Here it comes: Syria
Flip Flopping? In your mind perhaps....but not by those who oppose any Military Action against Syria.
We have all been firmly and inalterably opposed and remain so.
Perhaps you are confused and think you are posting to a different thread somehow.....or that is one of your throw away lines you like to use.
We have all been firmly and inalterably opposed and remain so.
Perhaps you are confused and think you are posting to a different thread somehow.....or that is one of your throw away lines you like to use.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think we should ever intervene when there is no direct threat to us?
Tom
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip Flopping? In your mind perhaps....but not by those who oppose any Military Action against Syria.
We have all been firmly and inalterably opposed and remain so.
Perhaps you are confused and think you are posting to a different thread somehow.....or that is one of your throw away lines you like to use.
We have all been firmly and inalterably opposed and remain so.
Perhaps you are confused and think you are posting to a different thread somehow.....or that is one of your throw away lines you like to use.
The questions we ask, the statements we make are always of our own mind fella. Well mines are anyway, hope yours belong to you.
So, just in case there is still any ambiguity, in my mind, there has been lots of posturing on the thread. Lots of what appears to be strongly held opinion and not any lack of puerile mud slinging at our politicians. So like I said just wanted a straightforward opinion. Maybe you could share your thoughts on the question. Don't worry if you don't want to. Cheers fella.
Post 1285 back on 7 June in a direct response to PN....was one such post.
Or....back on 4 Sep.....
If you go way back to the very early few pages you will see where I opined that at the end of Gulf War I, we should have road marched our Army to the Med and loaded it on Ships there.....removing Assad on our way through Syria. Had we done that....we would have accomplished what Obama seems to be trying to do now but we would have had all of the assets we needed on hand and an Army that was finely honed for Combat.
It would have been just as wrong then as the proposed Attack today is....but perhaps would have met with far less resistance both at home and abroad.
I have wondered how things would be today in the Region had we done that back in the mid -90's and how it would have turned out re Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon.
PN,
I do not believe the President has any authority to order an Attack on the Syrian Government.....NONE.
The 1973 War Powers Act grants three options for the President in ordering our Military to attack.
1- In response to an Attack
2- To prevent an Imminent Attack
3- By authorization of Congress
Under our Constitution only Congress may Declare War.
The Syrians have not attacked us, and do not have the capability to do so, and have not threatened to do so.
In plain language, I am absolutely dead set against any attack against the Syrian Government by US Military forces.
I think there are many other options and considerations that need to take place first that would both be far more effective, less costly in lives (ours and theirs), and would be better received by the World community and the Islamic Nations and Peoples than an Attack of any kind.
Right now....the American People by an 8-1 or 9-1 margin agree with my position.
It is only the political elite in this country that are pushing for this War.
I do not believe the President has any authority to order an Attack on the Syrian Government.....NONE.
The 1973 War Powers Act grants three options for the President in ordering our Military to attack.
1- In response to an Attack
2- To prevent an Imminent Attack
3- By authorization of Congress
Under our Constitution only Congress may Declare War.
The Syrians have not attacked us, and do not have the capability to do so, and have not threatened to do so.
In plain language, I am absolutely dead set against any attack against the Syrian Government by US Military forces.
I think there are many other options and considerations that need to take place first that would both be far more effective, less costly in lives (ours and theirs), and would be better received by the World community and the Islamic Nations and Peoples than an Attack of any kind.
Right now....the American People by an 8-1 or 9-1 margin agree with my position.
It is only the political elite in this country that are pushing for this War.
Or....back on 4 Sep.....
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.
Last edited by SASless; 4th Sep 2013 at 19:26.
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 19:26.
If you go way back to the very early few pages you will see where I opined that at the end of Gulf War I, we should have road marched our Army to the Med and loaded it on Ships there.....removing Assad on our way through Syria. Had we done that....we would have accomplished what Obama seems to be trying to do now but we would have had all of the assets we needed on hand and an Army that was finely honed for Combat.
It would have been just as wrong then as the proposed Attack today is....but perhaps would have met with far less resistance both at home and abroad.
I have wondered how things would be today in the Region had we done that back in the mid -90's and how it would have turned out re Egypt, Libya, and Lebanon.
Last edited by SASless; 8th Sep 2013 at 14:56.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect you are telling me what your constitution thinks not you. I was seeking your opinion on the justness of intervention where there is no direct threat to us. I only raised it because AAs position of clarity on the issue in his previous post. Look, you clearly don't want to engage so let's just leave it there. Perhaps I was wrong maybe we do not all post our own minds thoughts. As always, cheers fella.
Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 15:20.
Gentlemen, we have now come to a position of stalemate on all sides. I suggest that we leave this discussion until action is taken by the outsiders in this conflict.
As I see it:
The UK, not going to do anything unless in concert with the USA after a Security Council resolution, which will not be forthcoming and there is no hope of pushing a debate and agreement in Parliament.
The USA, sends cruise missiles in, is that an act of war and a war crime and in conflict with the US Constitutionas they have not been attacked and therefore have no right of retaliation in self defence.
The Russians, sends more supplies, assistance and keep a warm water port in the Med.
The Chinese, as above.
The Iranians, as above also keeping their lines open to Hizboullah in Lebenon
The EU, incapable of militarily taking part unless the USA starts operations and supports the the EU forces with intelligence (contradiction in terms) C4ISTAR tankers S/DEAD and heavy lift.
The UN, incapable of anything unable to act and deadlocked in the Security Council.
We have had in two years many thousands of deaths for which little has raised concerns in general. The use of chemical weapons has moved it the front of peoples consciousness, but the electorates of both the UK and US want little if anything and are in fact hostile to the idea of intervention in any form. The have been deceived in the past from Iraq onwards through the so called Arab Spring and look what a disaster that has been, remember Libya and Egypt. In the former Hiliary Clinton, you and Obama bear responsibility for the deaths of the Ambassador, by your actions or lack of at a critical moment. Sometimes what countries need is a dictator with his knee on the throat of the population to maintain a 'civilised' society.
I am afraid the stupidity of Obama stating publically that the use of CW was a 'red line' is typical of politicians who let their mouths flap in the heat of the moment to obtain a headline which comes back to bite them in the a**e when they have to make good that statement. This is a classic of my old headmaster, 'whenever I open my mouth some fool says something'
.
I have posed the point before, what is the difference of being disembowelled by a burst of AK 47 fire, result of an artillery barrage or a Sarin attack. Many will die and continue to die in this conflict, it is religious, political and factional, outsiders who are not of the same culture or thought processes, such as beheading or shooting people because they don't pray at the right times or numbers at a set part of the day, do not comprehend or understand the insanity.
As I see it:
The UK, not going to do anything unless in concert with the USA after a Security Council resolution, which will not be forthcoming and there is no hope of pushing a debate and agreement in Parliament.
The USA, sends cruise missiles in, is that an act of war and a war crime and in conflict with the US Constitutionas they have not been attacked and therefore have no right of retaliation in self defence.
The Russians, sends more supplies, assistance and keep a warm water port in the Med.
The Chinese, as above.
The Iranians, as above also keeping their lines open to Hizboullah in Lebenon
The EU, incapable of militarily taking part unless the USA starts operations and supports the the EU forces with intelligence (contradiction in terms) C4ISTAR tankers S/DEAD and heavy lift.
The UN, incapable of anything unable to act and deadlocked in the Security Council.
We have had in two years many thousands of deaths for which little has raised concerns in general. The use of chemical weapons has moved it the front of peoples consciousness, but the electorates of both the UK and US want little if anything and are in fact hostile to the idea of intervention in any form. The have been deceived in the past from Iraq onwards through the so called Arab Spring and look what a disaster that has been, remember Libya and Egypt. In the former Hiliary Clinton, you and Obama bear responsibility for the deaths of the Ambassador, by your actions or lack of at a critical moment. Sometimes what countries need is a dictator with his knee on the throat of the population to maintain a 'civilised' society.
I am afraid the stupidity of Obama stating publically that the use of CW was a 'red line' is typical of politicians who let their mouths flap in the heat of the moment to obtain a headline which comes back to bite them in the a**e when they have to make good that statement. This is a classic of my old headmaster, 'whenever I open my mouth some fool says something'
.
I have posed the point before, what is the difference of being disembowelled by a burst of AK 47 fire, result of an artillery barrage or a Sarin attack. Many will die and continue to die in this conflict, it is religious, political and factional, outsiders who are not of the same culture or thought processes, such as beheading or shooting people because they don't pray at the right times or numbers at a set part of the day, do not comprehend or understand the insanity.
Last edited by air pig; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:02.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom:
Each situation is different. If an ally is threatened then one might consider intervention but a civil war where no good will come of our action I say no.
Do you think we should ever intervene when there is no direct threat to us?
AA - would the use of CW justify intervention? I know it hasn't in the past but this situation is different in that Syria may well have been put up to this, or at allowed to act in this manner, by its backers as a direct challenge to the west. You've agreed that Iran are a potential threat.
Regarding the idea that the US - or the UK for that matter - should only take military action if there is a direct threat or action against said countries doesn't chime with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:
Again, not arguing for or against action in Syria (and not I'm suggesting that you're all a bunch of pacifist, bleeding-heart, gutless, appeasement monkies), I'm interested in how folks here would consider the situation in Europe under the Nazi boot. Should other nations stand back and tut quietly whilst millions were being gassed, shot, starved, experimented upon, etc? I'm not talking about the fact that we were already at war, I'm considering the moral arguments.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Court,
When I see every single NATO country bellying up to the Bar with combat forces and Political Resolve I shall accept your view. Until then....I strongly object to my Country going it alone on this Fool's Errand.
When I see every single NATO country bellying up to the Bar with combat forces and Political Resolve I shall accept your view. Until then....I strongly object to my Country going it alone on this Fool's Errand.
TJ,
Off to the Peanut Gallery with you.
Off to the Peanut Gallery with you.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm interested in how folks here would consider the situation in Europe under the Nazi boot. Should other nations stand back and tut quietly whilst millions were being gassed, shot, starved, experimented upon, etc? I'm not talking about the fact that we were already at war, I'm considering the moral arguments.
Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:16.
Originally Posted by SASless
I shall accept your view
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am; didn't we use Article 5 as justification for standing with the US when they went into Afghanistan post 9/11? Again I stand by to be corrected but. I think it was the only time article 5 has been invoked in NATOs history. If so, then intervention only if we are directly threatened, does not appear to be immutable - not on our past record. Without question, as others have said the ghosts of our involvement in Iraq are having a heavy influence here.
Last edited by TomJoad; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:29.
I may be wrong here so please correct me if I am; didn't we use Article 5 as justification for standing with the US when they went into Afghanistan post 9/11? Again I stand by to be corrected but. I think it was the only time article 5 has been invoked in NATOs history. If so, then intervention only if we are directly threatened, does not appear to be immutable - not on our past record. Without question, as others have said the ghosts of our involvement in Iraq are having a heavy influence here.
Collective defence
The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.
This principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.
This principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty for the first time in its history following the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
Last edited by air pig; 8th Sep 2013 at 17:38.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin Join Rush in Opposing Attack
Conservative talk radio hosts are among those leading the charge in opposition to military action in Syria, offering predictions of dire consequences and criticizing President Barack Obama's strategy.
From Glenn Beck and Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, conservative talk show hosts lashed out at Obama's plans to attack Syria, with Hugh Hewitt one of the few voices supporting the action..........
The opposition is not confined to television and radio airwaves. The website RightWingNews conducted an email poll of conservative bloggers and found overwhelming opposition.
Of the 46 bloggers who responded, 84.8 percent answered "No" to the question of whether they thought Congress should give Obama authorization for any sort of military operation in Syria. Only 7 said that Congress should grant approval.
Conservative talk radio hosts are among those leading the charge in opposition to military action in Syria, offering predictions of dire consequences and criticizing President Barack Obama's strategy.
From Glenn Beck and Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, conservative talk show hosts lashed out at Obama's plans to attack Syria, with Hugh Hewitt one of the few voices supporting the action..........
The opposition is not confined to television and radio airwaves. The website RightWingNews conducted an email poll of conservative bloggers and found overwhelming opposition.
Of the 46 bloggers who responded, 84.8 percent answered "No" to the question of whether they thought Congress should give Obama authorization for any sort of military operation in Syria. Only 7 said that Congress should grant approval.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
Did i get the feeling Kerry's news briefing today was an attempt to move away from Military action?