Obama airstrikes Syria
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
One Ugly Christian
New member
I'm right-wing and despise Barrack Osama's policies. He's a radical leftest revolutionary in the fashion of Mao. However, I blame Bush 1 and 2 for the vast majority of the mess. We should have never "stirred up the hornets' nest" in that part of the world.
That said though, B Osama is going about this whole thing in exactly the wrong way (again). The number one worst thing we could ever do is get Turkey involved. Anybody who understands the first thing about Islam should know this. Turkey is teetering on the brink of a cliff between Western culture and radical Islam and B Osama's actions will push them right over the edge. He's also making the same mistakes that Truman, Nixon, and Bush 1 and 2 made--not fighting a war to win. I find it unbelievable that these idiots can't learn such a simple lesson from history--and recent history at that.
That said though, B Osama is going about this whole thing in exactly the wrong way (again). The number one worst thing we could ever do is get Turkey involved. Anybody who understands the first thing about Islam should know this. Turkey is teetering on the brink of a cliff between Western culture and radical Islam and B Osama's actions will push them right over the edge. He's also making the same mistakes that Truman, Nixon, and Bush 1 and 2 made--not fighting a war to win. I find it unbelievable that these idiots can't learn such a simple lesson from history--and recent history at that.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
@OP- Some of us don't like these interventions regardless of who's doing it.
WizardofOz
New member
Do you oppose or support these strikes?
WizardofOz
New member
:thumb: Absolutely agree
I don't know about that...ISIS is causing a refugee crisis in Turkey and historical enemies within Turkey are uniting to fight back against them. They teeter on sectarian power struggles between Kurds and other Islamic factions. Same ole story....
Raids by ISIS Push Flood of Refugees Into Turkey
| The new influx is one of the largest since the crisis in Syria began more than three years ago, and it is prompting Kurdish fighters in Turkey to rush across the border and join the fight in Syria. “What we are faced with is a man-made disaster,” Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy prime minister, said on Monday. “We don’t know how many more villages may be raided, how many more people may be forced to seek refuge.” He said the crisis caused by the Islamic State’s advance was “worse than a natural disaster.” Kurdish fighters and civilians had evacuated a number of villages that were deemed indefensible, adding to the flow of refugees. But he said the local forces dug in around Ayn al-Arab had been reinforced by many fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, known as the P.K.K. Turkey is nervous about any military action by the P.K.K., which battled the Turkish government for decades in pursuit of autonomy for the country’s Kurds, a conflict that has resulted in more than 30,000 deaths. |
Militias uniting with P.K.K. separatists to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy and all...
What do you propose?
I hope the air strikes are a public scratching of the surface. I hope strike teams are infiltrating these areas to assassinate ISIS leadership. Air strikes are dangerous simply due to collateral damage on the ground, which starts the viscous cycle all over again. At least these missions are flown with Arab allies.
I'm not quite as much an isolationist as you. ISIS can and is destabilizing the entire region. In this case, I have no issue with air or isolated ground strikes on strategic targets. Everyone supports them other than....what do you know....Russia...:hammer:
Who wants the attacks coordinated with Assad's regime.
| As the United States launches airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, Russia is condemning the move, and hedging support for the attacks so long as they proceed without the Syrian government’s consent. “It would be in Russia’s interests to drag Western countries into a conversation with Assad,” |
The only other objections...
| Turkey would not allow attack operations from its air bases, while Egypt stressed that the focus should not be limited to the Islamic State. |
source
Turkey I understand as they can't handle the refugees they already have whereas Egypt apparently wants the bombing to be a bit more indiscriminate
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I am reluctant supporter of these airstrikes, and they seem to be done in a way which has been politically savvy.
I don't know what he could have done better, standing by and watching the innocent slaughtered should not be option. Also the use and selection of allies is politically very clever and stops IS playing the Christian vs Muslim card
I don't know what he could have done better, standing by and watching the innocent slaughtered should not be option. Also the use and selection of allies is politically very clever and stops IS playing the Christian vs Muslim card
WizardofOz
New member
My sentiments as well :thumb:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
And Ron Paul... and pretty much everyone on LRC... and almost every if not every single anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist, and most minarchists... but I guess we don't count
Admittedly, Rand fell in line with the hawks on this one, which did disappoint me.
