The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
No, they are medals and ribbons. His highest medal is the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, a minor, non-combat medal. The ribbons are for such rubbish as overseas tours served, shooting qualification, and even military training courses completed. He's no hero.
No, they are medals and ribbons. His highest medal is the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, a minor, non-combat medal. The ribbons are for such rubbish as overseas tours served, shooting qualification, and even military training courses completed. He's no hero.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Hot air: Heath's view on the Commons
August 29, 2013: The moment that the House of Commons voted against military action in Syria
Read the rest of this article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408040/ANDREW-ROBERTS-Hideously-amoral-Little-England-stepped-looking-glass.html#ixzz2dePm0svt
Hideously amoral Little England has stepped through the looking glass: A top historian's deeply personal - and inflammatory - critique of where Britain now stands on the world stage
By ANDREW ROBERTS
Daily Mail
31st August 2013
Daily Mail
31st August 2013
Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency.
A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.
The Britain we have lost is the one that took its historic responsibilities as a former Great Power seriously and sought to enforce international agreements, such as those banning the use of chemical weapons.
Hot air: Heath's view on the Commons
The Britain we must now look forward to is the one exemplified by Danny Boyle’s Olympics opening ceremony, where everything socialistic, feel-goody, hipster and ‘progressive’ was glorified, whereas the things we should really be proud about Britain for – such as her place in the front lines of the struggles against Fascism, Communism, Islamofascism and other totalitarian ideologies – were entirely ignored.
Where were the references to Winston Churchill, 1940 or the Battle of Britain? They were replaced by children jumping up and down on NHS beds.
I don’t recognise this culturally, socially and morally very different country. On Thursday night the majority of our Parliament knew that they had nothing to fear from their constituents if they indulged in a gross display of Little Englandism, in stark contrast to centuries of traditionally supporting the victims of monstrous oppression.
And nothing qualifies as worse oppression than having at least 1,429 innocents slaughtered – 400 of those children – with a weapon so obscene that the world came together in Geneva in 1925 to outlaw it. The only people to have used this monstrous weapon since then have been Benito Mussolini against the Ethiopians in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler in his war against the Jews in the 1940s, and Saddam Hussein in his massacre of the Kurds in the 1980s. In each case Britain was in the van of nations that led to their downfall. Yet we will now not be with President Assad.
The re-emergence of this foul weapon in the Damascus suburb ought to have – especially as we prepare to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War – brought together the House of Commons in solemn support of the Prime Minister’s commendable efforts to punish Assad for taking it out of history’s Pandora’s Box and unleashing it on his own people.
August 29, 2013: The moment that the House of Commons voted against military action in Syria
Yet instead Mr Cameron’s initiative, which stood foursquare in the historical tradition of previous prime ministers faced with such a crime, was voted down. Have we really been so traumatised by the decision to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 that we cannot even fire a few missiles at a vicious dictator like Assad? If so, Britain’s days as a power that deserves its prominent position in Nato and the United Nations Security Council are going to come to an end.
Our ineptitude is compounded by U.S president Barack Obama’s decisive statement last night that military strikes are needed. Yes, he is seeking congressional authority. But he has also declared that he will take unilateral action and ‘confront the menace’ alone.
Of course there are plenty of Britons who would love to see Britain relegated to the sidelines of world history, and simply opt for the quiet life. All too often, we see on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, a new generation who want Britain to become just another minor power that watches events from the sidelines: another Norway, Japan, Sweden or Ireland. Somewhere that likes to be liked. Lovely countries all, but they do not matter on the world stage like Britain did – until Thursday night.
The scourge of moral relativism, the theory that nothing – no action, no statement, no work of art – is inherently better or worse than any other, has now even infected foreign policy.
The assumption that in the cultural sphere everything must be judged according to its own criteria rather than any outside ones – and thus Coldplay are as good as Bach – has seeped into our national consciousness and wrecked our notions of good and evil in international affairs.
