• 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!

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 54.2%

  • No

    Votes: 11 45.8%
  • Total voters
    24
Thom Paine said:
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
Click to expand...

I've been doing a lot of pondering as well which has resulted in anger, disgust, and frustration. The poll asked if we thought the airstrikes in Syria were legal. Whether one supports them or not, what happened to asking Congress for approval? Criticism of the air strikes is bipartisan, ranging from concern over mission creep to waging war unilaterally. I asked myself how much more we can ask of the military and the taxpayers without Congress having a debate? But instead, Obama waited till Congress recessed to wage an air war in Syria. Was it politically driven so as to not have any members of Congress within his own party on record of a vote just before a mid-term election? Me thinks so. Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country. President Obama seems confused about the nature of the threat. It's obvious in his previous decisions in regard to Iraq and other engagements, his desire to gut the military budget in regard to aircraft and ammunitions prior to waging an air war is feckless, his complete fecklessness in refusing to secure our borders or reforming our visa programs and allowing those citizens who engaged in fighting along ISIS to freely re-enter this country on their passports is someone who is clueless. Yes I damn well care cause the next victims of these bastards may be me, my neighbor, a loved one.....all because of asinine decisions made in the name of politics with no end game in sight while making all of us less safe.
 
vesper said:
I've been doing a lot of pondering as well which has resulted in anger, disgust, and frustration. The poll asked if we thought the airstrikes in Syria were legal. Whether one supports them or not, what happened to asking Congress for approval? Criticism of the air strikes is bipartisan, ranging from concern over mission creep to waging war unilaterally. I asked myself how much more we can ask of the military and the taxpayers without Congress having a debate? But instead, Obama waited till Congress recessed to wage an air war in Syria. Was it politically driven so as to not have any members of Congress within his own party on record of a vote just before a mid-term election? Me thinks so. Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country. President Obama seems confused about the nature of the threat. It's obvious in his previous decisions in regard to Iraq and other engagements, his desire to gut the military budget in regard to aircraft and ammunitions prior to waging an air war is feckless, his complete fecklessness in refusing to secure our borders or reforming our visa programs and allowing those citizens who engaged in fighting along ISIS to freely re-enter this country on their passports is someone who is clueless. Yes I damn well care cause the next victims of these bastards may be me, my neighbor, a loved one.....all because of asinine decisions made in the name of politics with no end game in sight while making all of us less safe.
Click to expand...

Actually, Vesper, I care. I'm tired of this admin; it is becoming obvious that all decisions are based upon U.S. political outcome. Political party before country; not something new but finely honed by the admin presently in office.

We get what we deserve. A majority put those folk there.

Celebrate something good

Thom Paine
 
Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly Obama does not make a move that does does affect his political leanings.
 
shrubnose said:
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?
Click to expand...

Using that logic - we should be on high alert 100% of the time since 2001. We're not - why do you think? Should we wait until ISIS kills a few thousand people? Yes. I also think that Congress should vote on using the military before they are used. I think this is illegal just like Libya was illegal (and didn't Libya work out oh so well too?)
 
Legal by whose laws?

Are we talking Syrian Law here?
International Law?
United States Federal Law?
Constitutional Law? (If so, by whose Constitution?)
Po-dunk Alabamian Law?
Tea Bagger Delusional quack pot law?
 
Thom Paine said:
Actually, Vesper, I care. I'm tired of this admin; it is becoming obvious that all decisions are based upon U.S. political outcome. Political party before country; not something new but finely honed by the admin presently in office.

We get what we deserve. A majority put those folk there.

Celebrate something good

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

Keep going!

The more people awaken to that the sooner things change. As long as voters continue to affirm the status quo, nothing changes. In this case the American people were sold a dream that was really a myth, "yes we can" became "yes, I can" by an incompetent rookie outsider who believes his own press. Then, the nation was frightened into doing it again, simply by convincing 45% of voters the other guy was the devil incarnate ready to kill gays and eat babies.
 