I'm not an isolationist, I'm a non-interventionist.
He was speaking of self-identified liberals who are largely hypocritical.
Good point.
the cbc had an editorial over the weekend about how bammy is "leading" by consensus, how his every move is dependent on polling numbers
surprisingly, they seemed disapppointed in him
surprisingly, they seemed disapppointed in him
WizardofOz
New member
And Ron Paul... and pretty much everyone on LRC... and almost every if not every single anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist, and most minarchists... but I guess we don't count
I meant countries, not Internet forums
Pretty much everyone is on board with wiping out Isis before they further destabilize the region. And no nation opposes the idea, only the details.
And this "When confronted by complex problems – as the US is now in Iraq and Syria – sometimes the best strategy is to do nothing at all. The problem may go away or burn itself out." Just isn't going to cut it when the entire region faces destabilization. Sure it's due to intervention on our part that never should have occurred but that's the unfortunate reality we now find ourselves in.
The problem clearly isn't going away and isn't going to burn itself out. It's quite the opposite, actually.
9/10 I'd agree with you. We can't sit on our hands this time.
He opposes arming Syrians but supports strategic air strikes. I agree with his position.
My apologies. I stand corrected.
Lexington'96
New member
Now can we please stop calling Obama a peacenik?
One Ugly Christian
New member
:thumb: Absolutely agree
I don't know about that...ISIS is causing a refugee crisis in Turkey and historical enemies within Turkey are uniting to fight back against them. They teeter on sectarian power struggles between Kurds and other Islamic factions. Same ole story....
Raids by ISIS Push Flood of Refugees Into Turkey
The new influx is one of the largest since the crisis in Syria began more than three years ago, and it is prompting Kurdish fighters in Turkey to rush across the border and join the fight in Syria.
“What we are faced with is a man-made disaster,” Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy prime minister, said on Monday. “We don’t know how many more villages may be raided, how many more people may be forced to seek refuge.” He said the crisis caused by the Islamic State’s advance was “worse than a natural disaster.”
Kurdish fighters and civilians had evacuated a number of villages that were deemed indefensible, adding to the flow of refugees. But he said the local forces dug in around Ayn al-Arab had been reinforced by many fighters from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey, known as the P.K.K.
Turkey is nervous about any military action by the P.K.K., which battled the Turkish government for decades in pursuit of autonomy for the country’s Kurds, a conflict that has resulted in more than 30,000 deaths.
Militias uniting with P.K.K. separatists to fight a common enemy. The enemy of my enemy and all...
What do you propose?
I hope the air strikes are a public scratching of the surface. I hope strike teams are infiltrating these areas to assassinate ISIS leadership. Air strikes are dangerous simply due to collateral damage on the ground, which starts the viscous cycle all over again. At least these missions are flown with Arab allies.
I'm not quite as much an isolationist as you. ISIS can and is destabilizing the entire region. In this case, I have no issue with air or isolated ground strikes on strategic targets. Everyone supports them other than....what do you know....Russia...:hammer:
Who wants the attacks coordinated with Assad's regime.
As the United States launches airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, Russia is condemning the move, and hedging support for the attacks so long as they proceed without the Syrian government’s consent. “It would be in Russia’s interests to drag Western countries into a conversation with Assad,”
The only other objections...
Turkey would not allow attack operations from its air bases, while Egypt stressed that the focus should not be limited to the Islamic State.
source
Turkey I understand as they can't handle the refugees they already have whereas Egypt apparently wants the bombing to be a bit more indiscriminate
The Kurd problem in Turkey is very similar to the Khmer Rouge problem in Cambodia during the Viet Nam war. The longer the fighting went on the more powerful they got. The exact thing will happen in Turkey. To fight a war and not pursue total victory is stupid, immoral, expensive in lives and money and history clearly show it to be a failing police on every level.
WE, the good old U S of A, need to wipe these sickos off the face of the earth ASAP. I have a friend who has a great plan for doing so and also for establishing missions and a secure government afterwards---but I don't have permission to print it yet.
I just can't believe there's actually people out there (like some on this site) who think that expanding the war using yet more Arab powers and getting these other sickos involved in the mess Bush created is a good idea. Look at Saudi Arabia, how many people have they beheaded just this week? Is it more or less than ISIS did? WE DON'T NEED FRIENDS LIKE THAT!
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, he could have stayed in Iraq, and he could have stayed on top of this Arab uprising from the beginning, but he didn't. These are the end days, and Bambi was the perfect dupe to make them come all the sooner. I expect nothing but more mistakes out of him.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I meant countries, not Internet forums
Pretty much everyone is on board with wiping out Isis before they further destabilize the region. And no nation opposes the idea, only the details.
No "nation" opposes the State as an institution either. So what?
You trust the US government to fix a problem it created? I don't.
You think ISIS is going to invade the US?
The problem is that the neocons say this every time. And unfortunately, they control more politics than they do. Don't give them an inch or they'll take a mile. As Ron Paul has said, stand for bedrock principles.
I also oppose arming Syrians, but I also oppose strategic air strikes, or any other kind.
No problem.
You're the best peacenik
Obama is a warmonger...
WizardofOz
New member
I am not saying I disagree, I guess I just don't understand what your ideal action would be...Please explain what should be done, in your opinion.
But how? How can we wipe them off the face of the Earth? If it were that simple...
I think it's a good idea to let our Muslim allies help in the fight. Like them or not, Saudi Arabia is our biggest Muslim ally in the region.
When multiple Muslim nations want to go after ISIS with us, it makes everything look a bit more acceptable to those Muslims caught in the fray.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Obama Attacks Syria, Flouts Constitution and International Law
Daniel McAdams
The Obama Administration has initiated a bomb and land-based missile attack against Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, without a request for assistance from the Syrian government, and without a UN Security Council resolution.
This is an act of US aggression against a foreign nation and a violation of international law.
The attacks were also made with no declaration of war or authorization from the US Congress. This is an illegal act according to US law, a violation of the US Constitution.
The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force against perpetrators of 9/11 attacks could not be legally valid for Obama’s attacks on ISIS in Syria because ISIS is not part of al-Qaeda and in fact did not exist at the time of the 2001 attacks.
Ostensibly, today’s attacks on Syria are part of the US president’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), however the “international coalition” participating in today’s airstrikes in Syria – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — have all to varying degrees supported ISIS and other radical groups seeking to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad. Additionally most are despotic states every bit as authoritarian and theocratic as ISIS itself.
Even France, which enthusiastically participated in the 2011 bombing attacks on Libya, has refused to participate in the US air war against Syria.
There is no legal justification for the US government to attack Syria. A request for US bombs on its own country by US-backed opposition seeking to overthrow the Syria government is not legally sufficient to legalize US actions on Syrian territory.
On the pretext of destroying ISIS, the US is cooperating with the Gulf states which have backed ISIS, and is acting against the Syrian government which has fought ISIS for three years. US mainstream scare media will not touch this critical point, but that is the lie of US government propaganda.
Daniel McAdams
The Obama Administration has initiated a bomb and land-based missile attack against Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, without a request for assistance from the Syrian government, and without a UN Security Council resolution.
This is an act of US aggression against a foreign nation and a violation of international law.
The attacks were also made with no declaration of war or authorization from the US Congress. This is an illegal act according to US law, a violation of the US Constitution.
The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force against perpetrators of 9/11 attacks could not be legally valid for Obama’s attacks on ISIS in Syria because ISIS is not part of al-Qaeda and in fact did not exist at the time of the 2001 attacks.
Ostensibly, today’s attacks on Syria are part of the US president’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), however the “international coalition” participating in today’s airstrikes in Syria – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — have all to varying degrees supported ISIS and other radical groups seeking to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad. Additionally most are despotic states every bit as authoritarian and theocratic as ISIS itself.
Even France, which enthusiastically participated in the 2011 bombing attacks on Libya, has refused to participate in the US air war against Syria.
There is no legal justification for the US government to attack Syria. A request for US bombs on its own country by US-backed opposition seeking to overthrow the Syria government is not legally sufficient to legalize US actions on Syrian territory.
On the pretext of destroying ISIS, the US is cooperating with the Gulf states which have backed ISIS, and is acting against the Syrian government which has fought ISIS for three years. US mainstream scare media will not touch this critical point, but that is the lie of US government propaganda.