and the world (that's not the US btw) will turn on you.
I buy into your 'total war' concept.
Only thing is- they done nothing to you.
So, if you bring the 'TW' thing to them, without them doing a sweet thing to you- then you are the aggressor- and the world (that's not the US btw) will turn on you.
Blimey No,
Uniform, boots, weapon and out the back of Albert on a static line. DZ Damascus. All of em. They want war. Let them have some. Maybe the rest won't be so keen then.
Smudge
Uniform, boots, weapon and out the back of Albert on a static line. DZ Damascus. All of em. They want war. Let them have some. Maybe the rest won't be so keen then.
Smudge
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought it was a goner....
), to sustain us. If I send a lat/long can you send a C-130 of ammo and beer... It would be much appreciated... Oh, and ice... Need he ice for the beer... Still living the dream...
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Luton
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what`s the interest here ? it`s certainly not humanitarian, ye gods,
there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no
interest from western media.
A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no
interest from western media.
A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what`s the interest here ? it`s certainly not humanitarian, ye gods,
there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no
interest from western media.
A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
there are enough peoples around the world being roughed up with no
interest from western media.
A little bit far from the oilfields, but very close to lsrael.
No accusations of stealing oil. O'Bummer has shown his contempt for Israel so no problem there. Western media seem to "care"...
It's the perfect opportunity to add the word "strong" to his existing "Messiah" label...
Slam dunk really...
Not disagreeing with the thrust of your post, Roland, but just because they're not signatories doesn't mean that they can't be considered in breach of international law; the argument (and the lawyers will argue...) is that it is customary international law, since the majority of states have agreed, either in declaratory or tacit form that CW are beyond the pale and thus illegal.
The difficulty, of course, is that international law is not quite the fixed, immovable corpus that some assume it to be; it evolves through precedent, custom, treaty, agreement, etc, etc. This is why you have the debate about Responsibility To Protect: is it part of international law, or is it a legitimate approach which may - on occasion - appear to conflict with international law (arguably see Kosovo).
If Assad did use CW, he can't say that the use was aimed against the rebels and that the other 300, 400, however many that figure is now were collateral damage; indeed, that argument falls over under Additional Protocol 1 (1977) to the 1949 Convention. It doesn't fit in with Articles 51 and 57, since CW lack the discrimination required under those articles:
I suggest that CW fail to meet 57:2:ii and are insufficiently discriminating as the context of their use in Syria meant that it was almost certain that civilians were going to be gassed as part of the process, and the users of the CW failed to meet their responsibilities.
That doesn't necessarily mean that this demands the appearance of a large number of TLAMs in Syria airspace, though, simply that there are at least reasonable grounds to contend that the use of CW is a clear breach of the 1949 Convention and Additional Protocol 1.
The point, as you note, though, is that a case can be made to say that a number of elements of the civil war that did not see the use of CW contravene the Convention and AP1.
[Devil's Advocate]
To which some might claim that intervention should've occurred some time ago and that measured against the Convention, AP1 and the notions of R2P, the UN and international community have fallen down on their obligations and that Putin and to a lesser extent the Chinese have been particularly egregious in not living up to what they are expected to do...
[\Devil's Advocate]
The difficulty, of course, is that international law is not quite the fixed, immovable corpus that some assume it to be; it evolves through precedent, custom, treaty, agreement, etc, etc. This is why you have the debate about Responsibility To Protect: is it part of international law, or is it a legitimate approach which may - on occasion - appear to conflict with international law (arguably see Kosovo).
If Assad did use CW, he can't say that the use was aimed against the rebels and that the other 300, 400, however many that figure is now were collateral damage; indeed, that argument falls over under Additional Protocol 1 (1977) to the 1949 Convention. It doesn't fit in with Articles 51 and 57, since CW lack the discrimination required under those articles:
Article 51...
...4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction...
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Article 57...
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
...4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction...
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Article 57...
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
That doesn't necessarily mean that this demands the appearance of a large number of TLAMs in Syria airspace, though, simply that there are at least reasonable grounds to contend that the use of CW is a clear breach of the 1949 Convention and Additional Protocol 1.
The point, as you note, though, is that a case can be made to say that a number of elements of the civil war that did not see the use of CW contravene the Convention and AP1.
[Devil's Advocate]To which some might claim that intervention should've occurred some time ago and that measured against the Convention, AP1 and the notions of R2P, the UN and international community have fallen down on their obligations and that Putin and to a lesser extent the Chinese have been particularly egregious in not living up to what they are expected to do...
[\Devil's Advocate]
Last edited by Archimedes; 4th Sep 2013 at 23:02.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rest of us would prefer that you take yourself off to the quiet corner for a long time...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was driving to vote, here was Obama on the radio
"when something happens in the world, everyone asks
what the US is going to do about it. Be it Bosnia, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone (+ a couple more) .......
I nearly had a crash.
WTF did the US do in Rwanda and Sierra Leone ?
"when something happens in the world, everyone asks
what the US is going to do about it. Be it Bosnia, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone (+ a couple more) .......
I nearly had a crash.
WTF did the US do in Rwanda and Sierra Leone ?
AK.....that is exactly my point....or hoped you would understand that was anyway.
Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks.
I wrote the first part somewhat tongue in cheek trying to suggest that if we as a Nation decide to wage War....then we as a Nation....should gear up for it....go on a Total War footing. Mobilize the Reserves, start conscription, convert our manufacturing to strictly military goods and only those absolutely necessary consumer goods, enact rationing, and then....focus our every effort on wreaking havoc upon the Enemy whoever and where ever they are.
Here is a video of yesterdays Senate Hearings....actually one small segment.
General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know.".
Kerry, Hagel, and Dempsey made like the Three Stooges yesterday....and they are Obama's A-Team?
Rand Paul's Epic Showdown with John Kerry - Fox Nation
One key comment by Senator Paul.....he mentions "Not one American has told me they support a Military Attack of any kind on Syria!".
My Democrat Senator's Facebook page had over 500 posts on it....and less than five offered any support for an attack and none called outright for an attack.
The American People are not for this....not at all....it is the Democrat Party Party and the Obama Regime pushing for it. Most Democrats shall vote for the Resolution Authorizing the Attack simply because they cannot bear to see Obama embarrassed over this. He fecked it up when he made the Red Line comments, did not start developing a Coalition, did not take it to foreign leaders, and then Assad opted for the "Or Else" and Obama was caught flat footed between bases. Right now he is doing that old Baseball Run Down thing....and no matter how he tries....he is going to lose....either in Congress or in the eyes of the American People.
Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks.
I wrote the first part somewhat tongue in cheek trying to suggest that if we as a Nation decide to wage War....then we as a Nation....should gear up for it....go on a Total War footing. Mobilize the Reserves, start conscription, convert our manufacturing to strictly military goods and only those absolutely necessary consumer goods, enact rationing, and then....focus our every effort on wreaking havoc upon the Enemy whoever and where ever they are.
Here is a video of yesterdays Senate Hearings....actually one small segment.
General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know.".
Kerry, Hagel, and Dempsey made like the Three Stooges yesterday....and they are Obama's A-Team?
Rand Paul's Epic Showdown with John Kerry - Fox Nation
One key comment by Senator Paul.....he mentions "Not one American has told me they support a Military Attack of any kind on Syria!".
My Democrat Senator's Facebook page had over 500 posts on it....and less than five offered any support for an attack and none called outright for an attack.
The American People are not for this....not at all....it is the Democrat Party Party and the Obama Regime pushing for it. Most Democrats shall vote for the Resolution Authorizing the Attack simply because they cannot bear to see Obama embarrassed over this. He fecked it up when he made the Red Line comments, did not start developing a Coalition, did not take it to foreign leaders, and then Assad opted for the "Or Else" and Obama was caught flat footed between bases. Right now he is doing that old Baseball Run Down thing....and no matter how he tries....he is going to lose....either in Congress or in the eyes of the American People.
Last edited by SASless; 4th Sep 2013 at 23:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (sounds of spitting heard), was unable to answer the question "What is our Objective for this Attack the President wants us to authorize (or words to that effect)?". His response....."I don't know."."
SaSless
That is PISS WEAK, No if's or buts about it.
Sorry.
Like you,
"Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks."
Exactly what I have been saying.
SaSless
That is PISS WEAK, No if's or buts about it.
Sorry.
Like you,
"Exactly....what the hell have the Syrians done to the United States of America.....that gives us the right to Attack them?
That is the thrust of my arguments for the past ten days...to two weeks."
Exactly what I have been saying.
SASless - I think I'm right in saying that you don't rate Dempsey as the sharpest knife in the draw, but is there any chance that this might have been a pointed 'I have no idea what it is that the administration is trying to get us embroiled in, Sir, but it will be a CF if you let them'? Or is that too sophisticated a gambit for him? (Genuine question - I've been lax in reading anything about Dempsey)