Syria

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Syria

Post by Jan Van » Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:57 pm

From this it seems there's no problem:

Can Obama Bomb Syria? The Legality of a Unilateral U.S. Strike
The War Powers Act envisages real wars, not the lobbing of cruise missiles into a country for a few days to punish that country’s leader for crossing some red line the president decided to draw. If the U.S. bombs Syria, the action may take only a few days. If this is in fact the case, the War Powers Act only states Obama is required to tell Congress what he is doing and why. Obama has already briefed Congress and will undoubtedly advise of more details, either in a brief to Congress or on a television show.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:02 pm

notsheigetz wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.[/size][/font]

A case that was strongly made by two senators named Obama and Biden during the Iraq fiasco. If you haven't listened to the youtubes of them making these statements I highly recommend them as perfect examples of hypocrisy. Biden was even suggesting impeachment if Bush attacked Iraq with congressional authorization.
Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?
notsheigetz
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by notsheigetz » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:08 pm

stuper1 wrote: Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?
Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.
This space available for rent.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:58 pm

notsheigetz wrote: Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.
#1 - Not really a familiar ring to me.  I don't get the feel that Obama is really itching to go into Syria the way Bush was into Iraq.  I believe Syria is pretty far down on the list of countries with oil reserves.

#2 - The constitution is just a piece of paper that can be read just about any way you want it to.  If Obama wants to read it as not stopping him from trying to stop somebody from gassing people, it doesn't bother me a whole lot.  Of course, the ones who make out like bandits are whoever makes and sells the missiles to Obama.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:03 pm

stuper1 wrote:
notsheigetz wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.

A case that was strongly made by two senators named Obama and Biden during the Iraq fiasco. If you haven't listened to the youtubes of them making these statements I highly recommend them as perfect examples of hypocrisy. Biden was even suggesting impeachment if Bush attacked Iraq with congressional authorization.
Is there no difference between putting boots on the ground to topple a government on clearly spurious grounds (i.e., supposed evidence of WMDs that were never found), versus sending a message to a government that we are not going to sit by and let them gas innocent people?
Sort of like we sent a message to Saddam Hussein in 1988 when he killed 5,000 Kurds in a gas attack?

Oh, wait a second, back in 1988 Hussein was the good guy and we were supporting him in his war against Iran.

Never mind.

Image

Even when it comes to Syria itself, George Bush was all too happy to cozy up to Assad's dad in 1990 when he needed countries in the region to sign on to his decision to get involved with the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq had assured Saddam Hussein the U.S. had no interest in only a few months before.

So was Assad's dad a model citizen?  Nah.  He killed a whole city of Syrians in 1982 for sport and used poison gas to make sure that there were no survivors.
In 1982 the Syrian government killed 30,000 – 40,000 of its own citizens. Assad leveled an entire city with an air bombardment followed by artillery and tank fire. Why? They were anti Baath party, and apparently in 1982 in Syria that was a death sentence…

The residents of a Syrian city named Hama had been more persistent in their criticisms of the dictator than other towns. For that reason,

Hafez Assad decided that Hama would be the staging point of the example he was to make to the Syrian people. In the twilight hours of February the 2nd, 1982, the city of Hama was awakened by loud explosions. The Syrian air force had begun to drop their bombs from the dark sky.

The initial bombing run cost the city few casualties. It's main purpose had been to disable the roads so that no-one could escape. Earlier in the night, Syrian tanks and artillery systems had surrounded Hama. With the conclusion of the air bombing run, the tanks and artillery began their relentless shelling of the town.

The cost in human lives was severe. As homes crumbled upon their living occupants and the smell of charred skin filled the streets, a few residents managed to escape the shelling and started to flee. They were met by the Syrian army which had surrounded the city ... they were all shot dead.

Hours of shelling had turned Hama into rubble. The tanks and artillery had done all that they could. The next wave of attacks came in the form of Syrian soldiers. They quickly converged onto the town killing anything that would move. Groups of soldiers would round up men, women, and children only to shoot them in the back of the head. Many other soldiers would invade homes with the orders to kill all inhabitants.

After the majority of the people in Hama were dead, the soldiers began looting. They would take all that they could from the now empty homes. Some were seen picking through the dead civilians looking for money, watches, and rings.

With their mission completed and their pockets filled with loot, the soldiers began to retreat from the city. One would think that would have been the last wave of the attacks. It was not. The final attack on Hama was the most gruesome. To make sure that no person was left alive in the rubble and buildings, the Syrian army brought in poison gas generators. Cyanide gas filled the air of Hama. Bulldozers were later used to turn the city into a giant flat area.

The Syrian government death count was place at around 20,000 people dead ... but the Syrian Human Rights Committee estimates it to be much higher, at somewhere between 30,000 to 40,000 civilians’ dead or missing…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread156515/pg1
Bush and Assad in 1990:

Image

Note the irony in cozying up to a leader who had used poison gas to kill his own people for the purpose of forming a coalition against another leader who had used poison gas to kill his own people.
Last edited by MediumTex on Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:06 pm

It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:10 pm

stuper1 wrote:
notsheigetz wrote: Speaking of Iraq the "gassed his own people" line has kind of a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? I refer you to MT's signature about not believing anything you read in the papers.

And even if he is gassing people, constitutionally speaking I would still say no, there is no difference.
#1 - Not really a familiar ring to me.  I don't get the feel that Obama is really itching to go into Syria the way Bush was into Iraq.  I believe Syria is pretty far down on the list of countries with oil reserves.

#2 - The constitution is just a piece of paper that can be read just about any way you want it to.  If Obama wants to read it as not stopping him from trying to stop somebody from gassing people, it doesn't bother me a whole lot.  Of course, the ones who make out like bandits are whoever makes and sells the missiles to Obama.
There has been an informal rule in place since the 1980s that each American President is entitled to drop some bombs on a country that pisses him off, and this is just one of the perks of being President.

Obama is just cashing his token with this Syria thing.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:12 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.
Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:18 pm

MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.
Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.
I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:26 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: It is not in the average US citizen's interest for the US to get into any war, with the possible sole exception of a war in which the US has been physically attacked by a known foreign government.

Of course, this is unimportant to the US government, whose interests have effectively nothing in common with that of the citizenry.
Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.
I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.
Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:44 pm

MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote: Other than World War II and the War of 1812, I don't think any of the other U.S.'s wars have been in the interest of the citizenry.
I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.
Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."
Um, I think that was Wilson's slogan in 1916. Or am I missing your point?  :P
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:49 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
MediumTex wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not sure about WWII either. Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But my understanding is that that was a response to Roosevelt's forcible interference with their trade. Furthermore, WWII was largely a result of the US intervention in WWI.
Oh sure.  The U.S.'s involvement in WWII could have easily been avoided.  In fact, one of FDR's campaign slogans in 1940 was "HE KEPT US OUT OF WAR."
Um, I think that was Wilson's slogan in 1916. Or am I missing your point?  :P
Maybe the 1940 poster I saw was just riffing on the 1916 slogan.  Keeping the U.S. out of WWII was, however, a big part of FDR's 1940 campaign.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:49 pm

TennPaGa wrote: I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.
Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Syria

Post by MediumTex » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:56 pm

stuper1 wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.
Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.
What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:02 pm

MediumTex wrote:
stuper1 wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: I'm sure the dead, the maimed, and their survivors will be put at ease Obama's reluctance.
Well, I think the idea is to reduce the number of dead/maimed by reducing the killing/maiming capacity of the Assad government.  Of course, there's no certainty in the calculation; it's just a guess on probabilities; and collateral damage may be unavoidable.  Having to make that calculation is one of the bigger reasons I would never want to be president.
What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?
"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Richard M. Nixon, TV interview with David Frost, May 20, 1977

And we know how that turned out, don't we?
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:19 pm

MediumTex wrote:
What about the idea that as President you shouldn't do things that you don't have the legal authority to do?
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying he has the explicit legal authority.  I'm just saying that this seems a lot different to me than Bush going into Iraq.  When somebody gets to be president, I imagine they stop worrying much about legal authority, and start worrying a lot more about their place in history.  Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Xan » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:23 pm

stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.
That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:29 pm

Xan wrote:
stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.
That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.
Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:38 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Xan wrote:
stuper1 wrote:Obama is worried that Assad will gas thousands, and he'll be blamed for letting it happen.
That being the case, he should publicly call on Congress to debate and decide what to do.  That way if they decide against, he's totally off the hook.
Or maybe it's as simple as he's just worried that Assad will gas thousands.  And he knows that if he goes to Congress, it will just turn into an endless debate.
The solution to that is to have a dictator, not a Constitutional head executive.
I'm sure Obama would agree.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:48 pm

Maybe he would agree.  I wouldn't mind too much if he was dictator.  At least he can put three words together into a halfway intelligible sentence.  I'm just glad that Bush is gone.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:52 pm

stuper1 wrote: Maybe he would agree.  I wouldn't mind too much if he was dictator.  At least he can put three words together into a halfway intelligible sentence.  I'm just glad that Bush is gone.
I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Syria

Post by Benko » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:04 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.
Who are the other 3?  He's gotta be worse than Carter. 
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Syria

Post by stuper1 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:05 pm

I have a good friend who liked Bush.  He said at least with Bush, even if he doesn't speak eloquently, you can trust the words that come out of his mouth.

I was too nice to mention how obvious it was that Bush took us into Iraq based on lies about WMDs.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Syria

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:17 pm

Benko wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: I'm not. Obama is in the lead for 4th worst president, pushing Bush out of the way.
Who are the other 3?  He's gotta be worse than Carter.
FDR, Wilson, Lincoln.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: Syria

Post by Benko » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:48 pm

stuper1 wrote: even if he doesn't speak eloquently, you can trust the words that come out of his mouth.
I would suggest, that it is the slick ones e.g. Clinton who you can be very suspect they are not telling the truth vs the unelequoent ones who are much more likely to be telling the truth.

I once had a slick new dentist who found evidence of decay under numerous fillings and told me I needed many crowns.  Fortunately I can interpret x-rays and asked him to show me where on the x-rays.  He told me you couldn't see them but he was sure they were there  :o
Libertarian666 wrote: FDR, Wilson, Lincoln.
Thanks.  Figured FDR was in there.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Post Reply