US declares war on Syria!

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Yep, should have burned 3.000.000 people in Holland.

See what you're doing? Do you see it?
You have a problem with me and want to punish 2.999.999 people for it.

That's generalised punishment and is illegal. That's why you are hated.
You're just a little nazi with too big a grudge on your shoulder.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Actually, it isn't that simple. By your logic, if a Canadian went into Detroit and killed someone, bear in mind that this person is just a citizen, not a solder, we could then launch a Special Forces attack into Canada. Do you think that this is accurate?

If Canada was doing nothing about it and the citizens were continuing to attack, then we would have the right to attack them in Canada.

This is a common enough problem with Islamic countries. If they can't control their population, then they are open to attack.

Originally posted by Eladar
If Canada was doing nothing about it and the citizens were continuing to attack, then we would have the right to attack them in Canada.

This is a common enough problem with Islamic countries. If they can't control their population, then they are open to attack.

Don't you think that maybe congress should be involved in that decision?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Actually, it isn't that simple. By your logic, if a Canadian went into Detroit and killed someone, bear in mind that this person is just a citizen, not a solder, we could then launch a Special Forces attack into Canada. Do you think that this is accurate?

A group of organized citizens in a foreign country who carry military weapons and use such to kill our forces ARE soldiers. They just have a different uniform. Because they are not a part of a gov't or particular country means Jack diddly. So if they shoot at us, shoot back. And if they're good enough to shoot once they're good enough to shoot twice. Nobody wants to kill kids,that's what happens in wars. Sounds callous, but that's the reality of war. You're moral philosophizing won't stop anything. We need to keep our military out of all conflicts except in self defense or retribution for acts against the US.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by MrHand
Don't you think that maybe congress should be involved in that decision?

So when you spot al-Quaida going into Iraq we need to go to congress to act? The bad guys may be gone by the time congress gets back to the military...

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
So when you spot al-Quaida going into Iraq we need to go to congress to act? The bad guys may be gone by the time congress gets back to the military...

So have we become a dictatorship then? We are at war on terrorism. A war that will never be done. Commander in chief gets eternal war time powers?

We're just going to go bombing all over the middle east?

Originally posted by MrHand
So have we become a dictatorship then? We are at war on terrorism. A war that will never be done. Commander in chief gets eternal war time powers?

We're just going to go bombing all over the middle east?

give me a break, when fighting a war you cannot seek congress approval for every action. It's not necessary here anyway. This action would of taken place no matter who was president because it is insane to say you must go to congress for battlefield decisions.

Originally posted by MrHand
So have we become a dictatorship then? We are at war on terrorism. A war that will never be done. Commander in chief gets eternal war time powers?

We're just going to go bombing all over the middle east?

Yes, the US IS a dictatorship, but so what! Our dictator was elected by a democratic vote. That's what we wanted. Right! What's the problem? All's good as long as it's what the majority of the people want. No diff than voting for a commie.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by smw6869
Yes, the US IS a dictatorship, but so what! Our dictator was elected by a democratic vote. That's what we wanted. Right! What's the problem? All's good as long as it's what the majority of the people want. No diff than voting for a commie.

GRANNY.

so much for the constitution. You've done Richard M. Nixon and his predecessor, George W. proud.

executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers

Originally posted by Eladar
That's total BS. If they are going to kill us, we have the right to kill them. It is as simple as that.

No my friend what you are saying is total BS. The US does not have the right to go attack a country they assume is providing for a faction we are not officially at war with let alone go kill their children.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
give me a break, when fighting a war you cannot seek congress approval for every action. It's not necessary here anyway. This action would of taken place no matter who was president because it is insane to say you must go to congress for battlefield decisions.

Actually, if you are crossing the border of a sovereign nation that we are not at war with you should seek the approval of congress, because what you are doing is precipitating a war. Commanders on the ground do not have that authority.

This wasn't a battlefield decision. It wasn't as if they were pursuing terrorists that crossed the border ahead of them like an old west movie. They planned and executed an assault on a sovereign nation.

Sure, it may have been warranted, but that isn't the issue. By doing so, the commander that order it could have started a war with a nation that, while we don't particularly like, we aren't openly at war with. I'm guessing that the order to do this didn't come from anyone in Iraq, but from way higher up.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Actually, if you are crossing the border of a sovereign nation that we are not at war with you should seek the approval of congress, because what you are doing is precipitating a war. Commanders on the ground do not have that authority.

This wasn't a battlefield decision. It wasn't as if they were pursuing terrorists that crossed the border ahead of t ...[text shortened]... essing that the order to do this didn't come from anyone in Iraq, but from way higher up.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter allows such action for self defence.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter allows such action for self defence.

"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. "

The key here is, for self-defence

Originally posted by MrHand
so much for the constitution. You've done Richard M. Nixon and his predecessor, George W. proud.

executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers
executive privilege
commander in chief powers

Hey, i'm just mimicing ( with tongue in cheek ) what others, on this forum, have said about "free democratic elections" around the world, and how it's the people's choice...live with it (so they say). I agree with you.

GRANNY.