• 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

Coin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
949
Reaction score
371
Location
Albania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?




Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be 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. ;)

Heya JoG. Yeah I heard....and the very same thing that he cried out about with Bush and his application of that authorization power. BO now does the same. While arguing now why he feels he can make such a call. So while before it was okay that he dump on another for his use of authorization.....now its a different story when it is himself. See how that works for BO peep.
 
Did you listen to obama's speech at the UN today? That might clear your vision a little. ;)

He didn't say he requires Congressional approval - so no it doesn't clear anything up unfortunately.
 
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.
 
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?





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
 
Did you listen to obama's speech at the UN today? That might clear your vision a little. ;)



No.

But tell me, how does a speech by a guy who lied 44 times about health care to get elected make legal what has no basis in law?

Look, Barack Obama is the president. He SIGNS legislation, he does not declare it by edict and teleprompter, his words are not law, thay are in fact suspect bull**** based on the composite of all his speeches.

I prefer one of the ones where he tore into Bush for Iraq myself, the parallels are pretty solid.

Libya was illegal that turned out badly, yet more lies by the speech maker in chief about ANOTHER illegal attack is not going to make it legal no matter how much you worship this incompetent blow hard.
 
I noticed that these latest air strikes were claimed to be meant, at least in part, to ward off an imminent danger from a plot in its final stages. That was designed to give President Obama colorable authority to attack Syria. He doesn't want to rally the country behind a war on these jihadists and then go before Congress to ask for its authorization, as a real leader and statesman would do. He doesn't want to take the fall if things go very wrong, so when he does take the lead, as he did Monday, he carefully limits the size of the action. Those gruesome executions finally forced President Pinprick to act, after he had sat and watched this mess develop for a year and more. He wants to do just enough to look like he's doing something, whether it helps this country much or not.
 
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



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.
 
Well, ISIS does not work as a direct agent of Damascus and under its operational control.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?




Of course. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be. Even if they weren't I wouldn't particularly care though.
 
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.

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
 
Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?
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.

But in Syria .....
The US and UK might argue that IS represents a manifest threat to their own security. However, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defence only applies to actual or imminent armed attacks, rather than potential or possible attacks.
 
Why shouldn't air strikes against a clear and present enemy in a region with a failed state be legal?

Would you call it legal for Russia if it would have invaded Ukraine when it was a failed state (even for a while)?
 
Nothing has been proven to be a clear and present danger. If anything it's murky and unknown. Hardly adequate.

Doing nothing was a clear and present danger to the mid term elections.
 
Who's going to stop them if they aren't?

The UN? I don't believe.
 
Nothing has been proven to be a clear and present danger.
If anything it's murky and unknown. Hardly adequate.



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?
 
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



I was just so moved by your clarity and economy of words I felt it a mission to enhance the already established work of art, a gilded frame to the masterpiece!
 
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 those targeted present a clear and present danger to Americans? Yes.

Were their leaders "rational actors" like many world leaders who might condemn America but have no intention at all of actually instigating violence against Americans? No.

Was the Syrian government in control of those areas, or were they in any position to stop ISIL (and especially Khorasan) from carrying out their plans? No.

As with so much else that the government must sometimes do, I think it best to butcher an old Burger King slogan: sometimes ya gotta break the {Constitutional} rules. It might not be either lawful or Constitutional...but it was sure as heck necessary. If y'all will remember, it was estimated that in addition to the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks, the attacks and their immediate aftermath (like the nationwide shutdown of all air traffic (except for the Bush-approved departure of the bin Laden family)) cost the American economy $100B.

Maybe not legal, but sure as heck necessary...and I somehow strongly doubt the Republicans would have done any less had they been in charge.
 
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.
 
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.



If Russia and China want to drop some bombs on ISIS I say HOORAY.
 
'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.


Well ...... when Congress prohibited further funding to the Contras in Nicaragua, Reagan continued the funding through arms sales that were also prohibited by Congress.
I think Reagan had more balls of steel. Even tho it resulted bad for US.
 
If Russia and China want to drop some bombs on ISIS I say HOORAY.

Assad want to. Did US asked him for support, coordination or permission?? None of those.
 
Back
Top Bottom