Strike On Syria?

[4588686]

Since according to you the federal government isn't a representative body but a private collective, akin to a gang. But surely even gangsters can have property, right? Or does the fact that they acquired property using funds that are partially illicit (taxes) invalidate their whole claim to property? If so then what other moral qualifications must an individual have in order to legitimately obtain property?

[Aloysius]

as fascinating as this is, I can pretty much guarantee that the philosophical issue of whether the Federal Government has the right to exist will not be factoring into the decision here lol.  nothing wrong with treating governments as gangs of elite raiders and rejecting their claims to legitimacy based upon 'democracy', but at the end of the day we have to deal with how things really operate, with the authorities the government claims to have. 

 

in other news: a majority of americans approve of sending congress to Syria

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

 

in more serious news: more outrage from the Syrians we've decided to terrorize along with our so-called enemy terrorists:

Catholic Patriarch Of Syria To Obama: Your 'Criminal' Attack Will Only Benefit Muslim Extremists

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/76796-catholic-patriarch-syria-obama-criminal-attack-will-benefit-muslim-extremists/

[add]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.


The U.S. has intercepted communications between Iran and Shiite militants in Iraq involving orders to the militia groups to attack the U.S. Embassy and other U.S. interests in Baghdad in the event of an American strike in Syria. Julian Barnes has more. Photo: AP.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies...

America can flood the region with humanitarian aid and should. Invade with love not war!

[KnightofChrist]

Not that that's anything to dismiss, but I think it is more concerning that Putin/Russia has promised to help Syria should there be an attack, and has been sending and building up ships in the region for the last couple of days.

[Semper Catholic]

So at what do GWB and Dick Cheney pull off their Obama and Kerry masks? Before or after we lay waste to Damascus? I'm sure the real Obama and Kerry are tied up and gagged in a janitors closet somewhere

[Era Might]

Russia has interests in the region, too. They have to react to U.S. involvement.

[Winchester]

Within your ideological framework, what is wrong with this? An association of individuals, acting towards a common end, acquired property. Somebody seemingly took that property and they used violence to protect their property from a thief. Seems completely legit to me.

A bandit gang is also organized.

[Nihil Obstat]

So at what do GWB and Dick Cheney pull off their Obama and Kerry masks? Before or after we lay waste to Damascus? I'm sure the real Obama and Kerry are tied up and gagged in a janitors closet somewhere

What, you actually thought they were any different?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.


The U.S. has intercepted communications between Iran and Shiite militants in Iraq involving orders to the militia groups to attack the U.S. Embassy and other U.S. interests in Baghdad in the event of an American strike in Syria. Julian Barnes has more. Photo: AP.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies...

America can flood the region with humanitarian aid and should. Invade with love not war!

 

Although that is good evidence, it's not strong enough to warrant the way Obama's been handling the situation. Rushing into conflict makes it harder to get other nations on our side. Why couldn't we have waited for the U.N. chemical weapons team to finish their analysis? We don't even know for sure what chemical weapons were used. I also question why Assad would have used such weapons on a nonstrategic area when he was already winning. He had everything to lose by doing this. It seems more plausible, with the limited knowledge we currently have, that the rebels orchestrated the attack in order to get the world stage involved. Even if Assad is guilty, it was the U.N.'s job to take care of this, not Obama's.

Consider the fact that Hezbollah claims it has rockets capable of hitting any part of Israel (and Israel believes this). What if Hezbollah happens to fire a rocket at a U.S. warship once we begin our attacks? I imagine the obvious response would be to strike Lebanon. Once that happens, we'll bring more countries into the mix, possibly turning our small intervention into another world war.

Edited September 7, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Aloysius]

this is why it's ridiculous for them to suggest that firing a few missiles into another country is not "war in the classic sense".  it's an act of war, and that country and its allies would justifiably want to respond to that act of war in any way they are capable of, just as we would if someone fired missiles into our country.  there is every possibility that these attacks will result in our soldiers being in harm's way due to reprisals and escalations.  

[Apotheoun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmDDTuC6Rk

[add]

harry reid just postponed the senate vote on thursday because of a Russian proposal, thats pure bs, he postponed the vote because they (obama) wont win

this administration is going to war no matter what the american people think, this Congressional approval is a scam the democrats are playing 

[Didacus]

Honestly - I don't think anyone will want to take on the US on a world conflict at this point.  Not just yet.  The US is still the 800lbs gorilla in the ring that no one can measure themselves with.

 

Whatever gains or loses for the US comes from this (others than more American lives lost overseas) it will be political, economical and diplomatic if any. 

 

However, the economic state of the US at this point is extremely fragile, and a conflict like this will further isolate the US.  The closest precedent I can think of is the king of France helping the English revolution in the future US while his people were starving (plunging in the conflict enough economic resources to feed the people of France in their entirety for 2 years by scant estimates).  Although the conflict once resolved had no direct impact to France political status, it set up the French revolution.

[Semper Catholic]

Honestly - I don't think anyone will want to take on the US on a world conflict at this point.  Not just yet.  The US is still the 800lbs gorilla in the ring that no one can measure themselves with.

 

Whatever gains or loses for the US comes from this (others than more American lives lost overseas) it will be political, economical and diplomatic if any. 

 

However, the economic state of the US at this point is extremely fragile, and a conflict like this will further isolate the US.  The closest precedent I can think of is the king of France helping the English revolution in the future US while his people were starving (plunging in the conflict enough economic resources to feed the people of France in their entirety for 2 years by scant estimates).  Although the conflict once resolved had no direct impact to France political status, it set up the French revolution.

 

LOL WUT.In a conventional war yes, but another COIN conflict is exactly what Al-Qaeda and the US's other enemies want. Long drawn out wars with no clear cut victories was basically Osama's blueprint for taking down the US.

[Didacus]

LOL WUT.In a conventional war yes, but another COIN conflict is exactly what Al-Qaeda and the US's other enemies want. Long drawn out wars with no clear cut victories was basically Osama's blueprint for taking down the US.

 

Hence my last paragraph.