Coin said:
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Click to expand...

I think retaliatory raids or air strikes for something another nation or today I would include an terrorist organization with no authorization from congress perfectly legal and I have no problem with them. But a sustained bombing campaign such as Libya or ISIS today that authorization from congress should be requested.

Having said that, I keep hearing this bombing of ISIS is done IAW some resolution, law, legislation passed during the Bush II administration. I don't remember it and it could very well be. But if this thing, bombing which is expected to go on for years getting congress authorization I think should be done regardless of what resolution, legislation, law or whatever was passed during Bush II.

So I am not sure if it is legal or not. Frankly I think it is needed. But I would feel a lot better about it if congress gave it approval. Something planned and scheduled to last years is not a retaliatory strike. I would like to see congress declare war on ISIS and bring the full weight of the USA to bear on them. No silly resolution which is not more than an opinion of congress. Do the real deal. Half measures and limited this and limited that will only make the situation worse. Do it right or do not do it.
 
Coin said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're just playing with words. You are bombing a foreign country with military power, let's call that baseball.

FFS, war is war. This bull**** started by the ever progressive bubble head Harry Truman in declaring the invasion of North Korea by 100 thousand troops a "police action" How long did the democrat slime Lyndon Johnson play word games with Vietnam; let's call that badmonton.

Look, the tripe who have been defending this turd of a president have been whining about BUSH for six years, a virtual daily sob fest about all his perceived failings as a president.

But you cannot escape the truth, Bush did what presidents are supposed to do, he sought approval from congress and got it, by a HUGE majority.

Obama instead is running his own private baseball game, his way, his rules, congress can go **** itself....obviously because he's too much of a coward to want to have to face the people he called "enemies" and whom he's been bashing since he walked into office. Payback is a bitch, and Obama is too afraid to eat his.
 
Perotista said:
I think retaliatory raids or air strikes for something another nation or today I would include an terrorist organization with no authorization from congress perfectly legal and I have no problem with them. But a sustained bombing campaign such as Libya or ISIS today that authorization from congress should be requested.

Having said that, I keep hearing this bombing of ISIS is done IAW some resolution, law, legislation passed during the Bush II administration. I don't remember it and it could very well be. But if this thing, bombing which is expected to go on for years getting congress authorization I think should be done regardless of what resolution, legislation, law or whatever was passed during Bush II.

So I am not sure if it is legal or not. Frankly I think it is needed. But I would feel a lot better about it if congress gave it approval. Something planned and scheduled to last years is not a retaliatory strike. I would like to see congress declare war on ISIS and bring the full weight of the USA to bear on them. No silly resolution which is not more than an opinion of congress. Do the real deal. Half measures and limited this and limited that will only make the situation worse. Do it right or do not do it.
Click to expand...



If such a measure was passed in the Bush administration why did he bother seeking and getting full approval by congress?

Look, the left is reeling because Obama is exposes as a lesser president than Bush, the man who voted "present" is afraid to have to face the same attitude to HIS war.
 
Fearandloathing said:
If such a measure was passed in the Bush administration why did he bother seeking and getting full approval by congress?

Look, the left is reeling because Obama is exposes as a lesser president than Bush, the man who voted "present" is afraid to have to face the same attitude to HIS war.
Click to expand...

With the potential ISIS has along with it billions to do damage to the United States, I wouldn't call this Obama's war. It is America's war. Although what the president got from congress was 500 million to train Syrian Rebels, not authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria.

Obama Authorized ISIS Strikes in Syria, and Congress Is OK With That | New Republic

Now using half measures trying to check ISIS and half measures in my opinion will not defeat ISIS, this bombing campaign lasting years may very well become Obama's war like Vietnam was Johnson's war.
 
Coin said:
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Click to expand...
You do realize IS and Damascus are bitter enemy's and that by arming rebel groups in Syria we gave IS weapons and power.

