|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Syria getting ugly in a hurry

Default Syria getting ugly in a hurry

September 5th, 2013, 10:58
If it's not on US soil and no americans in jeopardy I don't see how it can be constitutional to take any action without congress declaring war anyway, it's just ludicrous. Of course that would eliminate every US war since WW II but that's not a bad thing.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#61

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 678

Default 

September 5th, 2013, 11:03
Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped View Post
If it's not on US soil and no americans in jeopardy I don't see how it can be constitutional to take any action without congress declaring war anyway, it's just ludicrous. Of course that would eliminate every US war since WW II but that's not a bad thing.
Not just US wars. Declarations of war are not really á la mode anymore. There have hardly been any since 1945. Unfortunately that does not mean there were no wars…
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#62

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,482

Default 

September 5th, 2013, 14:34
Originally Posted by ManWhoJaped View Post
If it's not on US soil and no americans in jeopardy I don't see how it can be constitutional to take any action without congress declaring war anyway, it's just ludicrous. Of course that would eliminate every US war since WW II but that's not a bad thing.
There is no requirement for American casualties our American soil in the executive privileges of the constitution

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#63

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,082

Default 

September 5th, 2013, 15:03
All depends on how you choose to define "threat to national security". I expect that was intentionally left vague.

Gotta tread carefully, though, to maintain some consistency. In comparing Saddam to Assad, both of them are guilty (yes, I'm making an assumption about Syria, but that's more about this particular argument than staking an actual position) of gassing their own citizens. The difference, which makes Saddam a threat but leaves Assad "innocent", is that Saddam had clearly demonstrated a willingness to attack neighboring countries as well, where Assad has kept his atrocities confined to his own borders. Thus, it's reasonable to support Dubya going into Iraq (regardless of the whole WMD fiasco) while questioning Hopey Peace Prize's plan (then not a plan, then maybe a plan, then we're not sure about the plan) for Syria.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#64

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

September 5th, 2013, 23:48
Constitution trumps ANY laws made. Those laws are simply unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
There is no requirement for American casualties our American soil in the executive privileges of the constitution
There's a requirement for a 2/3 majority to declare any war and that's much stronger. Voting emergency powers with a mere majority is obviously completely unconstitutional as it's a much weaker requirement to give much greater power, let alone giving what amounts to executive war power "just because".
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#65

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 678

Default 

September 5th, 2013, 23:52
By contrast look at how much provocation there was for war of 1812, yet the president couldn't just decide to attack even though he wanted to. Nothing has changed in the constitution, they are simply ignoring it. They are "interpreting" it in a way they like which doesn't even fit the bare letter of the law.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#66

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 678

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 11:45
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
All depends on how you choose to define "threat to national security". I expect that was intentionally left vague.

Gotta tread carefully, though, to maintain some consistency. In comparing Saddam to Assad, both of them are guilty (yes, I'm making an assumption about Syria, but that's more about this particular argument than staking an actual position) of gassing their own citizens. The difference, which makes Saddam a threat but leaves Assad "innocent", is that Saddam had clearly demonstrated a willingness to attack neighboring countries as well, where Assad has kept his atrocities confined to his own borders. Thus, it's reasonable to support Dubya going into Iraq (regardless of the whole WMD fiasco) while questioning Hopey Peace Prize's plan (then not a plan, then maybe a plan, then we're not sure about the plan) for Syria.
Really, you are unikely to find any reliable, reasonable, objective analysis pre-Iraq war, that genuinely believed Saddam to be a danger to neighboring countries. Obviously i'm discounting analysis which was intentionally created for propaganda purposes. And we know there was plenty of that, purposefully misleading and manufactured to serve ulterior motives (Hell, even Colin Powell has retrospectively admitted to saying things to public he didn't even believe himself, and he calls it the biggest mistake of his career).

Yes, Saddam threatened Israel occasionally, but nobody really thought he was going to attack them. It was just empty threats. Beyond pro-war propaganda pieces, nobody actually believed Iraq was gonna attack any other country. There was absolutely no worthy proof of any such intentions.

Iraq did attack Kuwait 10+ years prior. But having attacked another country before doesn't mean you are going to attack another country soon, especially since you got your ass severely kicked before. Especially when you know, that the entire world is going to turn against you, and that you have no chance of committing a successful invasion. Despite his many other failings, Saddam did have a sense of self-preservation.

Your point is seriously flawed, and not supported by any military intelligence, beyond obvious, unsupported propaganda.

The only argument you can really make, is that the propaganda reports were based on some real intellegence, which for unknown reasons has never been made public. Even when so many of the people who supported the propaganda campaign, and even wrote some of, have admitted that there never was any real intelligence to support Saddam's supposed attempts to invade the surrounding countries.

Just like there wasn't any evidence of Saddam's ties to Al Qaida, which were a fairly important part of the pre-war propaganda campaign. Most Americans were brainwashed to genuinely believe Saddam had ties to Al Qaida, when in fact he had none.

I have to say, in comparison, the Obama administration feels refreshingly honest (Despite telling their own lies, like any administration tells). It's really quite staggering, how many intentional lies the Bush administration was willing to tell, to get the permission to invade a country which posed no threat to USA (Or to any other country, for that matter). And it's puzzling, how little most people seem to remember of those lies. It's like some kind of alternative reality thing, people have just *forgotten* everything that was said pre-war. As if it didn't really happen.

While I dislike many things, and intentional misleading (and lies) that the Obama administration does… It's still not nowhere as bad as the Bush administration. Some people try to say that because Obama white house has it's flaws, then it's not any different from the Bush white house. Which, frankly, is a position which is hard to take seriously. Look what Bush administration did pre-Iraq war. Spend the next few hours reading about it. It's really interesting to read about it in retrospect, because everything just seems batshit insane. Then compare it to what the Obama administration is doing now.

Yes, they both lie. They both show signs of incompetence. But there is MASSIVE difference between how far those lies, and the incompetence, are taken.

I prefer an administration that does only a 20% shitty job, instead of an administration that does a 80% shitty job. 20% and 80% are not the same.
Last edited by tuukka; September 6th, 2013 at 12:02.
tuukka is offline

tuukka

Watchdog

#67

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 107

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 11:57
I think "intellect" should be "intelligence" - otherwise I agree. I am not too big a fan of our Schröder/Fischer government at the time, but I appreciate they took a stand against this whole push for the war at the time. They may have had other motives (don't all politicians?) but that the WMD argument was paper-thin was more than obvious (at least for anyone outside the US, I guess).
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#68

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,482

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 13:28
Well, let's see. Obama and Bush are cousins and both bonesmen and both knew each other. I hated Bush and thought that Obama would be the most likely to pull out of the war, which is why I voted for him in his first term. However it's clear he was the next candidate in line for that particular raft of interests, like a one-two punch. It's no different than having Bush 2.0 and in american politics the money is just out in the open now so any candidate you choose will have all the same baggage behind it so Mc Cain wouldn't have been any better. Maybe worse, probably would have attacked syria and iran by now.
ManWhoJaped is offline

ManWhoJaped

Keeper of the Watch

#69

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 678

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 14:16
Originally Posted by tuukka View Post
Really, you are unikely to find any reliable, reasonable, objective analysis pre-Iraq war, that genuinely believed Saddam to be a danger to neighboring countries.
Tell that to Kuwait. With that poor of a grasp on history, I don't see much reason to continue.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#70

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 15:08
While I'm a republican I think I'm fairly unbiased on this. The US looks stupid. We have gone from misguided, poorly planned wars with no exit strategy under Bush to incompetent dithering under Obama. Obama was screwed from the get go. The Nobel Peace Prize was indicative of clearly absurd expectations from the international community. Bush doggedly ignored facts and pushed his agenda and damaged our reputation for at least a decade. Obama and his cabinet ignored different facts: that the country is politically polarized and paralyzed and he cannot back up his words. This is what you get for slamming in a healthcare plan no one wanted. Consequences. The only "solution" now is to toss in a few Tomohawks and hope Lindsey Lowhan distacts the media for a while.

"For Innos!"
ToddMcF2002 is offline

ToddMcF2002

ToddMcF2002's Avatar
SasqWatch

#71

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 2,231

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 15:13
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Tell that to Kuwait. With that poor of a grasp on history, I don't see much reason to continue.
He mentioned that: "Iraq did attack Kuwait 10+ years prior. But having attacked another country before doesn't mean you are going to attack another country soon"
You are not trying to insinuate that the iraq war was stared to avert anoter impending invasion of a neighbour by Iraq, are you?
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#72

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,482

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 16:01
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Tell that to Kuwait. With that poor of a grasp on history, I don't see much reason to continue.
…Except that I *did* mention the Kuwait invasion, and the fact that it happened 10+ years prior, and the fact that since then Iraq had no real planned attacks towards anyone.

But with that kind of refutal, I can understand why you don't want to continue.
tuukka is offline

tuukka

Watchdog

#73

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 107

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 17:40
@ToddMcF2002

How can you be so right and so wrong at the same time? You correctly state that: "Bush doggedly ignored facts and pushed his agenda and damaged our reputation for at least a decade" and that "Obama and his cabinet ignored different facts: that the country is politically polarized and paralyzed and he cannot back up his words"
And than, incredibly, jump to the conclusion that: "This is what you get for slamming in a healthcare plan no one wanted".
You mean that this bit about Bush didn't have anything to do with US public lack of appetite for another intervention?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#74

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 17:53
Oh, y'all are cute. Such trusting folks.

Saddam was certainly talking a good story about invading places again. Past history lends 100% credence to his chit-chat.

But the sanctions, dude, the sanctions… Oh, the oil-for-food sanctions that Saddam was found (by the bumbling UN, even) to be violating? Or the limitations on armaments that Saddam was found (by the bumbling UN, even) to be violating? Puh-leeze.

But the inspectors, dude… Oh, the ones Saddam expelled from the country? Or the ones that declared for everyone that actually bothered to listen that they were not given access to the things they were supposed to inspect? Puh-leeze.

Anyone that thought Saddam was completely declawed was in serious denial. You're welcome to your opinion, but when you have to ignore basic facts for your opinion to hold up, it might be worth giving your position a little consideration.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#75

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 18:05
hookay… if he was not declawed, enlighten us what he was capable of clawing?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#76

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 18:11
Well, he was under quite the buffet of UN sanctions that were supposed to keep him in check when he managed to invade Kuwait. Why would you be so sure the 2nd time around, under the same circumstances?

After all, everyone thought Saddam was just a harmless blowhard on 01AUG90, too.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#77

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 18:59
You disappoint me dte. Such an obvious smoke and mirrors?
Circumstances weren't the same.
1- Iraqi forces sustained heavy loses during Gulf War;
2- Operation Provide Comfort and (to the lesser extend) Operation Northern Watch further degraded Saddam's military capability.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#78

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 19:05
As you cohorts pointed out, the Kuwait invasion was 10 years prior. Thank goodness Saddam made no effort to rebuild his weaponry in that time. Well, other than those shiny new missles that the UN found that he couldn't possibly build due to sanctions in place. Head, sand, sand, head. It's just so cute.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#79

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

September 6th, 2013, 19:15
Which missiles you have in mind?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#80

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,345
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Syria getting ugly in a hurry
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:23.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch