obama successfully reaches across to Republicans.

[fskimospy]

The wild card is the UN. If the UN does not back action Putin will have international law on his side...

Nope. Russia will veto any resolution to bomb Syria and the US/France/UK will veto any resolution to condemn US action or make a declaration of international law.

 

[Agent11]

Nope. Russia will veto any resolution to bomb Syria and the US/France/UK will veto any resolution to condemn US action or make a declaration of international law.

Ban Ki-Moon would disagree with you.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on Tuesday, expressed concerns about the U.S.'s plans to launch a unilateral military strike against Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad's regime, and emphasized that the use of force is permitted only in self defense under international law.

 

[fskimospy]

Ban Ki-Moon would disagree with you.

You should go look at the powers of the UN Secretary General. What he says means nothing as to the actual position of the UN, only the Security Council (actually) and the General Assembly (nominally) have such a power.

 

[Agent11]

Doesn't matter.

The security council states do have a long history of not being the best examples in regards to fulfilling the UN charter, however unless the UN approves action due to the chemical weapons, (There has been some talk of this if there is definitive evidence.) international law would support Russia's position rather than ours.

If you look at the situation objectively you would see that.

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't matter.

The security council states do have a long history of not being the best examples in regards to fulfilling the UN charter, however unless the UN approves action due to the chemical weapons, (There has been some talk of this if there is definitive evidence.) international law would support Russia's position rather than ours.

If you look at the situation objectively you would see that.

Objectively? What I'm trying to tell you is how the world actually works.

If you think the US has violated international law you have a couple of options in order to get that adjudicated. You can get a judgment from the Security Council that most people will ignore because it's the US (even so still not going to happen due to US vetoes), a judgment that basically everyone will ignore from the General Assembly, (good luck) or action through the ICC on the crime of aggression. (this jurisdiction will not be granted until 2017)

So you say international law will be on Russia's side. Based on what determination? There are also international agreements that are intended to prevent genocide, the use of chemical weapons, etc, etc. For the US to be found to be in violation of international law you need to get some impartial body to say that. The US exerts tremendous influence over all those bodies. ie: ain't gonna happen.

I think the US bombing Syria is a bad idea and it very likely violates the principles of the UN Charter. What I'm telling you is that there will never be such a judgment, and we control the levers of what decides international law.

 

[BoberFett]

Why trim "classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way" down to "classical sense"? Oh, because your rant makes no sense when you use the whole sentence.

Just because we bomb the shit out of any country we want without a formal declaration of war from Congress doesn't mean it's not war. It just means that we don't even follow our own rules.

Again, weasel words, coming from weasels. It's not right when Republicans do it, and it's not right when Democrats do it. Yet there are quite a few Democrats who, while arguing that they're against any action towards Syria, do their best to try to spin things so that Obama can come out of this cleanly even though they would lynch a Republican for doing the exact same thing.

Deny it all you want, but you're a partisan hack no different than Spidey or any of the other hacks around here.

 

[Agent11]

There are also international agreements that are intended to prevent genocide, the use of chemical weapons, etc, etc.

There is hardly a genocide going on. The evidence that it was Assad who used the weapons is dubious in my opinion.

 

[dank69]

Just because we bomb the shit out of any country we want without a formal declaration of war from Congress doesn't mean it's not war. It just means that we don't even follow our own rules.

Again, weasel words, coming from weasels. It's not right when Republicans do it, and it's not right when Democrats do it. Yet there are quite a few Democrats who, while arguing that they're against any action towards Syria, do their best to try to spin things so that Obama can come out of this cleanly even though they would lynch a Republican for doing the exact same thing.

Deny it all you want, but you're a partisan hack no different than Spidey or any of the other hacks around here.

Bober, please try to let this information penetrate your skull:

Kerry was not trying to say it wouldn't be a war. He was saying it won't be a boots on the ground type of war.

That's it. End of story. Unless you think he is lying and does plan to send troops into Syria, you have nothing to argue about here.

 

[BoberFett]

Bober, please try to let this information penetrate your skull:

Kerry was not trying to say it wouldn't be a war. He was saying it won't be a boots on the ground type of war.

That's it. End of story. Unless you think he is lying and does plan to send troops into Syria, you have nothing to argue about here.

Fucking hell you're a persistent, ignorant little shit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-boots-idUSBRE98210B20130903

Kerry doesn't want Syria option to preclude U.S. troops

So we won't put troops on the ground in Syria, unless we do.

Fucking brilliant.

 

[Fern]

Great, so Kerry wants authorization for troops on the ground.

As I said before, I smell mission creep.

Fern

 

[michal1980]

.

post

 

[michal1980]

.

& DominionSeraph



Aren't you two a bunch of fucktards. Is bashing, me, matt or incorruptable part of your play time?

Is this really how small petty and braindead you are? that you would spend untold amount of time just ripping people apart? People you really know nothing about?

You have no idea how smart or stupid I am? You have no really idea of what I believe or know. Your nothing but petty pea brain individuals who would rather go after people personally and destroy their character and or reputations, then to actually engaging in thought outside of your pre-ordained beliefs.

Its far far easier for you too call people stupid, and go on for countless posts debating on how stupid you think person A or B is, then to actually come out with something that requires actual thinking. Your so stuck up your own asses that you believe your shit doesn't smell, and that you two some how are so all knowing you know who is or isn't stupid.

So just simply: Fuck you.

 

[Incorruptible]

& DominionSeraph



Aren't you two a bunch of fucktards. Is bashing, me, matt or incorruptable part of your play time?

Is this really how small petty and braindead you are? that you would spend untold amount of time just ripping people apart? People you really know nothing about?

You have no idea how smart or stupid I am? You have no really idea of what I believe or know. Your nothing but petty pea brain individuals who would rather go after people personally and destroy their character and or reputations, then to actually engaging in thought outside of your pre-ordained beliefs.

Its far far easier for you too call people stupid, and go on for countless posts debating on how stupid you think person A or B is, then to actually come out with something that requires actual thinking. Your so stuck up your own asses that you believe your shit doesn't smell, and that you two some how are so all knowing you know who is or isn't stupid.

So just simply: Fuck you.

Agree 100%. These idiots have nothing going on in their lives so they act tough on P&N. It's pathetic really and they're nothing but shills for obama. These guys have nothing, they can't debate with the facts and lose so they instead go after people personally.

I have destroyed them and their ilk many times so when I see their idiotic drivel I just skip right over it.

So just simply: Fuck you

Best response to these idiots.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Agree 100%. These idiots nothing going on in their lives so they act tough on P&N. It's pathetic really and they're nothing but shills for obama. These guys have nothing, they can't debate with the facts and lose so they instead go after people personally.

I have destroyed them and their ilk many times so when I see their idiotic drivel I just skip right over it.

Best response to these idiots.

Do you ever ponder why so many people are utterly flabbergasted at what you post on these forums and subsequently respond to you with such hostility. Surely at some point you have to consider that something makes you stand out. I would consider taking some time off to your self and do some deep reflection.

 

[palehorse]

Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

Brilliant! I support this plan 100%!

I also believe that the CIC should lead the first wave of their attack.

 

[boomerang]

 

[dank69]

Fucking hell you're a persistent, ignorant little shit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-usa-boots-idUSBRE98210B20130903



So we won't put troops on the ground in Syria, unless we do.

Fucking brilliant.

Again, omitting context:

"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country," he said in answer to a question in a Senate hearing.
But Kerry also stressed that "the president has no intention" of putting American troops on the ground to be involved in fighting Syria's civil war.

Include the context and your argument doesn't stand. I assume Kerry is only keeping that option open in the very unlikely case that Syria escalates further.

 

[dank69]

& DominionSeraph



Aren't you two a bunch of fucktards. Is bashing, me, matt or incorruptable part of your play time?

Is this really how small petty and braindead you are? that you would spend untold amount of time just ripping people apart? People you really know nothing about?

You have no idea how smart or stupid I am? You have no really idea of what I believe or know. Your nothing but petty pea brain individuals who would rather go after people personally and destroy their character and or reputations, then to actually engaging in thought outside of your pre-ordained beliefs.

Its far far easier for you too call people stupid, and go on for countless posts debating on how stupid you think person A or B is, then to actually come out with something that requires actual thinking. Your so stuck up your own asses that you believe your shit doesn't smell, and that you two some how are so all knowing you know who is or isn't stupid.

So just simply: Fuck you.

Oh Michal, it really didn't take much time at all. You are right though, I don't know you. I only know what you post on this board. If you don't want people to think you're an idiot, stop posting idiotic shit. When you post on a forum, you open yourself up to criticism. Deal with it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Again, omitting context:

Include the context and your argument doesn't stand. I assume Kerry is only keeping that option open in the very unlikely case that Syria escalates further.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.



All they care about is starting their little war with syria.


Our Dear Leader wants a war to his name, and by golly he's going to get it.

 

[dank69]

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.



All they care about is starting their little war with syria.


Our Dear Leader wants a war to his name, and by golly he's going to get it.

Nobody wants a war to their name. Obama feels we have a moral obligation to prevent the use of chemical weapons. That is his motivation.

 

[boomerang]

Nobody wants a war to their name. Obama feels we have a moral obligation to prevent the use of chemical weapons. That is his motivation.

So we're all clear, if Congress turns him down and he goes, he'll have your full support. Correct? If so, any plans to join the military to give him the full support he deserves?

Additionally, because you seem to know what Obama desires, could you answer why he did nothing the first time chemical weapons were used?

Thanks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I assume Kerry is only keeping that option open in the very unlikely case that Syria escalates further.

Regardless of Kerrys motives I find the "unlikely" case almost a certainty. Assad will have two options, either roll over (which I see as the unlikely event) or try to demonstrate that he remains in control. The expression of that will be to remove whatever restraint is in place and inflict more casualties. How that's accomplished would be anyones guess, but gassing is not the only option.

So when Assad does this what will Kerry opt for? Boots on the ground short term to remove a despot leader and build a new nation?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Nobody wants a war to their name. Obama feels we have a moral obligation to prevent the use of chemical weapons. That is his motivation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nobody wants a war to their name. Obama feels we have a moral obligation to prevent the use of chemical weapons. That is his motivation.

Moral motivations can be the most frightening of all. I suggest you look at the newest Guardian release about the NSA, who has a moral obligation to defeat any privacy you might have even to the point of coercion beyond the normal scope of governmental regulation. The moral obligation to protect you outweighs your rights or say so in the matter.

Regardless, Kerry is setting the stage for what are probably anticipated reactions by Assad, and that means the distinct possibility of "we didn't really want to do this but Assad left us no choice", because we have that moral obligation.

 

[dank69]

So we're all clear, if Congress turns him down and he goes, he'll have your full support. Correct? If so, any plans to join the military to give him the full support he deserves?

Please quote where I said I support any of this.

Additionally, because you seem to know what Obama desires, could you answer why he did nothing the first time chemical weapons were used?

Thanks.

I haven't been following it that closely. Was there sufficient evidence last time? Is there this time? I don't know what Obama desires, I just think my opinion makes a little more sense than SA's since, you know, that's what he is saying and Democrats aren't really known as big time warmongers. Believe what you want.