Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.
Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.
Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
I didn't find the Libya airstrikes legal and I don't see these as legal either. Congress should be hauling their asses back into Washington and the President should have required authorization --- but..... this is an election year so "legal shmeagle" is acceptable.
Did you listen to obama's speech at the UN today? That might clear your vision a little.
Did you listen to obama's speech at the UN today? That might clear your vision a little.
Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.
Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Did you listen to obama's speech at the UN today? That might clear your vision a little.
Deeply pondering the situation I realized that not one world leader sought my opinion... as if my opinion doesn't matter. So in full rebel mode, I announce...., I really don't give a damn!
The U.S. admin is so far beyond inept there is not a properly descriptive term for it's malfeasance. This admin appears to base actions solely upon expected U.S political results.
Thom Paine
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.
Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Hi Thom!
Thought I would edit that rather fine and eloquent piece to spiff it up a bit and give it authenticity.
The U.S. admin is so far in excess of inept there is not a properly descriptive term for it's malfeasance. This admin's are actions solely based upon expected U.S political results.
According to Iraq's constitutional entitlements, the government of Iraq can use force internally to defeat an armed movement that has imposed itself forcibly upon a significant part of its territory.Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?
Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?
Nothing has been proven to be a clear and present danger. If anything it's murky and unknown. Hardly adequate.
If anything it's murky and unknown. Hardly adequate.Nothing has been proven to be a clear and present danger.
Howdy FAL,
:mrgreen: Excellent 'word-smithing' sir; deserving my properly humbled thank you for improving the clarity of my exasperation.
(notation: "in excess of inept" use often.)
Hat tip to you sir.
Celebrate an island day.
Thom Paine
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.
Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
No, and that's why they didn't start a war yet.Was Al Qaeda a clear and present danger before 9/11?
Should we wait until ISIS kills a few thousand people in the USA before we go after them?
What do you think?
No, and that's why they didn't start a war yet.
Under the assume of potential or possible attacks every country could do the same.
However, the airstrikes are really necessary, based on what ISIS is. (that's for the morale side)
But, what is US giving to the world as example by ignoring the international tools.
What would we say if Russia or China would follow the same example.
'Judge Napolitano on Syria Strikes: 'Obama Doesn't Care About the Law, Wants to Win Votes for Dems'
Judge Napolitano: Syria Airstrikes Illegal Under Constitution, Obama Acting for Political Reasons | Fox News Insider
"He is the first president in American history repeatedly to use the military without even asking for Congressional authorization," said Napolitano.