• 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

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

Do you know what the definition of a "Raid" and "Open Ended" are?


It's worth asking because by definition, a raid is not open ended.
 
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



How does that happen with rescue missions or attempted ones, again?
 
Do you know what the definition of a "Raid" and "Open Ended" are?


It's worth asking because by definition, a raid is not open ended.

Do you know that this raid included boots on the ground?

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.
 
How does that happen with rescue missions or attempted ones, again?

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.
 
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

Why. You haven't offered any evidence of this assertion, meanwhile basic evidence and definitions clearly indicate otherwise.
 
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.

Fair enough. International Law only exists at the sufferance of the states who are willing to enforce it and international law as it relates to issues of war, peace, and human rights exists almost exclusively because the Democratic Community, backed by the United States, has the willingness to uphold it. We should be, and luckily are, perfectly willing to infringe on the edges of that law and those norms in order to further the interests of civilization (the defeat of ISIS), which in turn benefits those very same norms. In other words we can break the rules because we are the ones who have to make sure those norms aren't obliterated. If you want to complain about fairness and equity you can take that toy and bring it back to preschool.
 
Last edited:
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.

Funny how Assad claimed credit for the Attack, huh?



Syrian state television said the Syrian army killed an Islamic State leader responsible for oil-related affairs, identifying him as Abu al-Taym al-Saudi.....snip~
 
Fair enough. International Law only exists at the sufferance of the states who are willing to enforce it and international law as it relates to issues of war, peace, and human rights exists almost exclusively because the Democratic Community, backed by the United States, has the willingness to uphold it. We should be, and luckily are, perfectly willing to infringe on the edges of that law and those norms in order to further the interests of civilization (the defeat of ISIS), which in turn benefits those very same norms. In other words we can break the rules because are the ones who have to make sure those norms aren't obliterated. If you want to complain about fairness and equity you can take that toy and bring it back to preschool.

Ok, but that's a whole other argument which I appreciate you bringing up.
 
Funny how Assad claimed credit for the Attack, huh?



Syrian state television said the Syrian army killed an Islamic State leader responsible for oil-related affairs, identifying him as Abu al-Taym al-Saudi.....snip~

That's hilarious. Is he saying that it was a joint combat mission between the US and Syrian forces?
 
Funny how Assad claimed credit for the Attack, huh?



Syrian state television said the Syrian army killed an Islamic State leader responsible for oil-related affairs, identifying him as Abu al-Taym al-Saudi.....snip~

Yeah, I saw that. If anyone was going to object, it would've been the Syrians. But since they've claimed credit, that's off the table. If the mission had been a failure, there would be some here in the US that would've objected, but since it was a success, I don't think we'll hear any of that. Except for a few here, naturally. So it's one bad guy down...and I'm wondering what AlBigDaddy is feeling about his own security now.
 
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.

I am really trying to read this thread with an open mind and ignore my bias but it is hard to do when you use the Dailybeast as a reference. It does bring up some interesting points tho. I am not sure I agree with those points but it is still interesting.
 
I am really trying to read this thread with an open mind and ignore my bias but it is hard to do when you use the Dailybeast as a reference. It does bring up some interesting points tho. I am not sure I agree with those points but it is still interesting.

The same story has several sources, that was just the one I grabbed. Which one would you prefer, I'll go grab it from them for you. Boots on the ground is mission creep.
 
I don't find it a coincidence that the target has to do with oil fields.
 
Another brave call from the president and a job well done by the commandos, good work US.
But I thought the only way to kill bad dudes was to wage decades long wars. You mean a special operation can get the same thing done with fewer resources? Whew there are some people who sure do look foolish...
 
When you start off with "Russia and China are against it" as your defense for inaction action, your judgement is in question.

Only if you mock international law, which I see the majority of posters on this are quite willing to do.
 
That's hilarious. Is he saying that it was a joint combat mission between the US and Syrian forces?

No, why would he? It was from the same Reuters link.




The White House said the U.S. did not inform Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in advance of the raid, or coordinate with Damascus.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that U.S. special operations forces conducted the operation targeting Abu Sayyaf and his wife. Carter said Abu Sayyaf was involved in the militant organization's military operations and helped direct its "illicit oil, gas and financial operations as well." Carter said the wife "played an important role in ISIL's terrorist activities.

"The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies," Carter said, using an acronym for the Islamic State organization.....snip~

U.S. special forces hit Islamic State in Syria raid
 
The same story has several sources, that was just the one I grabbed. Which one would you prefer, I'll go grab it from them for you. Boots on the ground is mission creep.

It sparked my interest. It is a different way of looking at it. We just accept that we did things legally. I just never thought to question it before. Not saying I agree or disagree, just something to look at later. Usually "bad guy dead = good thing", but I have never been one to think the end justifies the means. I guess what I am saying is that I don't have enough information to have an informed opinion on this one but it is an interesting topic.
 
Correct. ISIS leaders will have to be constantly looking over their shoulders now. No safe havens is one of Obama's pledges.
And unlike Bush, Obama makes sure it's true.
 
No, why would he? It was from the same Reuters link.




The White House said the U.S. did not inform Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in advance of the raid, or coordinate with Damascus.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that U.S. special operations forces conducted the operation targeting Abu Sayyaf and his wife. Carter said Abu Sayyaf was involved in the militant organization's military operations and helped direct its "illicit oil, gas and financial operations as well." Carter said the wife "played an important role in ISIL's terrorist activities.

"The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies," Carter said, using an acronym for the Islamic State organization.....snip~

U.S. special forces hit Islamic State in Syria raid

So Assad was blowing smoke. That figures.
 
It sparked my interest. It is a different way of looking at it. We just accept that we did things legally. I just never thought to question it before. Not saying I agree or disagree, just something to look at later. Usually "bad guy dead = good thing", but I have never been one to think the end justifies the means. I guess what I am saying is that I don't have enough information to have an informed opinion on this one but it is an interesting topic.

That's cool. I hope you come back in with your opinion once it is informed.
 
Do you know that this raid included boots on the ground?

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.

Again, you only demonstrate that you do not understand what a Raid is, nor what a deployment is, nor what "open ended" are in relation to either.



But hey, if you think so, call up their office. See if Van Hollen (for example) believes that the Administration violated the law when it attempted to rescue American hostages last summer.
 
Back
Top Bottom