Our ineptitude is compounded by U.S president Barack Obama’s decisive statement last night that military strikes are needed. Yes, he is seeking congressional authority. But he has also declared that he will take unilateral action and ‘confront the menace’ alone.
Of course there are plenty of Britons who would love to see Britain relegated to the sidelines of world history, and simply opt for the quiet life. All too often, we see on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, a new generation who want Britain to become just another minor power that watches events from the sidelines: another Norway, Japan, Sweden or Ireland. Somewhere that likes to be liked. Lovely countries all, but they do not matter on the world stage like Britain did – until Thursday night.
The scourge of moral relativism, the theory that nothing – no action, no statement, no work of art – is inherently better or worse than any other, has now even infected foreign policy.
The assumption that in the cultural sphere everything must be judged according to its own criteria rather than any outside ones – and thus Coldplay are as good as Bach – has seeped into our national consciousness and wrecked our notions of good and evil in international affairs.
Read the rest of this article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2408040/ANDREW-ROBERTS-Hideously-amoral-Little-England-stepped-looking-glass.html#ixzz2dePm0svt
Last edited:
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Well- not quite.
Congress is quite capable of formulating its own 'war objectives' and passing the bills that empower them.
Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process—legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. However, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills
Wiki..
Which means that the current house of Representatives would have to quit behaving like Fraggle Rock. Ant the Senate has to 'lead'.
Only partly. Congress ahs to 'propose and authorise war'. Sarah is trying to play ' heads we win, tails you lose'. The Potus is authorised to 'act in the defense of the United States'.
Like, say, the Gulf of Tonkin'.
ohh- sorry ,that was 'faked up'
Let me think,, ;like...Pearl harbour. Yeah. Pearl harbour.
Well- not quite.
Congress is quite capable of formulating its own 'war objectives' and passing the bills that empower them.
Article I of the Constitution states "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process—legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. However, the Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills
Wiki..
Which means that the current house of Representatives would have to quit behaving like Fraggle Rock. Ant the Senate has to 'lead'.
Only partly. Congress ahs to 'propose and authorise war'. Sarah is trying to play ' heads we win, tails you lose'. The Potus is authorised to 'act in the defense of the United States'.
Like, say, the Gulf of Tonkin'.
ohh- sorry ,that was 'faked up'
Let me think,, ;like...Pearl harbour. Yeah. Pearl harbour.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
~Yay Britian!!!~
No difference in using poison gas on your own people or in sending them off to war.
dead is dead
and joined the ranks of those who have learned to mind their own business and put their own people's safety first.
~Yay Britian!!!~
No difference in using poison gas on your own people or in sending them off to war.
dead is dead
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
right. But we still don't know who used the gas. Supposing it's the rebels. So we'll attack Assad to help the rebels win and potentially form a new government? Sure the US says it does not intend regime change. But then what's the point of the attacks. They will still weaken Assad, making easier for the rebels to win.
Not a wise move when we don't even know who actually used the gas.
right. But we still don't know who used the gas. Supposing it's the rebels. So we'll attack Assad to help the rebels win and potentially form a new government? Sure the US says it does not intend regime change. But then what's the point of the attacks. They will still weaken Assad, making easier for the rebels to win.
Not a wise move when we don't even know who actually used the gas.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
:violent3:<----- bad Sarah... :smile:
Hm, always an angle huh? Got sucked up in the emotion of the moment and the fact that she formed paragraphs.Only partly. Congress ahs to 'propose and authorise war'. Sarah is trying to play ' heads we win, tails you lose'. The Potus is authorised to 'act in the defense of the United States'.
Like, say, the Gulf of Tonkin'.
ohh- sorry ,that was 'faked up'
Let me think,, ;like...Pearl harbour. Yeah. Pearl harbour.
:violent3:<----- bad Sarah... :smile:
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Oh, dear.
Alright, folks, let me give you a brief primer on international relations under the U.S. Constitution.
First, hunboldt is mostly right. All this amateur interpretation of the Constitution is just politics. Here is the real skinny. . .
1. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare War." U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10.
2. The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 1.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court has been very cautious in interpreting these provisions in the Constitution, such that it basically hasn't ruled on the respective powers of the Congress and the President in military actions.
4. Everything else is pure BS. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq, and the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Al Qaeda are all cast in precisely the same format as the Declaration of War in WWII, i.e., as a joint resolution of Congress. (A joint resolution means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to approve the resolution. It is less than an Act of Congress, but the next-best thing in lawmaking.)
5. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires a declaration of war to say "Declaration of War" at the top in 24-point Gothic typeface. How the Congress declares war is left undefined.
6. The courts have typically held that the conduct of foreign affairs is exclusively in the powers of the President, except where the Constitution specifies that the President must seek Congressional approval, as in the approval (NOT "ratification") of treaties and the declaration of war).
Because of this, LEGALLY the President can deploy and employ the Army and Navy (and presumably the Air Force and possibly the future Space Force) as he pleases. Whether or not he needs a declaration of war has never been tested.
ALL of this is "a political question," which is the phrase the Supreme Court uses when it wants to stay the hell out of the issue. There is almost NO definitive law as to when or if the President needs the approval of Congress to go kill people and blow sh*t up.
The so-called War Powers Act, which is actually the War Powers Resolution, has never been tested in the courts.
So, yeah, it's an open question. Anybody who cites this or that "law" in the debate is ignorant, a fool, or a partisan hack.
End of.
Oh, dear.
Alright, folks, let me give you a brief primer on international relations under the U.S. Constitution.
First, hunboldt is mostly right. All this amateur interpretation of the Constitution is just politics. Here is the real skinny. . .
1. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to declare War." U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 10.
2. The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 1.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court has been very cautious in interpreting these provisions in the Constitution, such that it basically hasn't ruled on the respective powers of the Congress and the President in military actions.
4. Everything else is pure BS. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq, and the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Al Qaeda are all cast in precisely the same format as the Declaration of War in WWII, i.e., as a joint resolution of Congress. (A joint resolution means that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to approve the resolution. It is less than an Act of Congress, but the next-best thing in lawmaking.)
5. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires a declaration of war to say "Declaration of War" at the top in 24-point Gothic typeface. How the Congress declares war is left undefined.
6. The courts have typically held that the conduct of foreign affairs is exclusively in the powers of the President, except where the Constitution specifies that the President must seek Congressional approval, as in the approval (NOT "ratification") of treaties and the declaration of war).
Because of this, LEGALLY the President can deploy and employ the Army and Navy (and presumably the Air Force and possibly the future Space Force) as he pleases. Whether or not he needs a declaration of war has never been tested.
ALL of this is "a political question," which is the phrase the Supreme Court uses when it wants to stay the hell out of the issue. There is almost NO definitive law as to when or if the President needs the approval of Congress to go kill people and blow sh*t up.
The so-called War Powers Act, which is actually the War Powers Resolution, has never been tested in the courts.
So, yeah, it's an open question. Anybody who cites this or that "law" in the debate is ignorant, a fool, or a partisan hack.
End of.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Well, at least we know that when we decide what to do and when to do it, we won't have to "seek the input" of a bunch of moronic Brits in stupid-looking wigs. "Rats peering through bunches of oakum" is how Thomas Jefferson put it.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
I think it's more like refusing to believe, not "don't know" who used the gas. We do know gas was used, and apparently the circumstances surrounding the product, the volume and the delivery method point to Assad's military. And with the new-age NSA eavesdropping I'm sure they have bolstered the theory with a ton of electronic evidence.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
It's called tradition. You know, that thing which the British are very good at. The tradition of putting on white wigs began in the 17th century when the balding Louis XIV started wearing it out of vanity. The trend spread to England, Scotland and Ireland in the 1660s when King Charles II of those three then-kingdoms returned from the French court and judges and the House of Lords adopted the fashion, as well as the ordinary man. British, most other Commonwealth, and Irish judges today are amongst the people who still wear them.
Judges also wear white wigs for anonymity and self identification.
It's called tradition. You know, that thing which the British are very good at. The tradition of putting on white wigs began in the 17th century when the balding Louis XIV started wearing it out of vanity. The trend spread to England, Scotland and Ireland in the 1660s when King Charles II of those three then-kingdoms returned from the French court and judges and the House of Lords adopted the fashion, as well as the ordinary man. British, most other Commonwealth, and Irish judges today are amongst the people who still wear them.
Judges also wear white wigs for anonymity and self identification.
Last edited:
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Don't you just love killing people who are killing people who are killing people? When I wrote the preceding question, I really didn't know when to stop. but I knew the relationship was transitive.
Don't you just love killing people who are killing people who are killing people? When I wrote the preceding question, I really didn't know when to stop. but I knew the relationship was transitive.
Last edited:
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Ok I surrender...
I get rather cynical when political partisanship redefines the 'issues'. In theory, the United Nations is supposed to impose sanctions against Syria, and member states of the UN ' buy in '.
In reality, Alfred Thayer Mahan was right. The best you can really do is 'dominate the Littoral'. sometimes...
Ok I surrender...
I get rather cynical when political partisanship redefines the 'issues'. In theory, the United Nations is supposed to impose sanctions against Syria, and member states of the UN ' buy in '.
In reality, Alfred Thayer Mahan was right. The best you can really do is 'dominate the Littoral'. sometimes...
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
As Putin put it, show the proof.
I'm not saying Assad's regime didn't do it, but I'm also not going to blindly just trust the NSA either. If Assad did indeed do it, and the NSA has incontrovertible proof of this, then show it.
The 'coalition of the willing' was fooled once for Iraq; they won't be fooled again.
As Putin put it, show the proof.
I'm not saying Assad's regime didn't do it, but I'm also not going to blindly just trust the NSA either. If Assad did indeed do it, and the NSA has incontrovertible proof of this, then show it.
The 'coalition of the willing' was fooled once for Iraq; they won't be fooled again.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Go back to sleep, old, toothless, arthritic Lion of Britain. We'll take it from here.
Yes, it's called "tradition." And it's why you're useless.
Go back to sleep, old, toothless, arthritic Lion of Britain. We'll take it from here.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
And, another question. Why do Doctors Without Borders say the death toll was 355?
And, another question. Why do Doctors Without Borders say the death toll was 355?
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Tradition is blind imitation of the past without understanding of its initial purpose. I want nothing to do with it.
Tradition is blind imitation of the past without understanding of its initial purpose. I want nothing to do with it.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
Britain - and the whole world - without traditions would be a very horrible place to live.
Britain - and the whole world - without traditions would be a very horrible place to live.
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria
How so? The way I see it, a 'tradition' we continue to follow out of understanding of its current applicability is not what I would call tradition.
But once it's outlived its purpose or we've even forgotten the initial purpose, then yes, it's tradition, but that is just blind.
The world progresses by applying the mind, not through blind imitation.
How so? The way I see it, a 'tradition' we continue to follow out of understanding of its current applicability is not what I would call tradition.
But once it's outlived its purpose or we've even forgotten the initial purpose, then yes, it's tradition, but that is just blind.
The world progresses by applying the mind, not through blind imitation.
Re: "The U.S. Should Act"
Anybody who thinks protecting our forces is not worth doing is an imbecile.
And has obviously never served.
So, how 'bout it, Slowcutus? Give us your experienced military evaluation of the situation.
Anybody who thinks protecting our forces is not worth doing is an imbecile.
And has obviously never served.
So, how 'bout it, Slowcutus? Give us your experienced military evaluation of the situation.