Not to mention toppling Saddam, which basically broke the middle east, because his authoritarian government was the only thing stopping the Sunni, shia, and Kurds from all trying to kill each other.

Frankly i think bombing IS plays right into their hands. It will bolster their numbers in ways they can only dream, and they know it.

Technically we have not had a legally (in terms of the constitution) declared war since the last time congress formally declared it, which was WWII. They authorize military actions all the time under the war powers act, an act that goes directly against the constitution.

The smart thing to do would be appeal to the un, not give Putin more excuses to go invading country's that did not attack him/us.
 
Ockham said:
Nothing has been proven to be a clear and present danger. If anything it's murky and unknown. Hardly adequate.
Click to expand...
No.

Not to us, but to Iraq and the surrounding area, ISIS/IS is a clear and present danger that needs to be eradicated. The only question is the methods to meet that goal.
 
Coin said:
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Only had Obama sought and secured a declaration of war against the Islamic state from congress, and only if he sought and secured president Assad's permission to enter Syrian airspace. And Obama's wagging a disapproving finger at Putin, lol. US policy, doesn't matter whether democratic or republican president, is hypocritical.
 
joG said:
Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?
Click to expand...

Failed State, as some presumed criticism of president Assad! Western powers along with a little help from a few Arab states have supported all manner of AQ, MB, Al Nusra infested Syrian opposition fighters who have seriously weakened president Assad, and then he's to be blamed for the rise of the Islamic State. :doh
 
Perotista said:
I think retaliatory raids or air strikes for something another nation or today I would include an terrorist organization with no authorization from congress perfectly legal and I have no problem with them. But a sustained bombing campaign such as Libya or ISIS today that authorization from congress should be requested.

Having said that, I keep hearing this bombing of ISIS is done IAW some resolution, law, legislation passed during the Bush II administration. I don't remember it and it could very well be. But if this thing, bombing which is expected to go on for years getting congress authorization I think should be done regardless of what resolution, legislation, law or whatever was passed during Bush II.

So I am not sure if it is legal or not. Frankly I think it is needed. But I would feel a lot better about it if congress gave it approval. Something planned and scheduled to last years is not a retaliatory strike. I would like to see congress declare war on ISIS and bring the full weight of the USA to bear on them. No silly resolution which is not more than an opinion of congress. Do the real deal. Half measures and limited this and limited that will only make the situation worse. Do it right or do not do it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about sovereign borders too.
 
Van Basten said:
No.

Not to us, but to Iraq and the surrounding area, ISIS/IS is a clear and present danger that needs to be eradicated. The only question is the methods to meet that goal.
Click to expand...
We are the biggest clear and present danger to the people of ME. (Excluding Israel) Not IS. We made a fertile breeding ground for groups like IS, and then confounded it by arming them in Syria. We caused this whole situation. IS is just capitalizing on the instability we caused in the region...
 
b_dubz said:
We are the biggest clear and present danger to the people of ME. (Excluding Israel) Not IS. We made a fertile breeding ground for groups like IS, and then confounded it by arming them in Syria. We caused this whole situation. IS is just capitalizing on the instability we caused in the region...
Click to expand...

Once again, spot on dude.
 
Van Basten said:
No.

Not to us, but to Iraq and the surrounding area, ISIS/IS is a clear and present danger that needs to be eradicated. The only question is the methods to meet that goal.
Click to expand...

Show me hard evidence that ISIS is a clear and present danger.
 
Ockham said:
Show me hard evidence that ISIS is a clear and present danger.
Click to expand...

To us or to Iraq, because I'm talking about Iraq.

b_dubz said:
We are the biggest clear and present danger to the people of ME. (Excluding Israel) Not IS. We made a fertile breeding ground for groups like IS, and then confounded it by arming them in Syria. We caused this whole situation. IS is just capitalizing on the instability we caused in the region...
Click to expand...

A silly way to derail the topic.

ISIS is here and must be dealt with.

It's the wrong time to get high and mighty, but yes, our policies made the breeding ground for militant trash like ISIS. Everyone knows this, you don't get a gold star for stating the obvious.
 
Last edited:
Van Basten said:
To us or to Iraq, because I'm talking about Iraq.
Click to expand...
Both. Since when is the United States or any of the so called "coalition" countries bound to defend a separate and fully sovereign country like Iraq for them. Iraq is not in NATO, there are no defense treaties. And I would remind you that this was sold to the American public by stating ISIS is a clear and present danger to the U.S., which is a lie. There is no evidence presented to the American people other than the say so of those in this administration... and their word is at best suspect given the amount of lies they've told and cover ups they've been involved with over the last 6 years.

So show me the evidence.


Van Basten said:
A silly way to derail the topic.

ISIS is here and must be dealt with.

It's the wrong time to get high and mighty, but yes, our policies made the breeding ground for militant trash like ISIS. Everyone knows this, you don't get a gold star for stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true and ISIS must be dealt with, then the US law and Constitution must be upheld - bring the Congress back from vacation and have them debate the use of military and a declaration of war. What's obvious here is that people who were oh so quick to claim illegality in 2003 now claim "clear and present danger" where there is none. You've shown no evidence at all other than sabre rattling. Neo-cons are giggling and creepily rubbing their dirty hands together for perpetual war is at hand. Good job furthering their views.
 
Van Basten said:
To us or to Iraq, because I'm talking about Iraq.



A silly way to derail the topic.

ISIS is here and must be dealt with.

It's the wrong time to get high and mighty, but yes, our policies made the breeding ground for militant trash like ISIS. Everyone knows this, you don't get a gold star for stating the obvious.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? I get argued with daily for pointing to that obvious. Far more participants of DP deny that "obvious" then acknowledge it!!
 
Ockham said:
So show me the evidence..
Click to expand...

Well, it's not for the USA, but it is for Iraq (and parts of Syria). Again, I'm not and never was talking about their threat level to America, stop bringing it up. And as for Iraq and so on: do you not keep up with the news?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/w...-send-waves-of-refugees-into-turkey.html?_r=0

I doubt a 100k people were running from nothing, and they're not even in Iraq. Clearly ISIS is a clear and present danger for folks in that part of the region. You can just Google this stuff, it's simpler than playing the denial game.

You keep bringing up their threat level to America even though that is not what I've meant from the start. Let me be clear, I'm not worried about us, I'm worried about Iraq.

Montecresto said:
Are you kidding? I get argued with daily for pointing to that obvious. Far more participants of DP deny that "obvious" then acknowledge it!!
Click to expand...

Why do you continuously argue with people that don't care about facts?
 
Ockham said:
Both. Since when is the United States or any of the so called "coalition" countries bound to defend a separate and fully sovereign country like Iraq for them. Iraq is not in NATO, there are no defense treaties. And I would remind you that this was sold to the American public by stating ISIS is a clear and present danger to the U.S., which is a lie. There is no evidence presented to the American people other than the say so of those in this administration... and their word is at best suspect given the amount of lies they've told and cover ups they've been involved with over the last 6 years.

So show me the evidence.




If what you say is true and ISIS must be dealt with, then the US law and Constitution must be upheld - bring the Congress back from vacation and have them debate the use of military and a declaration of war. What's obvious here is that people who were oh so quick to claim illegality in 2003 now claim "clear and present danger" where there is none. You've shown no evidence at all other than sabre rattling. Neo-cons are giggling and creepily rubbing their dirty hands together for perpetual war is at hand. Good job furthering their views.
Click to expand...

The bolded, Spot on again. And déjà vu. As was the WMD and smoking gun as a mushroom cloud over a US city, a Bush administration lie and fear tactic that sold Iraq war part two to the American people. Let's hope it doesn't work for Iraq war part three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom