The Syrian war just got hotter

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:02 pm

Image
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Cannydc » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:06 pm

Stooo wrote:
Didge wrote:Is anyone going to debate my points or prove how some on the left are snowflakes?


What were they again?


:pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

Please don't ask.

I don't have the enthusiasm.
User avatar
Cannydc
 
Posts: 11593
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Grafenwalder » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
Grafenwalder wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Grafenwalder wrote:Questions are already being raised over whether Trump broke constitutional law by not seeking approval from Congress. Seems he also had a short term memory failure given the tweet he banged out five years ago in 2013.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373146637184401408?lang=en



The last 10 presidents have ignored the constitution in terms of military action.

Not so according to this.

Obama sought congressional approval for 2013 military intervention in Syria. Statements from multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), cited failures of the Obama administration in their support of President Trump. The fact is President Obama sought to use force in Syria in 2013, and Congress did not approve.

Here also is a list of Trumps tweets he made at the time. Interesting eh? :wink:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100154318/

and now...

Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/poli ... index.html



Did Congress approve Obama's strikes?

There are a handful of congressmen from both parties that opposed Obama's strikes and Trumps strikes.

Those are the handful that are not hipocrites.

The point is he sought it where Trump hasn't and simply ignored it altogether from what i've seen. There's a good article here which sums up the US problem.

Republicans reprimanded Barack Obama for Syria strikes. But for Donald Trump, who has no regard for the national interest or rule of law, anything goes.

GOP leaders and the House and Senate seem perfectly fine with Trump skipping over their authority to launch an attack that could provoke an escalating reaction from not just Syria, but Iran and Russia — its two sponsors that have interests, assets and personnel inside the country. Maybe these Republicans know something we don’t know.

Of course, there was a time when the right overwhelmingly argued that a president needed the congressional OK before striking Syria to enforce a “red line” against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

That time was 2013 — when, you guessed it, Barack Obama was president.

The GOP Congress had no such compunctions in 2017 when Trump was president and essentially allowed the administration to justify the attack under the War Powers Resolution.

This 1973 law epitomizes our modern Congress’ ambivalent approach to its exclusive authority to declare war as granted it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. The law constrains the president from non-defensive war without congressional approval while also limiting military deployments that aren’t a response to a direct attack to 60 days after the executive branch reports the hostilities to Congress.

So basically, it says, “Don’t start a new war of choice. But if you do, let us know and don’t do it for more than two months.” Big help.

Not only is law nearly useless and possibly unconstitutional, it only matters if you have a Congress willing to check the president’s power and a president willing to let his power be checked.

Congress has all but abdicated this role, with shockingly few exceptions. The administration, on the other hand, has made claims of powers beyond those that should exist in a democracy or a nation with laws.

“President Trump has claimed an extreme view of the president’s Article II powers — for example, saying falsely that he has an ‘absolute right’ to do whatever he wants with the Justice Department,” said Justin Florence, a former Obama administration lawyer.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 510940002/
User avatar
Grafenwalder
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:17 pm

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:46 pm

So other than the West gaining access to the Tamar and Leviathan Basin gas fields (which is still not going to happen anyway). What exactly are these National Interests that Theresa May is brandishing about?

Read about the Tamar and Leviathan Basin Gas fields Here!

1. Is Syria, currently or in Future a risk to U.K National Interests?

2. Does Syria have or even if it ever intended to do so, the capability of Striking UK National Interests?

3. Has the Assad headed Government in Syria ever been proven to have ever used Chemical Weapons on Syrian people?

The answer to all the above is a resounding. NO!

The question now. Did Theresa May break UK Law by ordering these strikes without Parliamentary approval? Given that there is not even a fake dossier of Risk to the U.K or its interests.

Trump is in a similar position, not even shaky evidence of risk and no Congressional Approval.

Both leaders have acted in an undemocratic and Authoritarian manner, without any evidence to support their position.

I call on an Impeachment of the Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Prime Minister) and her Cabinet for their role of an International War Crime as well as the Instruction to place UK Personnel in harm’s way, without any evidence of risk to the United Kingdom or its Interests. Said Instruction was made in Contravention of Parliamentary Law which requires the Parliamentary approval of Military action which is carried out where there is no immediate threat to the United Kingdom or its interests.

She even has the nerve to try and claim the airstrikes as “right and legal”, when they are clearly not.



http://r-force.org/blog/2018/04/14/is-i ... eresa-may/
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Maddog » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:42 pm

Grafenwalder wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Grafenwalder wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Grafenwalder wrote:Questions are already being raised over whether Trump broke constitutional law by not seeking approval from Congress. Seems he also had a short term memory failure given the tweet he banged out five years ago in 2013.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373146637184401408?lang=en



The last 10 presidents have ignored the constitution in terms of military action.

Not so according to this.

Obama sought congressional approval for 2013 military intervention in Syria. Statements from multiple lawmakers, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), cited failures of the Obama administration in their support of President Trump. The fact is President Obama sought to use force in Syria in 2013, and Congress did not approve.

Here also is a list of Trumps tweets he made at the time. Interesting eh? :wink:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 100154318/

and now...

Top Republicans who opposed Syria attack under Obama are now praising Trump's strike

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/poli ... index.html



Did Congress approve Obama's strikes?

There are a handful of congressmen from both parties that opposed Obama's strikes and Trumps strikes.

Those are the handful that are not hipocrites.

The point is he sought it where Trump hasn't and simply ignored it altogether from what i've seen. There's a good article here which sums up the US problem.

Republicans reprimanded Barack Obama for Syria strikes. But for Donald Trump, who has no regard for the national interest or rule of law, anything goes.

GOP leaders and the House and Senate seem perfectly fine with Trump skipping over their authority to launch an attack that could provoke an escalating reaction from not just Syria, but Iran and Russia — its two sponsors that have interests, assets and personnel inside the country. Maybe these Republicans know something we don’t know.

Of course, there was a time when the right overwhelmingly argued that a president needed the congressional OK before striking Syria to enforce a “red line” against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

That time was 2013 — when, you guessed it, Barack Obama was president.

The GOP Congress had no such compunctions in 2017 when Trump was president and essentially allowed the administration to justify the attack under the War Powers Resolution.

This 1973 law epitomizes our modern Congress’ ambivalent approach to its exclusive authority to declare war as granted it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. The law constrains the president from non-defensive war without congressional approval while also limiting military deployments that aren’t a response to a direct attack to 60 days after the executive branch reports the hostilities to Congress.

So basically, it says, “Don’t start a new war of choice. But if you do, let us know and don’t do it for more than two months.” Big help.

Not only is law nearly useless and possibly unconstitutional, it only matters if you have a Congress willing to check the president’s power and a president willing to let his power be checked.

Congress has all but abdicated this role, with shockingly few exceptions. The administration, on the other hand, has made claims of powers beyond those that should exist in a democracy or a nation with laws.

“President Trump has claimed an extreme view of the president’s Article II powers — for example, saying falsely that he has an ‘absolute right’ to do whatever he wants with the Justice Department,” said Justin Florence, a former Obama administration lawyer.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 510940002/


It was never voted on.

Congress didn't want to vote then, and they didn't want to vote now, because those votes force a congressmen to take a position that he or she will have to defend.
User avatar
Maddog
 
Posts: 32063
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:46 am

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Maddog » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:46 pm


Witness the hypocrisy that our two-party system breeds: Check out these similar letters warning the president about commencing offensive strikes against Syria without congressional approval.

2013 signers: 119 Rs, 21 Ds
2018 signers: 15 Rs, 73 Ds
Very few of us signed both.

There are good reasons why a particular person might not have signed one of the letters: The House membership is different. In addition, a person might not have known about one of them, or might have been sick or away that day, or perhaps had a nuanced but valid objection to one.

But those factors should wash out in the aggregate. The fact that the tallies are so different indicates that something else is at work at the macro level: double standards, selective outrage, and hypocrisy.



Justin Amash is right, per as usual.
User avatar
Maddog
 
Posts: 32063
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:46 am

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Grafenwalder » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:20 pm

Maddog wrote:It was never voted on.

Congress didn't want to vote then, and they didn't want to vote now, because those votes force a congressmen to take a position that he or she will have to defend.

Hence why he didn't launch an attack. As i previously said Obama sought approval of Congress asking for authorization, (it's even in the tweet you linked!) Trump wasn't bothered and that's the difference which seems to be what you're misunderstanding. Same here in UK at the time, Cameron sought parliamentary backing for an attack, didn't get it so that was that. Questions are now being raised about May's actions too.

It appeared that Kerry did not doubt that Obama would enforce the red line, and soon Obama would reinforce that perception with his own statement from the White House. “It’s important for us to recognise that when over 1000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security,” he said.
But in the days after the statement Obama softened. According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on the period in The Atlantic magazine Obama had come to view a military strike unsanctioned by either international law or Congress - and without popular support from the American people - as a mistake.
User avatar
Grafenwalder
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:17 pm

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Maddog » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:25 pm

Grafenwalder wrote:
Maddog wrote:It was never voted on.

Congress didn't want to vote then, and they didn't want to vote now, because those votes force a congressmen to take a position that he or she will have to defend.

Hence why he didn't launch an attack. As i previously said Obama sought approval of Congress asking for authorization, (it's even in the tweet you linked!) Trump wasn't bothered and that's the difference which seems to be what you're misunderstanding. Same here in UK at the time, Cameron sought parliamentary backing for an attack, didn't get it so that was that. Questions are now being raised about May's actions too.

It appeared that Kerry did not doubt that Obama would enforce the red line, and soon Obama would reinforce that perception with his own statement from the White House. “It’s important for us to recognise that when over 1000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 per cent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security,” he said.
But in the days after the statement Obama softened. According to Jeffrey Goldberg’s essay on the period in The Atlantic magazine Obama had come to view a military strike unsanctioned by either international law or Congress - and without popular support from the American people - as a mistake.


My memory is slipping. Obama didn't attack Assad's forces, but he did attack ISIS forces in Syria a year later. He let the Russians deal with the Assad's chemical weapons (oops).

He attacked Libya, in 2011, even though congress didn't authorize it. He also droned the hell out of Yemen, and I don't recall congress authorizing that either. It's hard to keep track of all the places Obama bombed in 8 years, and how many, if any had congressional approval.
User avatar
Maddog
 
Posts: 32063
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:46 am

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:35 pm

Peter Ford, Britain's former Ambassador to Syria, thinks joint action by the UK likely breaches international law and the 'whole thing has been farcical'.

Meanwhile retired senior Naval Officer, Lord Alan West, disagrees with last night's joint strikes and the government's decision.

“We need unequivocal proof" he said, adding British intervention will protract Syria's bloody civil war, not conclude it.

Unless the media wants to pretend the diplomatic service and armed forces are 'conspiracy theorists' and 'addicted to protest', they are going to have admit rather quickly that the majority of the public agrees with the position of Jeremy Corbyn.

Including those in unexpected places.

Via Aaron Bastani


:shake head:
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: The Syrian war just got hotter

Postby Guest » Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:38 pm

Explosions are heard near Aleppo amid claims an Iranian military base in Syria has been ‘bombed by fighter jets’..........
User avatar
Guest
 

Previous

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests