What would you do in Syria

[GMDino]

(04-07-2017, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Same way we could bomb Lybia in 2011. We are there in a supporting role.

I don't know if it's exactly the same (haven't had time to see what resolutions and what part we are now playing) but I did find Obama using teh War Powers Act to justify our part in the bombings.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165559/http://c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011libya.military.rel.pdf

Two days after the events.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He let them know and yes he can in a reaction to an attack.

There was no attack on U.S. soldiers or sovereign territory. The president of the united stats only has the ability to initiate military response in these issues against foreign countries, otherwise it must come through congress.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  I think about that all the time.  That is why i know it will eventually cripple us.

Just look how it effected us financially when we were the leader of the "coalition" that invaded Iraq.

Trying to win the "biggest dick" competition is one of the main reasons the USSR collapsed.  The money we are spending to have the biggest pile of weapons will not improve our country long term.  There are a lot better things we could be doing with that money.

Look how far the biggest dick has gotten us in 200 short years. But you know it will cripple us one day

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2017, 01:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  I think about that all the time.  That is why i know it will eventually cripple us.

Just look how it effected us financially when we were the leader of the "coalition" that invaded Iraq.

Trying to win the "biggest dick" competition is one of the main reasons the USSR collapsed.  The money we are spending to have the biggest pile of weapons will not improve our country long term.  There are a lot better things we could be doing with that money.

I think that striving for the goal of 0.7% of our national income on foreign aid, ODA specifically, would be a much better investment long term than continually growing the size of our already massive military industrial complex. We are a part of the DAC, and the goal for all of those countries is supposed to be that 0.7% mark. We give more in dollars than other countries, but we're still sitting below the 0.2% mark, which will likely go down in the next couple of budget cycles.

I think that the goodwill generated from foreign aid, if we redirected some of that from defense, would be a huge boost to us as a nation in a number of ways, including financially. But that's just my opinion.

Edit: also, affected, not effected. Affect is the verb, effect is the noun.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: There was no attack on U.S. soldiers or sovereign territory. The president of the united stats only has the ability to initiate military response in these issues against foreign countries, otherwise it must come through congress.

Okey Doke.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 01:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Not disagreeing, but just a clarification. The military can attack a hospital if it is being misused by the enemy for military purposes or if you're receiving fire from it. Even then you should limit the damage if possible.

Under the Rome statute this particular case does not pass muster as it was clearly excessive to the military gain we achieved. The U.S. lied about it to start claiming it was an accident, but eventually conceded it was intentional. They lied because they knew that the gains were not enough to justify the collateral damage. Small arms fire does not require a flattening of a civilian hospital. We ended up paying off the families of all the casualties because we weren't justified in killing them.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke.

Good, so now that we agree under the War Powers Resolution he violated the law what should happen to a rogue president who feels he has unilateral ability to initiate acts of war against foreign countries?

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: Good, so now that we agree under the War Powers Resolution he violated the law what should happen to a rogue president who feels he has unilateral ability to initiate acts of war against foreign countries?

We don't agree, I've just grown tired of talking in circles. We have Soldiers on the ground in a supporting effort and he deemed Syria's use of Chemical weapons to be a threat to our National Security.

But if a president did something as you suggest he should be impeached and tried as a criminal. just like we did with Obama in 2011.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should we pull out of NATO and become isolationists or is there a checklist of criteria for humanitarian crisis (BTW what is the plural for that) we can afford to fix.  

That's pretty much what Trump has suggested in a nutshell.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-will-withdraw-nato-world-455272%3Famp%3D1

Which NATO country did Syria attack this week?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We need to be involved in international politics only when it effects us financially. 

If you are so concerned about human suffering then why haven't you been calling for Billions in aid to Africa?

"Not really interested in spending money on food and clean water.  But I sure love killing Arabs."

We should engage in world politics, just not militarily.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's pretty much what Trump has suggested in a nutshell.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/trump-will-withdraw-nato-world-455272%3Famp%3D1

Which NATO country did Syria attack this week?

Well it appears Fred will be voting for Trump in '20; as they agree.

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 02:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We don't agree, I've just grown tired of talking in circles. We have Soldiers on the ground in a supporting effort and he deemed Syria's use of Chemical weapons to be a threat to our National Security.

But if a president did something as you suggest he should be impeached and tried as a criminal. just like we did with Obama in 2011.

Syria's use of weapons was in no way a threat to our national security as they do not posses the ability to deliver said weapons at us directly. Even in the case where we believed Saddam Hussan possessed weapons that could hurt our national security we went to congress and got authorization to launch attacks. Our supporting role in syria was in a consultative manor not one of which is directed to initiate contact. Last night we launched missiles at innocent people, as we are not at war with Syria, and in essence declared war without a congressional resolution.

2011? Why are you living in the rear view mirror. We need to look ahead!

Edit note: Just decided rather than argue to just talk about things not mattering unless they are right now.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Syria's use of weapons was in no way a threat to our national security as they do not posses the ability to deliver said weapons at us directly. Even in the case where we believed Saddam Hussan possessed weapons that could hurt our national security we went to congress and got authorization to launch attacks. Our supporting role in syria was in a consultative manor not one of which is directed to initiate contact. Last night we launched missiles at innocent people, as we are not at war with Syria, and in essence declared war without a congressional resolution.

Are you talking about bombing of ISIS camps in Libya, as that is covered under the 2001 Resolution providing the President the ability to launch attacks against terrorists without consulting with Congress. Last I checked the country of Syria is not currently recognized as a terrorist group. Sorry, your trying to create a parallel that is not there.

Okey Doke

[Au165]

(04-07-2017, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke

Oh are you talking where we worked as part of a UN coalition to establish a no fly zone as part of a UN resolution? Yea, I can see the parallels between that and unilaterally deciding to launch 50-60 Tomahawk missiles at an airbase.

Okey Dokey

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 12:59 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: There's a lot of talk about us not playing the world police but the fact is that is the role the world has put us in and until some real steps have taken place to reduce our role in the world (Which is a two way street U.S. has to want to give up power as well.) and other countries are building up their military instead of relying on ours we need to play the part.

I don't think we need to spend more money on military or anything like that we are incredibly powerful but to say we should take in refugees but not drop the hammer on a leader who is using nerve gas on innocent civilians is a joke. The line needs to be drawn and we should be doing both.

There is no easy fix to the middle east and I don't think that should be our goal but the most powerful nation in the world is in the driver seat when it comes leaving an impression on weaker countries whether the citizens of the most powerful country like it or not.

It is equally ridiculous to try to pass a travel ban prohibiting refugees from entering our country while considering dropping the hammer in their country.

How long have we been involved in the Middle East? Since we recognized Israel as a country are we better or worse off in the Middle East strategically? Worse. It's not that there isn't an easy fix. It's that there isn't a fix at all.

Many Americans are under the delusion we can control the outcome in other countries. We can't.

[Au165]

FYI, 9 civilians and 4 children are dead from our attack last night. Those ones don't matter though because they were blown up not chocked by gas.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-07-2017, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The reason provided was complete bullshit; however, Saddam's reign was similar to that of Assad's.

So it is okay to topple a government that was a threat to our national security interests, but it turns out those threats were nothing but lies? Point being you can't legally depose a sovereign government based upon lies and kill thousands of people in the process and claim to be the good guy when Assad kills people on a lesser scale.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2017, 02:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So it is okay to topple a government that was a threat to our national security interests, but it turns out those threats were nothing but lies?  Point being you can't legally depose a sovereign government based upon lies and kill thousands of people in the process and claim to be the good guy when Assad kills people on a lesser scale.

Never said it was OK, simply gave the reason we did it. perhaps we have learned from Iraq and that is why we haven't committed to Syria

[Benton]

(04-07-2017, 02:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: FYI, 9 civilians and 4 children are dead from our attack last night. Those ones don't matter though because they were blown up not chocked by gas.

they do matter. But hopefully their deaths will be part of an effort that discourages Assad from killing more than seven times that.

[GMDino]

Killing his people because he killed his people.

We are stupid as a race of people we deserve to kill ourselves off.