Mission creep like a motherfucker...

10/30/2015 5:18:50 PM

I don't know enough about the history of syria or the factions involved to have a real opinion... but this does seem to suck.

Waiting for Russia to drop a bomb on American forces and the fallout (non literal hopefully) that would ensue.

10/30/2015 5:25:38 PM

O I'm not talking about the whole thing in Syria, theres another thread for that. This is specifically about our (the u.s.) unconstitutional involvement in the war.

10/30/2015 5:48:52 PM

No one. No one wants to talk about it.

It's a god damned tragedy and it's got every possibility of escalating into an even bigger one. Libya and Syria are fucking embarrassing for the Obama administration, embarrassing for Hilary, and no one in congress outside of a handful of "fringe" party guys like Paul and Sanders can stand up and object to our involvement, which is why no one is really talking about it.

Fuck, I posted almost this same thing a year ago and got crickets in response.

message_topic.aspx?topic=642850&page=6#16135561

[Edited on October 30, 2015 at 7:05 PM. Reason : khlhk]

10/30/2015 6:47:56 PM

^^^Do you honestly think this administration will do anything to Russia if they drop a bomb on our troops? Russia will claim it was an accident, and we'll be all like

10/30/2015 9:07:42 PM

Then we have to pay again to build it all back

10/31/2015 8:32:19 AM

^^ maybe inside of your bubble in which logic and critical thinking skills don't exist

but not in the real world

10/31/2015 9:31:51 AM

Quote :

"New US-backed Syrian alliance opens offensive against Daesh REUTERS Published — Sunday 1 November 2015 BEIRUT: A newly formed US-backed Syrian rebel alliance on Saturday launched an offensive against Daesh in the northeast province of Hasaka, a day after the United States said it would send special forces to advise insurgents fighting the jihadists. It was the first declared operation by the Democratic Forces of Syria, which joins together a US-backed Kurdish militia and several Syrian Arab rebel groups, since it announced its formation earlier this month. World powers and regional rivals are convening in Vienna to seek a solution to the four-year conflict in Syria that has escalated since Russia intervened a month ago with an intense air campaign. The decision by US President Barack Obama to send special forces to Syria is strictly focused on fighting Daesh and does not signify the United States is entering the civil war there, US Secretary of State John Kerry said. “President Obama has made a very strong and forceful and simple decision entirely in keeping with his originally stated policy that we must defeat and destroy Daesh,” Kerry said. “It is not a decision to enter into Syria’s civil war. It is not an action focused on (Syrian President Bashar) Assad, it focused exclusively on Daesh and in augmenting our ability to rapidly attack Daesh,” Kerry said in Kyrgyzstan’s capital, Bishkek. Fighting in Hasaka had begun after midnight, a spokesman for the alliance said. A group monitoring the war reported fighting and coalition air strikes in the area. A video posted earlier on Youtube announced the offensive in southern Hasaka, and showed several dozen men in fatigues standing outdoors with yellow flags and banners carrying the name of the Democratic Forces of Syria in Arabic and Kurdish. The campaign would “continue until all occupied areas in Hasaka are freed from Daesh,” a spokesman for the alliance’s general command said in the video. He urged residents to stay away from Daesh-controlled areas of Hasaka. The United States’ decision to station ground troops in Syria comes after it dropped ammunition to rebel groups in northern Syria several weeks ago. Washington’s strategy in Syria has shifted from trying to train fighters outside the country to supplying groups headed by US-vetted commanders. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors developments on the ground, said fighting was raging on Saturday near Al-Hawl, a town close to the Iraqi border, accompanied by coalition air strikes. Hasaka province borders Iraq and territory there that is a crucial stronghold for Islamic State. Meanwhile, international medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said on Saturday that at least 70 people had been killed in a missile attack on a marketplace near Damascus the day before."

10/31/2015 10:04:35 PM

Looking like a trillion dollar bill through 2020. and they tell progressives we think money grows on trees

9/2/2016 1:29:50 AM

Yeah, still nobody really wants to talk about it.

The bipartisan consensus on foreign policy may be the single worst thing to come about in American politics over the last 40 years.

9/2/2016 3:02:09 AM

I would love to talk about it. Please tell me what your specific objections are, starting with how you have reached the conclusion that it is illegal.

9/2/2016 9:31:03 AM

^congress never declared war

obama seems to think he can bomb whatever country he wants if he claims his target was an Islamic extremist

9/2/2016 9:41:46 AM

So basically like every other president post 19th century.

9/2/2016 9:54:37 AM

The moment we made it official US policy to destroy ISIS, it made no sense to respect a border that they were ignoring and no one else was defending. Besides that, we've taken no direct military action against the Syrian regime nor have we provided lethal aid to groups fighting them. We have roughly 300 special forces operators in Syria, all under CIA command, which is perfectly legal by US law. Bombing terrorists anywhere they are has been legal since 2001.

[Edited on September 2, 2016 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .]

9/2/2016 10:01:59 AM

so if obama can bomb whoever he wants his victims can too right

9/2/2016 10:05:41 AM

Quote :

"congress never declared war"

All that this means is that there's not a declared war between the United States and Syria. It's not clear whether we could declare war against Daesh even if we wanted to, because it's not a country.

A military conflict does not have to be a declared war in order to be legal by the standards of US or international law. That goes all the way back to the Barbary Pirates, in neither of which did we make a formal declaration. (Ditto some less famous anti-piracy actions.)

We do have an interesting gray area in the sense that Congress has neither endorsed nor condemned the Obama administration's involvement. Had they actually told him to stop, you'd have firmer basis for calling the war "illegal," but as things are they're just fucked up like everything else in the relationship between the executive and legislative branches over the past ten years. Congress hasn't voted to tell Obama to stop because Congress doesn't actually want Obama to stop. The Republicans either want stronger language than Obama has presented, leaving open the option for invasion, or they just want to make sure that the President gets 100% of the blame if something goes catastrophically wrong. Democrats, meanwhile, want slightly stricter language that completely rules out invasion -- but they're fine with bombing.

Quote :

"obama seems to think he can bomb whatever country he wants if he claims his target was an Islamic extremist"

You'll find this isn't just Obama. In fact, I think you'd find that anybody who ended up in his seat would reach more or less the same conclusion. Within the current international framework and domestic environment it's pretty much the only option available to a President.

Terrorism can be framed as a criminal problem, but you can't just arrest the criminals because they're in other countries and they often have their own militaries.

Terrorism can be framed as a military problem, but you can't just invade the terrorists because they don't really have countries -- and besides, the American public can't stomach another invasion at the moment.

Terrorism can be viewed the lens of international law and the Geneva conventions, but it also can't, because they don't qualify as lawful combatants.

But terrorism also can't be viewed as entirely outside of those rules, because (1) ignoring them makes us look bad to everybody, and (2) it works to encourage even more terrorism.

9/2/2016 10:21:52 AM

Quote :

"so if obama can bomb whoever he wants his victims can too right"

1) He can't just bomb whoever he wants. There's a whole decision making infrastructure related to deciding when to drop a bomb. It isn't Obama saying "waste the fucker."

2) Those "victims" already bomb whoever they want. That's why we're bombing them.

9/2/2016 10:23:35 AM

Quote :

"because (1) ignoring them makes us look bad to everybody, and (2) it works to encourage even more terrorism."

1. so its morally ok to kill people cause you are worried about your rep? holy shit that blows my mind

2. its the freaking opposite

war is a 2-way street. i suggest a ceasefire

Quote :

"1) He can't just bomb whoever he wants. There's a whole decision making infrastructure related to deciding when to drop a bomb. It isn't Obama saying "waste the fucker.""

ITT i learned murder is ok if you had a good decision making matrix. i got one: is this self defense?



[Edited on September 2, 2016 at 10:34 AM. Reason : o]

9/2/2016 10:29:14 AM

Quote :

"Terrorism can be framed as a military problem, but you can't just invade the terrorists because they don't really have countries -- and besides, the American public can't stomach another invasion at the moment."

This is the framing they should be using. ISIS has a military that occupies a large area of land full of civilians which makes them just like other countries. If the American public can't stomach a military invasion, then don't do it.

9/2/2016 10:40:49 AM

Quote :

"ITT i learned murder is ok"

Did he say it was "OK" or was he justifying the legality of it? Let's go back and investigate!

9/2/2016 11:58:50 AM

beatsunc is conflating legality and morality, he needs to clarify which one he is asking about

9/2/2016 12:15:12 PM

Quote :

"The moment we made it official US policy to destroy ISIS,"

I missed the congress vote on that. Syria is still a sovereign country and they did not invite us. There was no UN resolution either. We are just there so it seems to be illegal in every way.

Imagine if Russia decided to start bombing chicago on the grounds that gangs are operating freely and the us government isn't capable of stopping them. Imagine if they did this in response to a russian national being killed on the street in order to justify it as a defense move. Imagine if bombing chicago slowly spread to sending troops to chicago and bombing milwaukee detroit and cleveland. Imagine if Russians decided to start arming the bloods to help them take out the crips. I know this all sounds crazy and is really hard to imagine because its illegal and ridiculous just like our war.

9/2/2016 12:27:23 PM

Quote :

"I missed the congress vote on that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Quote :

"There was no UN resolution either. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2249

Any other questions?

9/2/2016 12:40:47 PM

Quote :

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

So are you saying ISIS did 9/11 or is it illegal?

Does this authorize use of force against the U.S. as well for harboring Saudi Arabia?

Very problematic interpretation

Quote :

" in compliance with international law"

key part of the UN resolution. Basically, this works for attacking them in Iraq, where we have permission. invading another country's sovereignty is not in compliance with international law.

[Edited on September 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM. Reason : f]

9/2/2016 12:47:50 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying ISIS did 9/11 or is it illegal?"

Al-Qaeda --> Al-Qaeda In Iraq --> ISIS

Quote :

"Does this authorize use of force against the U.S. as well for harboring Saudi Arabia?"

No.

Quote :

"Invading another country's sovereignty is not in compliance with international law. "

We're not invading Syria's sovereignty, we're actually killing terrorists who oppose the regime. Cute deflection of your total ignorance of that resolution though.

Any other questions?

Also Syria is a sovereign state in name only at this point. Assad isn't defending his borders, and is violating all sorts of international and domestic law in the way he's conducted this Civil War.

[Edited on September 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/2/2016 12:55:08 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

congress passes unconstitutional crap all the time. obama cant commit acts of war without a declaration of war

plus he has tried and failed to get new auth recently. once he realized he couldnt not get the new auth he should have stopped

9/2/2016 1:15:14 PM

^ members of Congress have specifically cited the aumf as a reason for not needing to vote on further authorization.

9/2/2016 1:17:58 PM

that's only because they are worthless, using the AUMF for military action against all terrorists shouldn't be allowed, ISIS is not al-queda

9/2/2016 2:04:07 PM

Yeah. I don't have some objection to attacking ISIS based on the awful things they've done, but using the 2001 aumf to justify it is pure bs. To say that ISIS is al queda in Iraq is incorrect.

There's no moral equivalence to be drawn between what we're doing and what ISIS is doing, but we have armed terrorists, we are killing way too many people as a result of collateral damage. Our allies are fighting groups we've armed and groups we've armed are fighting each other. We've also backing a Turkish invasion of northern Syria. There are a lot of things happening that could easily be prosecuted as war crimes.

Here's a decent little opinion piece fromy Rand Paul who has been incredibly consistent on this issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/02/sen-rand-paul-president-obama-what-on-gods-green-earth-is-our-policy-in-syria.html

The other problem we have is that Afghanistan is in really bad shape, possibly as a result of our focus on Syria/ISIS. Even if we demolish ISIS in Syria a new group will form in Afghanistan.

The last thing I'll say is that we shouldn't be surprised if a foreign country conducts a drone strike on US soil or US territory in the near future. We've opened the door to this and at some point it's going to happen. Honestly, if Turkey had decided ton drone Gullen following themail coup attempt a few months back we wouldn't have a lot of room to complain. Based on precedent we set one merely needs to declare someone a terrorist and you can then kill them with impunity regardless of where they are.

9/2/2016 3:37:38 PM

AUMF is unconstitutional. Congress has the responsibility of declaring war. They can't just delegate it to the executive.

9/2/2016 5:32:27 PM

Quote :

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

- Barack Obama, 2007

9/2/2016 5:44:38 PM

Quote :

"This is a war we’re fighting, it is not a counterterrorism operation! This is not Somalia; this is not Yemen; this is a turning point in the war on terror. Our strategy will fail yet again. This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home."

-Lindsey Graham, 2014

9/2/2016 6:28:32 PM

Lindsey Graham is a piece of shit warmonger.

9/2/2016 6:49:23 PM

I agree, but I think that quote speaks to GrumpyGOP's point, that Congress clearly is in favor military action against ISIS and believe they are an "imminent threat", but they are too cowardly to own it by authorizing a new war resolution.

9/2/2016 6:55:53 PM

We've been involved in the war on terror for a good 14 years now, kids entering college will not know a country where politicians didn't talk like we weren't in a state of emergency. There doesn't seem a clear end in site now with ISIS.

It would be nice if there were an endgame in sight. Assuming it's not propaganda that Isiss goal is a global war, once they're gone, then what? Do we let Russia and Iran and the Saudis put their pawns into play for control, and let the chips fall?

Literally by definition a "war on terror" can't be won. Hillary almost seems like the exact wrong side of this, and trump allying with people like John Bolton would probably be happy for a world war to break out.

9/2/2016 9:13:04 PM

Quote :

"1. so its morally ok to kill people cause you are worried about your rep? holy shit that blows my mind"

Are you slow in the head? I listed our "rep" as a reason to follow the Geneva Conventions, not as a reason to kill people.

Quote :

"war is a 2-way street. i suggest a ceasefire"

With whom? To what end?

---
To The E Man--

I think a case could be made for Syria having long since lost any semblance of sovereignty. The central government has long since lost control over much (most?) of its territory. It's a failed state.

The absence of a UN resolution also means little. Such a resolution would affirm legality, but the absence does not necessarily deny it. International "law," to the extent that it exists, is inchoate and ill-defined. Just the duty to intervene in cases of genocide would be enough to put the international law stamp of approval on our action.

Quote :

"I know this all sounds crazy and is really hard to imagine because its illegal and ridiculous just like our war."

No, it's crazy and hard to imagine because we can stop Russia. Syria can't stop us. And though I know it makes you sad, the material ability to exercise one's will is still the most important thing in the international order.

---

Now for these two gems:

Quote :

"AUMF is unconstitutional. Congress has the responsibility of declaring war. They can't just delegate it to the executive."

Quote :

"congress passes unconstitutional crap all the time. obama cant commit acts of war without a declaration of war "

He is the Commander in Chief, and he can command the military to do anything he wants that doesn't violate the Constitution, our treaty obligations, or Federal Law. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents the President from using the military without a declaration. Nothing. And Federal law includes, well, AUMF, so we're clear there. Treaty obligations are a little bit more of a gray area but I still think we're clear.

9/3/2016 8:56:35 AM

the ol' "commander in chief" argument

the guys who wrote the Constitution didn't interpret it that way. there were folks at the convention who suggested giving the executive the power to wage war. the motions didn't pass.

https://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/

i mean, if the "he's commander in chief" argument held water, why did congress even have to pass AUMF?

[Edited on September 3, 2016 at 10:40 PM. Reason : afds]

9/3/2016 10:39:43 PM

you can interpret and twist the document however you like, but there is not really any room to debate what the original intent was with regards to war powers. there is nothing in the convention debates, ratifying debates, or federalist papers to support your interpretation.

9/3/2016 10:52:31 PM

I have enormous respect for the founders, but their interpretations and intentions are not law. Nor are the debates, nor are the Federalist Papers -- and I say this as someone who has been a Hamilton devotee since the Chernow book first came out.

The AUMF and the War Powers Act are perfectly compatible with the "commander in chief argument," as you call it. For one thing, the President's command of the armed forces runs up against Congressional control over the budget and various other government apparatuses essential for the military to function. So Congress gets a say, and laws like these help streamline and formalize that process.

More importantly, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Congress should wield some authority in waging conflicts, even if those conflicts are not the declared wars over which they are given control by the Constitution.

9/6/2016 4:23:20 PM

US just partnered with Russia to coordinate their Syrian hospital bombing campaign.

Which is strange because the DNC has been redbaiting telling me for months how the Russians are nothing but election sabotaging communists.

9/9/2016 9:56:30 PM

We work with bad regimes and bad people to accomplish things deemed important. We have literally since before our country was founded.

Doesn't make Russia's appalling human rights record, neo-colonialism and free press violations any less appalling.

9/10/2016 6:39:34 AM

Well fuck. Looks like we just bombed Assad's forces. This could get even uglier.

9/17/2016 3:50:21 PM

Its becoming more and more apparent that the US is working on behalf of ISIS.
https://www.rt.com/news/359686-un-security-urgent-meeting/

Quote :

"“If previously we had suspicions that Al-Nusra Front is protected this way, now, after today's airstrikes on the Syrian army we come to a really terrifying conclusion for the entire world: The White House is defending IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL]," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Rossiya 24. “We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at the UN Security Council,” Zakharova added. The Foreign Ministry has demanded full and detailed explanation from Washington over the incident in Deir ez-Zor, in which 62 Syrian troops were killed and over 100 injured."

It always seems like some terrible terrorist attack happens right after a bombshell(no pun) secret is about to be exposed.


From earlier this month
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/09/06/documents-reveal-turkeys-collusion-isis-images-videos/

9/18/2016 3:53:26 AM

^Annnddddd E Man has officially crossed into tinfoil hat territory.


The line hath been crossed.

9/18/2016 9:01:19 AM

Well thats what happens to people who have open minds. As someone with an open mind, I won't reject an explanation until evidence proves it wrong. Theres really three types of people.

Type 1: The tinfoil hat people are the type of people who said 9/11 was an inside/saudi job in 2001.

Type 2: The open minded people are the people who didn't initially believe that but waited on evidence and now, since the recent report has swayed the evidence in the direction that the saudi government was actively helping, we can lean towards that being the most plausible story.

Type 3: Then there are the sheep who will believe what the media/government says no matter what even when all of the evidence suggests otherwise. Most people are this way which makes it super effective in a democratic society.

I've been seeing the attack distraction theory for a while now and never considered it until this year. The last 3-5 big leaked pieces of information or government scandals that have occurred have been immediately followed by terrorist attacks. it could just be coincidence but I will consider it. It wouldn't grab my attention if the media covered both but the fact that the media never fails to completely ignore the bigger story makes me keep the possibility of conspiracy open.

As for ISIS, its not far fetched that we would support ISIS. We've supported all sorts of ugly groups in the past including al qaeda. Of course we are helping ISIS but the only thing up for debate is A. Are we intentionally helping ISIS. or B. Are we just so completely incompetent that we continue to accidentally help ISIS while we are trying to destroy them.

I think its far fetched to believe that the CIA and US military are completely incompetent. They have a history of being extremely efficient, precise and calculated in their moves.

I challenge everyone to look at the facts instead of dismissing everything you don't see on CNN as some wild conspiracy theory.

9/18/2016 10:57:08 AM

Quote :

"I think its far fetched to believe that the CIA and US military are completely incompetent"

I don't.

9/18/2016 12:38:09 PM

Quote :

" The last 3-5 big leaked pieces of information or government scandals that have occurred have been immediately followed by terrorist attacks."

Give me a list, please.

Quote :

"Of course we are helping ISIS"

No. We have done far too much damage to ISIS for this idea to hold water.

9/18/2016 1:13:05 PM

I don't have a list but heres where I would start. Basically every mass shooting and terrorist attack has occured right after a huge leak, military blunder or story of systemic fraud. I realize it because I want to show my friends the leaks and complain about them and then i feel like its an inappropriate time to talk about corruption because a ton of people just died. Its probably a coincidence but the media doesn't do any favors by failing to cover the stories.

heres where the conspiracy theories all started
September 10th, 2001: Rumsfield blows the whistle on 2.3T in military waste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

I remember clearly Nice happened just as the Saudi 9/11 connection was confirmed and media never got to it.

9/20/2016 1:05:20 AM

Quote :

"I don't have a list"

That's what I thought.

9/20/2016 9:13:35 AM

Quote :

"I think its far fetched to believe that the CIA and US military are completely incompetent"

Agreed. Anyone who thinks this isn't looking at facts, just wants it to be true, or is projecting something else from their lives.

9/20/2016 10:50:35 AM