- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: U.S. and it's "partners" have begun airstrikes in Syria.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:03 pm to TigerLicks
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:03 pm to TigerLicks
This thread is a big huge steaming pile of shite that sums up American politics perfectly. 
1
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:03 pm to GooseSix
The President is on point...
Leverage the war into the midterms. Hold the Senate with a chance to place 2 more judges on SCOTUS.
Leverage the war into the midterms. Hold the Senate with a chance to place 2 more judges on SCOTUS.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:04 pm to notiger1997
I wonder if we have crossed Vlad's red line in the sand.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:04 pm to TigerLicks
quote:Well at least we're seeing the transparent administration at work. We just didn't know BO was talking about military operations.
Amazed at the chickenhawk libs that have surfaced. I hope the Nobel Committee doesn't take the community organizer's Peace Prize away. Oh the horror!
"We are not going to put boots on the ground."
"Next week we will strike ISIL positions inside Syria"
then, in case ISIL forgot . . .
"This morning we are going to attack the following ISIL positions inside Syria . . ."
"We are going to use F-22's"
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:05 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
a country does not need UN approval for war when invaded nor does it's allies in defending against invasion.
Syria did not invade the USA. Iraq has the right to defend itself against ISIL. Iraq has the right to conduct self defense operations against imminent attack. Bombing Syrian territory when there's no imminent attack isn't self defense.
None of the above provides a solid legal basis under international law for Obama's current armed attacks on Syria. Syria consented to attacks against ISIL inside Syrian borders, but required US coordination with Damascus first. Obama chose to ignore this condition and conduct the unilateral attacks.
Here's the article that supports my argument
LINK
The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty arises not from the debate itself with regard to legality. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on YOUR part arises out of the fact that you were totally disinterested in analyzing the legality of Obama's attacks before the fact. Obama is doing the bombing so that's fine with you. But when Bush did the same thing, you went nuts and haven't stopped calling him a war criminal for 11 years.
This post was edited on 9/22/14 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:10 pm to Champagne
Let me help you.... Calm down and read Article 51 of the UN Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
That means, each nation has the inherent right of self defense against an armed attack (Iraq in this instance) and a collective self-defense (that's allies in defending against an armed attack against a sovereign nation. We are defending are allies.
Bush on the other hand was the aggressor. He wasn't defending, he was invading.
I'm sorry that you being a military man doesn't know the difference between offense and defense. I can well understand why you're a Les Miles fan. You two share that disability.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
That means, each nation has the inherent right of self defense against an armed attack (Iraq in this instance) and a collective self-defense (that's allies in defending against an armed attack against a sovereign nation. We are defending are allies.
Bush on the other hand was the aggressor. He wasn't defending, he was invading.
I'm sorry that you being a military man doesn't know the difference between offense and defense. I can well understand why you're a Les Miles fan. You two share that disability.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:11 pm to LSURussian
quote:
He does have a point and he's made it very well: You and your kind are lying hypocrites.
Cause you say so.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:12 pm to Sentrius
quote:
No.
This is just the beginning of a larger campaign.
Tonite?
Oh okay...you got me.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:12 pm to asurob1
quote:
You mean the Army is sending divisions into Iraq/Syria.
Wow, I missed that press conference.
No doubt he will fail to have a post-war plan in place as well.
Or perhaps...most likely...highly probably...it's simply air strik
You are now embarrassing yourself, my friend. You are flailing like a chicken with its head cut off.
You are trying to post "gotcha" stuff against me without even reading the thread, and you just look silly.
I ALREADY RESPONDED to your exact point in this thread and you would have known this before you posted had you bothered to READ and THINK before you post.
Was it an oversight on your part that you missed the fact that Obama's armed attacks are probably illegal under the UN Charter?
Now that you know it to be true, what is your reaction, given the vigorous support you've always given to the notion that Bush's armed attack on Saddam's Iraq was completely illegal under international law?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:12 pm to TOKEN
quote:
The President is on point...
Leverage the war into the midterms. Hold the Senate with a chance to place 2 more judges on SCOTUS.
Well if you insist
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:12 pm to asurob1
Are you for or against Obama's military action, including arming "moderates"?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:14 pm to Champagne
The democrats on this board have turned into blood thirsty war mongerers.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:14 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:
I'm sorry that you being a military man doesn't know the difference between offense and defense. I can well understand why you're a Les Miles fan. You two share that disability.
boom
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:14 pm to Jbird
How many contracts will Hallibutton get in Syria?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:15 pm to Champagne
We're not "bombing Syria", we're bombing the invaders of Iraq (and of Syria) who are in Syria and Iraq.
Again, you call yourself an attorney and a military man and you claim bombing invaders/enemies of Syria is bombing Syria. Very odd.
Tell me this, the GOP is chock full of GOPpers full of hate and vitriol of Obama yet they almost all support this and are not claiming what you're claiming. Clearly they are not Les Milesbots and know the difference in offensive action and defensive action.
Again, you call yourself an attorney and a military man and you claim bombing invaders/enemies of Syria is bombing Syria. Very odd.
Tell me this, the GOP is chock full of GOPpers full of hate and vitriol of Obama yet they almost all support this and are not claiming what you're claiming. Clearly they are not Les Milesbots and know the difference in offensive action and defensive action.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:15 pm to Jbird
quote:
Are you for or against Obama's military action, including arming "moderates"?
I am against armed action.
period.
But it's fun to see the usual suspects bitch and moan about it...when they damn well know they were the biggest cheerleaders when bush invaded Iraq.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:16 pm to TigerLicks
This violates the sovereignty of Syria at the same time preaching to Russia to not violate the sovereignty of Ukraine. Hypocrite much?
WTF Obongo?!?
WTF Obongo?!?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:16 pm to TigerLicks
No idea, they got no bids from the Obama White House so I guess bidness as usual.
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:16 pm to GooseSix
How long until this turns into an attack against Assad?
Posted on 9/22/14 at 10:17 pm to asurob1
quote:Well fap on.
But it's fun to see the usual suspects bitch and moan about it...when they damn well know they were the biggest cheerleaders when bush invaded Iraq.
Page 6 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News