• 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!

U.S. commandos enter Syria, kill Islamic State commander in charge of oil fields

Montecresto said:
WHITE HOUSE HAS NO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HITTING ISIS IN SYRIA
BY JOSH ROGIN 09.23.1412:00 AM ET
The White House has an answer for critics who want to know how the Obama administration can justify striking ISIS inside Syria under international law: If and when we actually do it, we will come up with a legal justification then.

White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria - The Daily Beast

Guess Obama came up with his back door, mission creep excuse.
Click to expand...

Sure we do - the AUMF.

A raid into and out of Syria no more constitutes a campaign involving boots on the ground in Syria than our raid to kill Bin Laden represented an attempted replacement of the government of that country.

But, as usual, you have started with your conclusion, and worked backwards. :) And, as usual, been schooled for your efforts.







Good on the SOF involved - long-range raids like that are inherently dangerous, complex affairs, which they apparently pulled off without a hitch. SOCOM is earning it's budget increase. And a man who deserved to die is dead (it might have been handier if he was captured, but not everyone comes so agreeably), and ISIL will have to replace him.

Unfortunately, they probably can. ISIL is old AQI, and they probably learned well the importance of maintaining a depth of leaders able to quickly step into any billet. Less of a degradation than a (limited) IO victory (now he's a martyr).

There are probably only a couple of individuals in ISIL that we can kill that would actually have significant effects.
 
Montecresto said:
The rule of law, international law, the will of the American people, congressional procedure, US credibility, all things that should interest you too. No i in my UN.
Click to expand...

Law is only legitimate, where it is accepted. Where it is not well made to protect the population, generally applied and robustly enforced It does not cut it. And as international law now stands, it makes security more expensive and increasingly it is becoming a danger, as it is so constructed that the game it defines will end in world war. So don't give me that naive worry about adhering to international law. It needs a whole remake and we need it soon.
 
Montecresto said:
WHITE HOUSE HAS NO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HITTING ISIS IN SYRIA
BY JOSH ROGIN 09.23.1412:00 AM ET
The White House has an answer for critics who want to know how the Obama administration can justify striking ISIS inside Syria under international law: If and when we actually do it, we will come up with a legal justification then.

White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria - The Daily Beast

Guess Obama came up with his back door, mission creep excuse.
Click to expand...



Looks like Meehan says all was good to go this time. So, last time don't mean much now. As mentioned, Congressed has Authorized the use of force against ISIS and AQ.




Meehan said the operation was conducted "with the full consent of Iraqi authorities" and "consistent with domestic and international law." .....snip~

U.S. says its troops killed senior Islamic State leader in Syria raid
 
cpwill said:
Sure we do - the AUMF.

A raid into and out of Syria no more constitutes a campaign involving boots on the ground in Syria than our raid to kill Bin Laden represented an attempted replacement of the government of that country.

But, as usual, you have started with your conclusion, and worked backwards. :) And, as usual, been schooled for your efforts.







Good on the SOF involved - long-range raids like that are inherently dangerous, complex affairs, which they apparently pulled off without a hitch. SOCOM is earning it's budget increase. And a man who deserved to die is dead (it might have been handier if he was captured, but not everyone comes so agreeably), and ISIL will have to replace him.

Unfortunately, they probably can. ISIL is old AQI, and they probably learned well the importance of maintaining a depth of leaders able to quickly step into any billet. Less of a degradation than a (limited) IO victory (now he's a martyr).

There are probably only a couple of individuals in ISIL that we can kill that would actually have significant effects.
Click to expand...

As usual, you carry your inflated opinion of yourself. This constitutes mission creep, as I pointed to in my very first post.
 
MMC said:
Looks like Meehan says all was good to go this time. So, last time don't mean much now. As mentioned, Congressed has Authorized the use of force against ISIS and AQ.




Meehan said the operation was conducted "with the full consent of Iraqi authorities" and "consistent with domestic and international law." .....snip~

U.S. says its troops killed senior Islamic State leader in Syria raid
Click to expand...

Ok, Iraq authorized a US boots on the ground operation in Syria. I understand.
 
joG said:
Law is only legitimate, where it is accepted. Where it is not well made to protect the population, generally applied and robustly enforced It does not cut it. And as international law now stands, it makes security more expensive and increasingly it is becoming a danger, as it is so constructed that the game it defines will end in world war. So don't give me that naive worry about adhering to international law. It needs a whole remake and we need it soon.
Click to expand...

It's still law, change it and then move on.
 
Montecresto said:
Nor the British parliament, nor the US congress, nor 70% of Americans, nor Russia or China. No ones up to the tasks of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

This has everything to do with showing support to the Saudi position on Syria. Big meetings going on over the Iran deal.
 
Montecresto said:
As usual, you carry your inflated opinion of yourself. This constitutes mission creep, as I pointed to in my very first post.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You just said it constitutes 'Mission Creep' without justification. We've been conducting air strikes, raids, and insertions for almost two years now. Moreover this is in line with the litany of raids and special operations we have mounted in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, and many others. There is nothing to indicate that this represents some sort of shift in US policy, instead it represents a continuation of the status quo.
 
Montecresto said:
Ok, Iraq authorized a US boots on the ground operation in Syria. I understand.
Click to expand...

Well on one hand you can call it Syria.....but then ISIS calls it the Islamic State. Since they control the part of Syria that was hit, and the US Troopers had to come thru Iraq. So yes, the Iraqis had to give their consent. As they have been fighting ISIS on the ground that ISIS claims for their State inside Iraq.
 
"White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria - The Daily Beast"

So what? Does ISIS have international legal justification to burn people to death in cages? That has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read.
 
Sherman123 said:
No it doesn't. You just said it constitutes 'Mission Creep' without justification. We've been conducting air strikes, raids, and insertions for almost two years now. Moreover this is in line with the litany of raids and special operations we have mounted in Somalia, Yemen, Libya, the Philippines, and many others. There is nothing to indicate that this represents some sort of shift in US policy, instead it represents a continuation of the status quo.
Click to expand...

Boots on the ground. Oh, and you mention Libya, another abused UN resolution.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Well on one hand you can call it Syria.....but then ISIS calls it the Islamic State. Since they control the part of Syria that was hit, and the US Troopers had to come thru Iraq. So yes, the Iraqis had to give their consent. As they have been fighting ISIS on the ground that ISIS claims for their State inside Iraq.
Click to expand...

Consent to launch from Iraq, ok. Let's see how this shakes out.
 
fmw said:
"White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria - The Daily Beast"

So what? Does ISIS have international legal justification to burn people to death in cages? That has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read.
Click to expand...

Hey it's all good. People just need to stop trotting out international law when pointing fingers at Russia and China then.
 
Montecresto said:
Hey it's all good. People just need to stop trotting out international law when pointing fingers at Russia and China then.
Click to expand...

When you can show Russia and China aggressively looking to kill terrorists in Syria or Iraq. Then they can talk.....until then they don't have anything to say.

As the Saud and Sunni back the move. So that's most of the ME.

Oh and actually, consent from Congress and from BO to.....one must have that too.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
We had boots on the ground in Libya too, wink wink, nod nod.
Click to expand...

Having acknowledged that we have had 'boots on the ground' in Syria numerous times before this raid I think we can both agree that calling it 'mission creep' is disingenuous. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it mission creep.
 
LeoVlaming said:
Always better to go and kill jihadi terrorists in their own backyard, rather than wait for them to come to you.
Click to expand...

Not according to the lead from behind crowd. (What an oxymoron.)
 
Sherman123 said:
Having acknowledged that we have had 'boots on the ground' in Syria numerous times before this raid I think we can both agree that calling it 'mission creep' is disingenuous. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it mission creep.
Click to expand...

The first time was mission creep, what's your point?
 
Montecresto said:
Boots on the ground. Oh, and you mention Libya, another abused UN resolution.
Click to expand...

Let's hope they're off the ground & out of there today. Our underfunded Military hospitals & cemeteries are full enough



Thanks
 
Montecresto said:
WHITE HOUSE HAS NO INTERNATIONAL LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HITTING ISIS IN SYRIA
BY JOSH ROGIN 09.23.1412:00 AM ET
The White House has an answer for critics who want to know how the Obama administration can justify striking ISIS inside Syria under international law: If and when we actually do it, we will come up with a legal justification then.

White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria - The Daily Beast

Guess Obama came up with his back door, mission creep excuse.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares.
Feel free to open a R.I.P thread to the ISIL scumbag.

:shrug:
 
Montecresto said:
The first time was mission creep, what's your point?
Click to expand...

Lol, so this wasn't mission creep then--end of discussion.

By the way you haven't made any effort to explain how our raids and hostage rescue missions have been mission creep. The mission has been to retard the growth of, and if possible diminish, the Islamic State. From the very beginning this involved air strikes, hostage rescue missions, special operations raids, supply drops, evacuations, etc. By definition if it falls within the scope of the stated mission and involves activities we've been doing from the beginning it isn't mission creep.
 
Sherman123 said:
Lol, so this wasn't mission creep then--end of discussion.

By the way you haven't made any effort to explain how our raids and hostage rescue missions have been mission creep. The mission has been to retard the growth of, and if possible diminish, the Islamic State. From the very beginning this involved air strikes, hostage rescue missions, special operations raids, supply drops, evacuations, etc. By definition if it falls within the scope of the stated mission and involves activities we've been doing from the beginning it isn't mission creep.
Click to expand...

Any boots on the ground in Syria anytime is mission creep.

In an effort to address congressional qualms about the prospect of air strikes on Syria turning into a far broader, open-ended military operation, Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) on Tuesday said they were drafting a resolution that would put sharp limits on the scope and authority that lawmakers would give President Obama to conduct the attack.

As proposed by Van Hollen and Connolly, the resolution would have four major components:

●A legally binding stipulation that no ground troops would be deployed.

Reps. Chris Van Hollen, Gerry Connolly draft narrow authorization of force in Syria - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
As usual, you carry your inflated opinion of yourself.
Click to expand...

images


This constitutes mission creep, as I pointed to in my very first post.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Mission Creep involves the importation of new missions to justify continued presence or simply out of inertia. The mission (Kill ISIL leadership, degrade the organization) was the focus of this strike. It doesn't represent a new mission, it represents a new attack method (SOF) that includes a "Capture" potential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom