The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it

Merge the Syria Threads

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Total voters
    6
C

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

Blackleaf said:
I believe we should recognise that Syrian civilians, including children, are being maimed and killed by their own government, who are also breaking international treaties in using chemical weapons.

I believe we should take military action against the Syrian regime and out an end to it. I don't believe we should stand by and let these atrocities continue.

The only BS going around is spewed out of the mouths of those who want to stand by and do nothing to end these human rights abuses.
Click to expand...
There is just as much evidence that the gas was used by the western backed rebels, who, BTW are our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does any of this make sense? You are buying the government and media BS without critical thought. I believe there is a name for that condition.
 
C

Christianna

Electoral Member
Dec 18, 2012
868
0
16
Re: Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitate

Tecumsehsbones said:
Don't forget giving money by the wheelbarrowful to the Fortune 500 and the big banks, to help them illegally foreclose on people's homes quicker.
Click to expand...
Except unlike when Bush gave money away, Obama expected the money he "gave" companies to be paid back. I call that a loan.
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,927
1,910
113
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

Cliffy said:
There is just as much evidence that the gas was used by the western backed rebels, who, BTW are our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does any of this make sense? You are buying the government and media BS without critical thought. I believe there is a name for that condition.
Click to expand...

The US Government and even NATO are almost certain it was an attack perpetrated by the Assad regime.

And soon I'm almost certain that will be confirmed when the UN inspectors give us the lab results.

When that proof is released - which I'm certain it will - then military action will justifiably take place against the Syrian regime. And the Syrian people, who are crying out for help, will be thankful for it.

That proof may then force a re-vote in the House of Commons and then Britain may then rightfully re-take her place amongst the nations fighting dictators and human rights abuses and putting an end to it.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,412
14,305
113
Low Earth Orbit
Re: Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitate

B00Mer said:
Watch the Ron Paul video.. the neo-cons wanted the last war and want this one.. of course, it's all money in their rich buddies pockets..

I'm starting to think Obama is a better Republican than Democrat.

I mean everything he had promised to his "Democrat" voters, close Gitmo, Health Care (which is coming apart) and Immigration Reform, well never happened..

Now, Drone strikes, war in Syria and soon. huh. He's a Republican plant!! LOL :)
Click to expand...
tHE ONLY rEPUBLICANS AND dEMOCRATS RUNNING THE usa ARE THE ONES IN PEOPLE'S HEADS.

DAMN CAPS LOCK..FUK IT, I'm NOT FIXING IT.
 
C

Christianna

Electoral Member
Dec 18, 2012
868
0
16
Re: Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitate

taxslave said:
Obama can't loose this one. The right will vote against military action simply because Obama proposed it. It will be very hard for them to later demand that the US interfere.
Click to expand...
I do believe the idea of asking congress for permission is hilarious. Those warmongers have wanted Obama to "do something" about Syria , now they don't want him to do something. Poor old John McCain will be so damn confused, He just might have to put his vote where his mouth is. Obama wins either way.
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,412
14,305
113
Low Earth Orbit
Re: British Parliament votes against British military involvement in Syria

 
hunboldt

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
Re: Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitate

EagleSmack said:
What law is he following?

You do understand that Obama does not need congressional approval to strike Syria right?

That IS the fact.
Click to expand...

Not quite, and I quoth the T-Bone:





+3
#214Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

1 day ago

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.



Republican cat, on occasion, but usually farther right ....


1,432 since May 2013


at my keyboard









+1
#215Re: "The U.S. Should Act"

1 day ago
 
B00Mer

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Re: Syria hails 'historic American retreat' as Obama hesitate

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=a09ea2f4ec11

You might want to listen to that video a few times, and really listen to the words.. then think about what has been hidden from the public recently, or the attack on whistle blowers like Snowden.

Kennedy was a great man and humanitarian. To bad the mold was broken and none has followed since.
 
SLM

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Re: Merge the Syria Threads

Why? They'll just be replaced by Obama threads, or whatever threads. Six of one, half a dozen of the other I'd say.

Want to see less of one topic? Post more threads with many different topics, that's how I look at it.
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Re: Merge the Syria Threads

SLM said:
Why? They'll just be replaced by Obama threads, or whatever threads. Six of one, half a dozen of the other I'd say.

Want to see less of one topic? Post more threads with many different topics, that's how I look at it.
Click to expand...

Easier to follow the different posts when in one thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom