• 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

I guess we should just admit that the UN Charter isn't up to the new challenges of the 21st century and reorganize the world order.

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.
 
I don't think we should be doing this, but someone needed to do something.
 
That is not what interests Monti.

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.
 
This has of course Nothing to do with a real land operation in Syria. It is simply an attack against a jihadi terrorist group. Something that is supported by the vast majority of people and legislatures throughout the world. But of course not by those who are apologists for jihadi terrorism.
 
What folks? Three times Obama dispatched Clinton to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, all three times China and Russia said NO!

Thankfully, China and Russia do not override the foreign policy interests of the US as a solitary actor.

The British parliament pulled their support of the notion, them folks didn't want it.

US forces carried out the raid. What the British parliament voted upon was again a matter of international cooperation, not a permission slip for us to go it alone.

Obama tried to get US congressional approval, those folks didn't want it.

Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS. The congressional vote pertained to acitvely taking the side of Syrian separatists opposite Assad.

70% of Americans were against it! them folks didn't want it. Other than the neocon freaks that want war everywhere, all the time, what folks want it.

Patently false. 60 percent of Americans favor the use of force in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, with 4 in 10 in favor of sending ground troops (not to be conflated with commandos in a raid scenario, as depicted in the OP).

Slightly Fewer Back ISIS Military Action vs. Past Actions

Simply a fact-free rant of a post :)
 
Oh, you mean the Saud and the Sunni, plus the Shia in Iraq? Since they weren't capable of doing it.....are you saying we shouldn't walk the walk when trying to get them to put people in on the ground.

You do know.....that when Leading, sometimes it takes getting out in front. Not sitting in the back behind a desk and telling others what they need to do. When left with no other good choices. Actions speak louder than words.

Now ISIS knows.....we are in their backyard. Just like they are in ours.

And now we know that the US White House as usual does what it wants. **** Russia and China, **** the UN, **** the British, **** the US congress, **** your constituency. But I already knew none of that matters to warmongering neocons.
 
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.
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?
 
And now we know that the US White House as usual does what it wants. **** Russia and China, **** the UN, **** the British, **** the US congress, **** your constituency. But I already knew none of that matters to warmongering neocons.

Did you forget the French wanted to go into Syria? You didn't want to say the French are Neo Cons did ya?
 
Thankfully, China and Russia do not override the foreign policy interests of the US as a solitary actor.



US forces carried out the raid. What the British parliament voted upon was again a matter of international cooperation, not a permission slip for us to go it alone.



Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS. The congressional vote pertained to acitvely taking the side of Syrian separatists opposite Assad.



Patently false. 60 percent of Americans favor the use of force in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, with 4 in 10 in favor of sending ground troops (not to be conflated with commandos in a raid scenario, as depicted in the OP).

Slightly Fewer Back ISIS Military Action vs. Past Actions

Simply a fact-free rant of a post :)

Really now. They certainly shut the US down at the UN. Remember, Obama wasn't allowed to defend his red line. I never said that the British parliament was giving a permission slip or not. That was for Russia and China to do, they declined, pointing to the US's abuse of UN1973 in Libya. What the British parliament did was vote to pull their support for a UN resolution. In the summer of 14 Obama sought congressional authority to send troops into Syria, they went on vacation. Boots on the ground is boots on the ground, mission creep, period.

Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23892783
 
Last edited:
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?

A sovereign state is Well within its Right to take military action against terrorist forces that operatie against its interests, Whenever those forces are to be found.
 
Really now. They certainly shut the US down at the UN. Remember, Obama wasn't allowed to defend his red line.
Repeating an erroneous statement is literally all you can muster? The UN voted on cooperative action which was promptly vetoed by Russia. The Nations in their name indicates that more than one is usually involved. They did not and cannot, however, strip the US of our ability to act in our own best interest when it comes to pursuing terror cells within Syria.
 
A sovereign state is Well within its Right to take military action against terrorist forces that operatie against its interests, Whenever those forces are to be found.
Of course they are. Monte seems to be utterly befuddled by the concept though.
 
Did you forget the French wanted to go into Syria? You didn't want to say the French are Neo Cons did ya?

Most certainly do. They led the charge in the destruction of Libya, too!
 
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?

Such military action requires a UN resolution. China and Russia already said no.
 
Repeating an erroneous statement is literally all you can muster? The UN voted on cooperative action which was promptly vetoed by Russia. The Nations in their name indicates that more than one is usually involved. They did not and cannot, however, strip the US of our ability to act in our own best interest when it comes to pursuing terror cells within Syria.

Obama sought a United Nations resolution for the use of force in Syria, DENIED! He's using a back door approach. And the only reason that you guys are down with it, is because you support a US war in Syria, and are willing to look the other way on the rules.
 
Oh, you mean the Saud and the Sunni, plus the Shia in Iraq? Since they weren't capable of doing it.....are you saying we shouldn't walk the walk when trying to get them to put people in on the ground.

You do know.....that when Leading, sometimes it takes getting out in front. Not sitting in the back behind a desk and telling others what they need to do. When left with no other good choices. Actions speak louder than words.

Now ISIS knows.....we are in their backyard. Just like they are in ours.

Yes. Sort of like the Doolittle raid on Japan. Low cost, relatively small number of men, but an important impact on enemy moral, which to ISIS is very important for recruitment.
 
Such military action requires a UN resolution. China and Russia already said no.
Nope! Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS, and the US, despite your most sincere wishes, is not constrained by the whims of China and Russia.
 
Obama sought a United Nations resolution for the use of force in Syria, DENIED! He's using a back door approach. And the only reason that you guys are down with it, is because you support a US war in Syria, and are willing to look the other way on the rules.
Use of force in Syria to oust Assad /= ISIS.
 
Nope! Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS, and the US, despite your most sincere wishes, is not constrained by the whims of China and Russia.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
By PETER BAKER and JONATHAN WEISMANAUG. 31, 2013. FAILED TO GET IT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

The United States does not expect a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria's chemical weapons to include a potential use of military force due to Russian opposition. Failed to get it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-syria-crisis-obama-timeline-idUSBRE98C0X420130913
 
Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
By PETER BAKER and JONATHAN WEISMANAUG. 31, 2013. FAILED TO GET IT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

The United States does not expect a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria's chemical weapons to include a potential use of military force due to Russian opposition. Failed to get it.

U.S. not expecting U.N. resolution on Syria to include use of force | Reuters
:lol:
Military strike against the Syrian Government.

Failing to get it indeed.
 
:lol:

Failing to get it indeed.


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.
 
Yes. Sort of like the Doolittle raid on Japan. Low cost, relatively small number of men, but an important impact on enemy moral, which to ISIS is very important for recruitment.

Correct. ISIS leaders will have to be constantly looking over their shoulders now. No safe havens is one of Obama's pledges.
 
Back
Top Bottom