The Syrian Conflict Thread

The SA troops have been sent to a UN approved military mission.

The US do not have permission to attack syria and there is no legal basis that allows them to, so attacking syria would break international law and it would be deemed a declaration of war. Thus alan explained to me what happens from there.

I don't understand what you are trying to show me other than the UN has approved the congo intervention/mission. I get it but the UN has not given the united states approval so any attack is a declaration of war. In libya they had a UN resolution to intervene.

What am i missing grant? I honestly can't see it so please enlighten me. I am going to pm alan and ask what i am missing, it seems like my understanding of international law and declaration of war is lacking possibly, let me see if alan can guide me in the right direction grant. Rather let me get alan to either confirm this or tell me no you are an idiot and this is why. Better over pm, so we don't go in circles :D. You seem well informed as usual but you are not seeing why it would be a declaration of war and not an intervention or i am not.
 
Last edited:
i am still not convinced of any evidence that the syrian government did this to their own people. i hear and read that asaan (however you spell his name) is not well liked, but that doesn't mean he will attack with such heinous actions against his own people.

i think obama needs to take a step back here and look at iraq as an example.
 
killadoob said:
What am i missing grant? I honestly can't see it so please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

Ok.
My posts were in response to your claims of obama heading for impeachment - and that ONLY.

I explained again and again, that if he wished to declare WAR against syria, he would need congressional approval.
He is not wishing to declare WAR but initiate military INTERVENTION.
Therein lies the difference. As president, the constitution affords him that option.

He has stated, he has no intention of "putting boots on the ground" but is looking to "fire a couple of shots over the bow".

Again, I used south africa's involvement in the congo as an EXAMPLE of a country being involved in military action in another state WITHOUT DECLARING WAR or being in a state of WAR.
I was trying to use the above to illustrate the situational / operational difference between WAR & MILITARY ACTION - the difference is great.


I trust Alan may be able to explain a little better.
I have tried over and over to try explain a small aspect of the obama position, but have evidently failed.
 
Do the Syrian rebels have access to chemical weapons?

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.
Click to expand...
Some rebels have actually boasted of their capacity to launch chemical weapons attacks. Political adviser of the Free Syrian Army Bassam Al-Dada said that the Army had all the components to produce chemical weapons and knew how to put them together and use them if necessary. He stressed that they would only use them if the Assad regime used them first. Speaking to the Turkish Anatolia news agency he said that Assad should know that if he uses chemical weapons the opposition also has them.
Click to expand...



http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/357288
 
Last edited:
Celine said:
i hope those countries who are on the ready to attack are sitting up and taking note of this. too much adrenalin power slapping men sitting in their arm chairs waiting to attack without having the full details of this attack.
Click to expand...

Except thats infowars /facepalm
 
So no attack, despite Celines incorrect guesses. Obama has said congress must decide.
 
Obama Will Seek Syria Vote in Congress

WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.

“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”

Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States. His decision raises the possibility that he would be the first president in modern times to lose a vote on the use of force, much as Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain did in Parliament last week.

Mr. Obama overruled the advice of many of his aides who worried about just such a defeat, and Republican Congressional officials said Saturday that if a vote were taken immediately, the Republican-controlled House would not support action. Interviews with more than a dozen members of Congress made clear that the situation was volatile even in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority.

“Obama hasn’t got a chance to win this vote if he can’t win the majority of his own party, and I doubt he can,” Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a leading Republican, said in an interview. “Democrats have been conspicuously silent. Just about his only support is coming from Republicans. He is a war president without a war party.”

Yet the debate may also put on display the divisions in the Republican Party between traditional national security hawks and a newer generation of lawmakers, particularly in the House, resistant to entanglements overseas and distrustful of Mr. Obama.

“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”

Even Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, two Republicans who have pressed Mr. Obama to intervene more aggressively in Syria, said Saturday that they might vote no because the president’s plan was too limited. “We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield,” they said in a statement.

Against that backdrop, the wording of the authorization of force may be critical. White House officials drafted a proposed measure that tried to strike a balance between being too expansive and too restrictive, and sent it to Congress on Saturday evening.

The proposal would empower Mr. Obama to order military action to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of chemical or biological weapons “within, to or from Syria” and to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Still, White House officials indicated that Mr. Obama might still authorize force even if Congress rejected it.

Presidents in modern times have used military force both with and without Congressional authorization. George Bush and George W. Bush both won votes from lawmakers before wars with Iraq, and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton launched strikes against Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo without asking permission.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
 
Lightscribe said:
I take it you hate girls. Have fun, son.
Click to expand...

Maybe celine turned down his cybersex offer and he got pissed at her :D.

Some sense, there was no way obama could break int laws and then domestic laws. Once the UK pulled out it was game over for a strike.
 
Putin on Syria, UK, USA

I am shocked that this prick thinks he is the right man to talk about whats right or wrong.

[video=youtube;oUyPpT0_8Gg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oUyPpT0_8Gg#t=84[/video]
 
BS

"Ï’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Click to expand...
Yanqui speak with fork tongue

Man obviously knows NO history

IF he perhaps said WRITTEN constitution I might have gone along

Pffttt

1di0t

THIS is pretty interesting

Which country can claim to be the World's oldest democracy?

BTW ; I would say that Britain had a constitutional MONARCHY and an UNWRITTEN constitution
(made up by case law and historic custom )
 
Last edited:
He never really spoke about wrong or right marine.

Can you explain to me what exactly he said that is not actually true? He never bashed them when he clearly could have done a far better job of bashing them. Fantastic interview i think and that is what obama should have done instead of kerry coming out with a speech that must be one of the worst i have ever seen from the US. He makes a point and it is a point i think people needs to grasp, if they claim to have undeniable evidence release it and show your undeniable evidence. Why is it a secret if it's undeniable?

Point out where he claiming what is right and wrong, all he basically said is they made mistakes in past. I thought that speech was actually pretty chilled and far from anti american. Very diplomatic and i have to agree with him, logically assad does not benefit or gain an advantage by gassing his own people. In that speech where does he claim anything is wrong or right marine? He mentions pasts mistakes, he mentions the west seemingly having the power to do whatever they want and no one can deny that the US makes up international law as they see fit mostly.

Marine tell me something: http://www.theguardian.com/environm...pleted-uranium-clean-up-contamination-spreads
who holds the US accountable for that?

There is no right and wrong marine, i only see wrong world wide.
 
Last edited:
After all the **** that out in has done recently he is the last person to be making speeches about right and wrong and yes that's exactly what he did.

My opinion is let the Arabs kill each other I don't care. They want to use chemical weapons? Let them.
 
Thankfully support back in the US for congress approval before attack has been heard and implemented by obama. The UK folk thought about it and said no for a reason.

O just to add something in, obama is the same man who has expanded assassinating people with impunity and that applies to americans as well. Protest organizers might just be terrorists one day in the US and assassinated without due process. Obama is also the man saying he will close gitmo at the same time requesting a 450 million dollar upgrade. We think zuma and co are bad, at least they are not bankrupting the country, sure taking our money but they are not printing money out of thin air to buy their own debt :eek:
 
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Obama. Everytime he talks I feel like I am getting lied to.
He is Ghoti's god not mine.
I say it again, let the Arabs sort out their own back yard
 
marine1 said:
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Obama. Everytime he talks I feel like I am getting lied to.
He is Ghoti's god not mine.
I say it again, let the Arabs sort out their own back yard
Click to expand...

The US supplied saddam with chemical weapons and stood back while he gassed the kurds and the US blamed iran. What we need to do is focus on the issue at hand. Yea i am beginning to believe you regarding obama, you stated it from the beginning but then again what american president has ever been honest, kennedy? He was killed for being a decent president. So the best thing to do is be the worst liar so you can get two terms like bush and obama :D
 
ghoti said:
So no attack, despite Celines incorrect guesses. Obama has said congress must decide.
Click to expand...

i did not say anyone was going to attack. i said that those in the power seats must sit up and take note before attacking. two different things ghoti. get a dictionary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X