Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

Van Basten said:
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.

Iraq is none of our business. I keep up with the news and nothing you've shown tell me the US has any responsibility, treaty, whatever ... to protect Iraq. We handed Iraq back to the Iraqi's. We haven't spoken to Syria diplomatically in a very long time and also have no treaty or defense pact with Syria. Therefore, since the US has no responsibility there and there is no evidence of a clear and present danger to the US as you have already admitted - we have no business being there and such actions that are being taken are illegal.

Van Basten said:
Why do you continuously argue with people that don't care about facts?

The facts are the US has no legal obligation to engage anyone in Iraq and Syria. The fact is Congress has not debated the issue nor have they voted on a declaration of war. The fact is you have provided no evidence of a treaty or defense pact between the US and Syria or Iraq. Therefore the US has no business engaging anyone in those countries.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

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.

First off I was not derailing the topic. You were talking about invading Iraq, ad clear an present danger. Not legality. It was already derailed by YOU!

second you seem to think a way to fix the Isis issue is by doing that exact thing that allowed it to be created in the first place. Ie attacking middle eastern country's with out a good grasp of politics in the region. To attack Isis will send more and more Sunnis flocking to them. It's what they want. Their trying to goad us into attacking them!

Ockham said:
Iraq is none of our business. I keep up with the news and nothing you've shown tell me the US has any responsibility, treaty, whatever ... to protect Iraq. We handed Iraq back to the Iraqi's. We haven't spoken to Syria diplomatically in a very long time and also have no treaty or defense pact with Syria. Therefore, since the US has no responsibility there and there is no evidence of a clear and present danger to the US as you have already admitted - we have no business being there and such actions that are being taken are illegal.

The facts are the US has no legal obligation to engage anyone in Iraq and Syria. The fact is Congress has not debated the issue nor have they voted on a declaration of war. The fact is you have provided no evidence of a treaty or defense pact between the US and Syria or Iraq. Therefore the US has no business engaging anyone in those countries.

Actually I think we have a very strong moral obligation to do something about it. I just don't think us troupes are the answer because like I said above, it will just cause IS to have more members.

I would like to see us work with the international community (yes this probably means working with Iran) to get the un to do something about it.

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Actually I think we have a very strong moral obligation to do something about it. I just don't think us troupes are the answer because like I said above, it will just cause IS to have more members.

I would like to see us work with the international community (yes this probably means working with Iran) to get the un to do something about it.

The only moral obligation the US has is to help remove innocents from the fighting.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
The only moral obligation the US has is to help remove innocents from the fighting.

So you don't think we have a moral obligation to fix the problem we caused?

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
So you don't think we have a moral obligation to fix the problem we caused?

Nope.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
Nope.

Why not? If we caused massive instability in a region is it not out duty to fix the problem? Or do you think america can just go around invading whoever we want without addressing the massive issues it causes for the region?

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Why not? If we caused massive instability in a region is it not out duty to fix the problem? Or do you think america can just go around invading whoever we want without addressing the massive issues it causes for the region?

We left Iraq - our duty was done. The Iraqi's did not approve a SOFA for the US to stay. Our job was done - the current problem is more Maliki's doing and Assad's doing so not our problem. Let them kill each other. If it causes massive issues in the region it's incumbent for that region to figure it out and fix it. Until there is solid evidence that ISIS is a clear and present danger to the US - this is not our problem. I really cannot be clearer than that so I hope you get it.

jonny5 · Sep 25, 2014

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?

LOR]

In terms of whether the President has the power to engage the military in hostilities, i lean towards no. An argument could be made that preexisting congressional actions allow it, or that there is evidence of a imminent threat, but I dont think its in the spirit of the constitution or war powers act. Internationally? Who knows. Syria isnt going to do anything, so Iraq has a right to defend itself.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
We left Iraq - our duty was done. The Iraqi's did not approve a SOFA for the US to stay. Our job was done - the current problem is more Maliki's doing and Assad's doing so not our problem. Let them kill each other. If it causes massive issues in the region it's incumbent for that region to figure it out and fix it. Until there is solid evidence that ISIS is a clear and present danger to the US - this is not our problem. I really cannot be clearer than that so I hope you get it.

What are you talking about?? IS was caused by US. not maliki, and not Assad. We had no buisness being their in the first place, and our intrusions into their region caused IS to form. They are using weapons we left their and gave them!!

For the love of god we were arming IS 6 months ago! We literally gave them guns!

Also what was our "duty" in Iraq? To depose a dictator WE didn't like? Or to secure oil and REE for American company's?

OrphanSlug · Sep 25, 2014

I voted "no" entirely on the notion that what is and is not legal seems to be a convenient moving target made worse by which party is in office wanting action at the time and which other is in opposition. Often with both sides acting hypocritically of the situation. If our Constitutionally and legislatively understood limitations meant anything half the bombs we have dropped would have never been dropped.

Cephus · Sep 25, 2014

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

Where have they been demonstrated to be a clear and present danger to the United States?

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
What are you talking about?? IS was caused by US. not maliki, and not Assad. We had no buisness being their in the first place, and our intrusions into their region caused IS to form. They are using weapons we left their and gave them!!

Now it's your ignorance that is showing. I would suggest you read up on the issue before commenting further.

b_dubz said:
For the love of god we were arming IS 6 months ago! We literally gave them guns!

Citation please.

b_dubz said:
Also what was our "duty" in Iraq? To depose a dictator WE didn't like? Or to secure oil and REE for American company's?

Maliki was the duly elected leader of Iraq. Stop living a decade in the past and live in today's world. Citation for all the oil coming to American companies please. :coffeepap:

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
Now it's your ignorance that is showing. I would suggest you read up on the issue before commenting further.

Citation please.

Maliki was the duly elected leader of Iraq. Stop living a decade in the past and live in today's world. Citation for all the oil coming to American companies please. :coffeepap:

Remember when we armed the rebels in Syria? The rebels that were al nusra front and turned into IS? that would be when we armed them... Not to mention leaving loads of guns in the hands of the Iraqi defense force, which had little training and even less interest in fighting for the Iraqi state.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M

In 96 it was zero. From 2001 to 02 in january it went from ten thousand to 30 thousand. It peaks around the invasion. And really I think it had allot more to do with securing the oil fields. Not garnering them for just America. But getting them out of Saddam's control in general. That's what the international puppet masters wanted.

Why don't you try researching stuff before you accuse others of being ignorant?

Yea he was "duly elected" just like Obama and bush... Frankly I think mos world elections are rigged by coercion and money at the very least.

Van Basten · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
Iraq is none of our business. I keep up with the news and nothing you've shown tell me the US has any responsibility, treaty, whatever ... to protect Iraq. We handed Iraq back to the Iraqi's. We haven't spoken to Syria diplomatically in a very long time and also have no treaty or defense pact with Syria. Therefore, since the US has no responsibility there and there is no evidence of a clear and present danger to the US as you have already admitted - we have no business being there and such actions that are being taken are illegal.

The facts are the US has no legal obligation to engage anyone in Iraq and Syria. The fact is Congress has not debated the issue nor have they voted on a declaration of war. The fact is you have provided no evidence of a treaty or defense pact between the US and Syria or Iraq. Therefore the US has no business engaging anyone in those countries.

Ah, I see the divide here. You don't think we should bother stepping into Iraq at all. Well, that ends this exchange then. :shrug:

b_dubz said:
First off I was not derailing the topic. You were talking about invading Iraq, ad clear an present danger. Not legality. It was already derailed by YOU!

second you seem to think a way to fix the Isis issue is by doing that exact thing that allowed it to be created in the first place. Ie attacking middle eastern country's with out a good grasp of politics in the region. To attack Isis will send more and more Sunnis flocking to them. It's what they want. Their trying to goad us into attacking them!

Said nothing of a full invasion of Iraq, thought we were just focusing on our policy of airstrikes. I'd rather not have boots on the ground in full force or anything like that. Feel free to put words in my mouth though. Also, spare me the caps.

Did I say we should go guns a blazing in there and overthrow their government again while setting up another weak new government for the nation? No.

And of course they're egging us on, again, stating the obvious. This doesn't mean we let them keep on keeping on in a climate we helped create. It means we have to be smarter about how we engage them and I think we can both agree another full invasion isn't wise. I'm all for calculated air strikes though and support to friendly Kurdish forces.

What would you like to see the USA do in this situation?

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Van Basten said:
Ah, I see the divide here. You don't think we should bother stepping into Iraq at all. Well, that ends this exchange then. :shrug:

Said nothing of a full invasion of Iraq, thought we were just focusing on our policy of airstrikes. I'd rather not have boots on the ground in full force or anything like that. Feel free to put words in my mouth though. Also, spare me the caps.

Did I say we should go guns a blazing in there and overthrow their government again while setting up another weak new government for the nation? No.

And of course they're egging us on, again, stating the obvious. This doesn't mean we let them keep on keeping on in a climate we helped create. It means we have to be smarter about how we engage them and I think we can both agree another full invasion isn't wise. I'm all for calculated air strikes though and support to friendly Kurdish forces.

What would you like to see the USA do in this situation?

Appeal to the un and international community to get involved. Its what we should have done in the first place.

Calculated air strike? That's a joke right? We hit the wrong people all the time! That's a leading cause of ppl turning to IS!

I never said you said that. I was referring to air strikes. Feel free to jus make stuff up tho have fun with that...

And yes bombs are a form of invasion too, like it or not.

Oh and I never thought we should enter Iraq either. I do however think its our responsibility to try to fix the massive problems WE caused for the region.

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Remember when we armed the rebels in Syria? The rebels that were al nusra front and turned into IS? that would be when we armed them... Not to mention leaving loads of guns in the hands of the Iraqi defense force, which had little training and even less interest in fighting for the Iraqi state.

I'm not saying we didn't arm rebels in Syria but it's not surprising that the arms and money get to terrorist groups. We armed and trained Iraqi soldiers and tanks, HMV's, small arms and other military systems were captured by ISIS when the Iraqi's fled. So your solution then is to not arm anyone in the ME? I would agree with that.

b_dubz said:
U.S. Imports from Iraq of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels)

In 96 it was zero. From 2001 to 02 in january it went from ten thousand to 30 thousand. It peaks around the invasion. And really I think it had allot more to do with securing the oil fields. Not garnering them for just America. But getting them out of Saddam's control in general. That's what the international puppet masters wanted.

Why don't you try researching stuff before you accuse others of being ignorant?

We started importing Iraq oil (according to your link) March of 1997. So what. "International Puppet Masters"? Who are they exactly - illuminati? Bilderburg? Let me get my tin foil hat on...

b_dubz said:
Yea he was "duly elected" just like Obama and bush... Frankly I think mos world elections are rigged by coercion and money at the very least.

It's none of our business whether or not it was rigged or not. Do you still not get that Iraq is not part of the US?

Van Basten · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Appeal to the un and international community to get involved. Its what we should have done in the first place.

Calculated air strike? That's a joke right? We hit the wrong people all the time! That's a leading cause of ppl turning to IS!

I never said you said that. I was referring to air strikes. Feel free to jus make stuff up tho have fun with that...

And yes bombs are a form of invasion too, like it or not.

We've already set up a coalition with Arab nations and some European ones, so I'd say the international community is very much in this. So, put that one to rest.

We hit the right people far more, if we hit the wrong ones it's unfortunate collateral damage. It's gonna happen one way or another, don't be naive. Innocent people sadly get pulled into violence.

And no, bombs don't constitute a full invasion.

Gonna stop here, this is pointless.

Fearandloathing · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Appeal to the un and international community to get involved. Its what we should have done in the first place.

Calculated air strike? That's a joke right? We hit the wrong people all the time! That's a leading cause of ppl turning to IS!

I never said you said that. I was referring to air strikes. Feel free to jus make stuff up tho have fun with that...

And yes bombs are a form of invasion too, like it or not.

Please keep up.

The appeal to the "international community" came early this year when John Kerry was drooling over a "teensy attack". If you don't think Obama hasn't been twisting arms at the UN, you are too naive to debate.
In the famous "red line" the president of the United States forged ahead with his plan to attack and then asked for help, and got no's from Germany, Poland, France, Canada, and even Britain had to take it to a commons vote which they lost by one vote, just enough government members to kill it. He has run out of 'friends'...long ago

Now he has a "coalition" of his pet rocks David Cameron and Stephen Harper who are sincerely pledging moral support and that they won't gouge too much for body bags and materiel. It's hard to take you seriously when you exhibit such ignorance on this file, yet continue to froth with opinions even after having demonstrated that you're entirely wrong.

What Obama should have done is what presidents before him have done, and sat down with Putin and had a chat about what was going on in Syria instead of making it into another dick-swinging contest.

Fearandloathing · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
I'm not saying we didn't arm rebels in Syria but it's not surprising that the arms and money get to terrorist groups. We armed and trained Iraqi soldiers and tanks, HMV's, small arms and other military systems were captured by ISIS when the Iraqi's fled. So your solution then is to not arm anyone in the ME? I would agree with that.

We started importing Iraq oil (according to your link) March of 1997. So what. "International Puppet Masters"? Who are they exactly - illuminati? Bilderburg? Let me get my tin foil hat on...

It's none of our business whether or not it was rigged or not. Do you still not get that Iraq is not part of the US?

No he equates Iraq's relationship to the US to be the same as Ukraine's relationship to Russia, never mind the fact Russian in the language of most Ukrainians many of whom did not want to side with USA.

The argument that the leadership was corrupt is the only parallel and if that is the grounds for a legal invasion, then China and Russia can loose the hounds of war with impunity. One look at some of the voting registration and illegals and a host of nations would be bombing Euclid, Ohio by now, not to mention the tobacco and arms lobbies, and a few hundred bridges to nowhere.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Ockham said:
I'm not saying we didn't arm rebels in Syria but it's not surprising that the arms and money get to terrorist groups. We armed and trained Iraqi soldiers and tanks, HMV's, small arms and other military systems were captured by ISIS when the Iraqi's fled. So your solution then is to not arm anyone in the ME? I would agree with that.

We started importing Iraq oil (according to your link) March of 1997. So what. "International Puppet Masters"? Who are they exactly - illuminati? Bilderburg? Let me get my tin foil hat on...

It's none of our business whether or not it was rigged or not. Do you still not get that Iraq is not part of the US?

I agree in not arming anyone (except for maybe the Kurds so they can defend themselves) but ideally the UN would do its job and intervene... All we would have to do is lift embargoes on Iran and that would probably be enough for China and Russia to vote our way...

Yea pay no attention to the massive jump of imports right around the war... None at all...

And it would be the oil industry and the military industrial complex as a whole. IE the people who stand to profit...

Builderburg is a place where the elite go to meet and greet for huge treats... They certainly conspire their... To what extent who knows.... The illuminati is for wackos and false...

I think it is likely however that the world elite do conspire to maintain control, and to discuss their various nefarious agendas...

Its the world buisness if an election is rigged, and frankly I think Americas have been for some time. Either through propaganda and manipulation of the two party system, or outright as we saw with bush.

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Fearandloathing said:
Please keep up.

The appeal to the "international community" came early this year when John Kerry was drooling over a "teensy attack". If you don't think Obama hasn't been twisting arms at the UN, you are too naive to debate.
In the famous "red line" the president of the United States forged ahead with his plan to attack and then asked for help, and got no's from Germany, Poland, France, Canada, and even Britain had to take it to a commons vote which they lost by one vote, just enough government members to kill it. He has run out of 'friends'...long ago

Now he has a "coalition" of his pet rocks David Cameron and Stephen Harper who are sincerely pledging moral support and that they won't gouge too much for body bags and materiel. It's hard to take you seriously when you exhibit such ignorance on this file, yet continue to froth with opinions even after having demonstrated that you're entirely wrong.

What Obama should have done is what presidents before him have done, and sat down with Putin and had a chat about what was going on in Syria instead of making it into another dick-swinging contest.

Really he should have offered to end embargoes on Iran. Then they probably would not block us on this action in the UN... and just because somebody disagrees with you does not make them uneducated on the topic, as you always seem to think...

Fearandloathing said:
No he equates Iraq's relationship to the US to be the same as Ukraine's relationship to Russia, never mind the fact Russian in the language of most Ukrainians many of whom did not want to side with USA.

The argument that the leadership was corrupt is the only parallel and if that is the grounds for a legal invasion, then China and Russia can loose the hounds of war with impunity. One look at some of the voting registration and illegals and a host of nations would be bombing Euclid, Ohio by now, not to mention the tobacco and arms lobbies, and a few hundred bridges to nowhere.

Also I was only equating the action of the invasion ie the legality of invading another sovereign nation unprovoked. (had you actually read what I wrote) not the situations themselves.

What makes you think they did not want to side with the EU? (Not USA, as thats was what started this whole thing, siding with the EU.) The Crimean certainly wanted to side with Russia, the rest of the country is hard to say because the vote was a obvious sham (as is well documented in vices Russian roulette coverage)

b_dubz · Sep 25, 2014

Van Basten said:
We've already set up a coalition with Arab nations and some European ones, so I'd say the international community is very much in this. So, put that one to rest.

We hit the right people far more, if we hit the wrong ones it's unfortunate collateral damage. It's gonna happen one way or another, don't be naive. Innocent people sadly get pulled into violence.

And no, bombs don't constitute a full invasion.

Gonna stop here, this is pointless.

I don't care what you say flying planes and over and dropping bombs on a another country is a invasion. I said nothing of full... But its a invasion none the less...

And no we bomb the wrong people all the time! We bombed a grandma in he middle of a field with nothing around her! Signature strikes are so flawed its insane! The fighters in those country's have taken to swapping sim cards with others because they know that's what we are using to lock onto them!

LowDown · Sep 25, 2014

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?

Yes, they are legal. If Jefferson could attack the Barbary pirates without a formal declaration of war by Congress then Obama can attack ISIS.

The basis of Jefferson's actions were the fact that the Barbary pirates declared war on the US (not through any legal paperwork but by their traditional method of cutting down the flag at the US Consulate), and Congress funded and authorized military action.

Likewise, ISIS has declared war on the US by cutting off the heads of our citizens and posting videos of the acts to social media, the bastards. And vowing to plant the ISIS flag in front of the White House. No more clear and true declaration of war could ever be made.

So this is no time to go wobbly.

Ockham · Sep 25, 2014

b_dubz said:
Yea pay no attention to the massive jump of imports right around the war... None at all...

We were trading oil with Iraq for 6 years prior to 2003. :shrug:

b_dubz said:
And it would be the oil industry and the military industrial complex as a whole. IE the people who stand to profit...

Profiteers have existed since war existed. Nothing we can do will change that.

b_dubz said:
Builderburg is a place where the elite go to meet and greet for huge treats... They certainly conspire their... To what extent who knows.... The illuminati is for wackos and false...

I think it is likely however that the world elite do conspire to maintain control, and to discuss their various nefarious agendas...

That's good.

The Mark · Sep 25, 2014

Frankly I don't know for sure that anything in the past several decades has been legal.

Seems like the government cares little for the rule of law anymore.

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?

Do you find airstrikes in Syria as legal?

Yes

No

Noblesse oblige

Well-known member

Noblesse oblige

Well-known member

Noblesse oblige

Well-known member

Noblesse oblige

Well-known member

A sinister place...

Noblesse oblige

Well-known member

Black Is Smart

Well-known member

Noblesse oblige

Black Is Smart

How long is now?

How long is now?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Curmudgeon

Noblesse oblige

Sporadic insanity normal.