• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Out of interest have you served in a combat zone?

I have... an inner city gang infested high school... but that combat zone was a tad different to Afghanistan.
 
Congressional approval?

The current president thinks he is above such things. (ie, the LAW)

I have no doubt those that protested the congressional approved (both left and right) invasion of Iraq will try to make comparisons, but of course, Iraq was approved by both sides, and both sides spouted off about them having WMDs.

Big difference between actually going through the motions and have congress approve what they are supposed to approve, vs just attacking another nation. But I doubt many Obama supporters will see the difference or be mad about it.
 
this is a mess ... I understand that we have only one "friend" in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, and we haven't given him much support, so he's probably not even a major player ... I just saw an interview with Richard Engels, one of the few journalists I respect, and he listed the different outcomes, and none of them are very good ... he thinks Syria will end up fragmented, with different groups (including Al-Queada) controlling different parts of the country ... it's what you get with Empire building ... we've had people warning us about that since the Spanish-American War ... I keep hearing that Thursday is the day for the surprise hit ...
 
Wasn't it the USA that was actually attacked? Why wouldn't we do the majority of the work?

Because the treaty doesn't say that. At one time we had almost 500,000 troops in Europe prepared to fight off the Russians and the Warsaw Pact. We placed no conditions on the other treaty members. They got attacked, we fought with them and honestly, until Reagan came along, probably would have gotten whipped right there with them.
 
Because the treaty doesn't say that. At one time we had almost 500,000 troops in Europe prepared to fight off the Russians and the Warsaw Pact. We placed no conditions on the other treaty members. They got attacked, we fought with them and honestly, until Reagan came along, probably would have gotten whipped right there with them.

and yet the Russians left and your bases remain, but of course the US isn't getting anything out of it right? ;)
 
this is a mess ... I understand that we have only one "friend" in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, and we haven't given him much support, so he's probably not even a major player ... I just saw an interview with Richard Engels, one of the few journalists I respect, and he listed the different outcomes, and none of them are very good ... he thinks Syria will end up fragmented, with different groups (including Al-Queada) controlling different parts of the country ... it's what you get with Empire building ... we've had people warning us about that since the Spanish-American War ... I keep hearing that Thursday is the day for the surprise hit ...

I agree, it is a mess because the secularists were mostly annihilated in the early going...

If we know the surprise is Thursday, it won't be much of a surprise, and if chemical weapons were used, they most likely won't be at the previous location...
 
Obviously doesn't compare to the numbers the US put in or even the UK but for a nation like Germany given its history it was a big step and caused a lot of controversy internally.

Internal political pressure is their politicians problem. A treaty works both ways or needs to be trashed. Providing just enough help to be able to say you helped, isn't meeting the spirit or intent of the treaty.
 
Internal political pressure is their politicians problem. A treaty works both ways or needs to be trashed. Providing just enough help to be able to say you helped, isn't meeting the spirit or intent of the treaty.

tell that to the families of the 1100 dead collation soldiers and police forces.
 
So now you say those who serve like Gore and Kerry are Chickenhawks. Got it.

And how many different wings of the republican party are attacking whatever Obama does.

I won't bother you anymore since you're part of America weakening the POTUS just for the sake of it.

Well.....truthfully you can still call Kerry a Chicken hawk.....moreover the Neo Lib is the one that was writing Legislation for nation building in Egypt and Afghanistan. Then getting Johnny Quest McCain to sign along with him.
 
The current president thinks he is above such things. (ie, the LAW)

I have no doubt those that protested the congressional approved (both left and right) invasion of Iraq will try to make comparisons, but of course, Iraq was approved by both sides, and both sides spouted off about them having WMDs.

Big difference between actually going through the motions and have congress approve what they are supposed to approve, vs just attacking another nation. But I doubt many Obama supporters will see the difference or be mad about it.


Well I am not an Obama supporter but am mad about it as I was in Feb/Mar 2003. I listened to the voices that were saying all along that there wasn't WMD in Iraq, that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, that Iraq didn't have a smoking gun and couldn't produce a mushroom cloud over a US city. But those rational voices were drowned out by the, whoops and hollers and the smell of blood and hysteria by the, the vast majority of my countrymen. Hopefully the masses have learned a lesson.
 
and yet the Russians left and your bases remain, but of course the US isn't getting anything out of it right? ;)

No. Most of our bases have long been turned back over to the host nations, except for a few. As always, if any host nation has an objection to our presence, we can pack up and leave from there too. But for some reason, countries seem to want us to stick around.
 
No. Most of our bases have long been turned back over to the host nations, except for a few. As always, if any host nation has an objection to our presence, we can pack up and leave from there too. But for some reason, countries seem to want us to stick around.

lol Yeh would love to watch what would happen if the Germans tried to boot you out...It would not happen.
 
I agree, it is a mess because the secularists were mostly annihilated in the early going...

If we know the surprise is Thursday, it won't be much of a surprise, and if chemical weapons were used, they most likely won't be at the previous location...

I was of course facetious about the "surprise" ... I'm still hoping that we wait for the U.N.'s investigation ...
 
I was of course facetious about the "surprise" ... I'm still hoping that we wait for the U.N.'s investigation ...

Why do you think the President has not called Congress back into session? Hell even Cameron has done so...
 
tell that to the families of the 1100 dead collation soldiers and police forces.

They probably feel somewhat similar about things as I do. While I'm certainly not belittling their individual efforts or sacrifice, in many cases their native countries efforts has shed less than a positive feeling about what it was that they were doing there to begin with.
 
Because the treaty doesn't say that. At one time we had almost 500,000 troops in Europe prepared to fight off the Russians and the Warsaw Pact. We placed no conditions on the other treaty members. They got attacked, we fought with them and honestly, until Reagan came along, probably would have gotten whipped right there with them.

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to stop getting all emotional about this...
 
Why do you think the President has not called Congress back into session? Hell even Cameron has done so...

good question ... there is a lot of info we don't have, but it sure as hell looks like this could be handled better than it has been ... but this part of the world is a bear to figure out ... the farther we stay away from it, the happier I will be ...
 
good question ... there is a lot of info we don't have, but it sure as hell looks like this could be handled better than it has been ... but this part of the world is a bear to figure out ... the farther we stay away from it, the happier I will be ...

The only issue with that portion of the world is our dependence on the Suez Canal and our lack of will to become energy independent so as not to depend on it...

Other than that, I'd say let them work out their own issues...
 
Here is my question to all of this has Syria attacked the USA in anyway, shape, or form? Otherwise why the hell are send our men and woman into harms way. This is crap!
 
The only issue with that portion of the world is our dependence on the Suez Canal and our lack of will to become energy independent so as not to depend on it...

Other than that, I'd say let them work out their own issues...

but is our only option DRILL BABY DRILL?
 
but is our only option DRILL BABY DRILL?

In the short term, yes, but all options should be on the table for the future. I could see NG becoming a major factor while we explore long term solutions...
 
So now you say those who serve like Gore and Kerry are Chickenhawks. Got it.

And how many different wings of the republican party are attacking whatever Obama does.

I won't bother you anymore since you're part of America weakening the POTUS just for the sake of it.

Probably All of them.....just like the Dems do when there a Repub in Office.

Try again.....holding one accountable for their own words and actions is hardly part of weakening America.

Your loss not mine.
shrug.gif
 
The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to stop getting all emotional about this...

Emotional? Not hardly. The wishy washy wording is because of the laws of the US and the role Congress is supposed to play in deciding who we go to war with. It was written that way to met our legal requirements. All parties were satisfied with the wording, congress, the president, other nations and the treaty signed.

If any nation didn't want to honor the treaty, in spirit and intent, they should not have signed it. It's now clear many countries only wanted the benefits of the treaty not the burdens.
 
Here is my question to all of this has Syria attacked the USA in anyway, shape, or form? Otherwise why the hell are send our men and woman into harms way. This is crap!

EXACTLY. But don't come in here and rain on the war mongers parade.
 
Emotional? Not hardly. The wishy washy wording is because of the laws of the US and the role Congress is supposed to play in deciding who we go to war with. It was written that way to met our legal requirements. All parties were satisfied with the wording, congress, the president, other nations and the treaty signed.

If any nation didn't want to honor the treaty, in spirit and intent, they should not have signed it. It's now clear many countries only wanted the benefits of the treaty not the burdens.

Not emotional...? I think that you were in such a blind emotional rage that you didn't read your own post. It was laced with hatred. Fact is that the Treaty does not require members to react with force. Your opinion is just that. Your opinion also does not match the facts. The facts clearly show that 46 other nations sent military personal.
 
Back
Top Bottom