What Really Happened Last Night

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

legal basis? every nation has the legal basis to conduct military operations wherever the heck they feel like, national sovereignty is the only legal basis needed for any such action.

international law is a nonexistent illusion that has no real power, until the U.N. becomes the sovereign government of humanity with the power to enforce it's own control over the world, until then this "legal authority" you think exists is an illusion, there is no "right" side or "wrong" side, no "legal" or "illegal".

the legal basis of anything humans do is power, it always was and always will be so. power is our legal basis and until other nations have the power to stand on top above the west that will continue to be so.

originally posted by: SeaYote

If the U.N. would do there job and stand up to bullies perpetrating atrocities, individual nations would not have to.

The US is pretty selective on their actions. Atrocities going on all over the world. Why not stand up to NK? Hell damn near every other central African country? Either no oil or too tough.

Trump says; Hey guys let us be sure to black out any news coming inbound from syria after the bombings...especially any reports of injury.

Does anyone have a injury or death count yet.

Assad might be a madman, but he's their madman. As far as I know Assad has not sent any of his people to other countries to cause trouble. Do Not say Isis as Assad does not count the as Syrian.
The real reason for the western nations bombing Syrian chemical plants is because if the UN inspectors got in first they would find that the west supplied the chemicals. It's called clearing the board. Getting rid of the damning evidence.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

It makes no sense to speak of legal basis in international affairs unless one is speaking of compliance with UN resolutions. There is no international law outside that established by the UN.

According to the UN, Syria was in violation of international law by possessing chemical weapons, and other member countries are obliged by the UN Charter to enforce UN law. The coalition thus acted legally. Morally might be a different conversation.

Related to this is the fact that the President did not need Congressional approval to enforce UN resolutions. That was given when Congress ratified UN membership. I personally disagree with our present relationship with the UN, but it is certainly not 'illegal.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So what you are saying is the sooner the holy USA dollar is removed as the world's reserve currency, the better? Once it is dethroned, our MIC is dethroned and then we can no longer project our wants and desires on the rest of the world against their will.

I agree with you 100%, the dollar must remove the title of world reserve currency.

Very good thing that BRICs are going to remove that status for us because we are way to cowardly to do it ourselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Last nights attack is a bell that cannot be unrung, however.


It sets a precedent that cannot be followed through because the nature of our political system does not adhere to consistency.

That is, internationally speaking, one of the pitfalls of our system. A dictatorship is admittedly more consistent, but also more dangerous to the citizenry.

In our societal structure, consistency is completely dependent on the will of the people. As you say, that is not very consistent. But it is what it is.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
According to the UN, Syria was in violation of international law by possessing chemical weapons, and other member countries are obliged by the UN Charter to enforce UN law. The coalition thus acted legally. Morally might be a different conversation.

And where was this action when Israel violated dozens of UN resolutions? Like I've been saying, the US actions are damn selective. No logic needed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So the great un says syria can not own bleach and pine sol.

I feel so comfortable in such caring hands.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: TheRedneck
According to the UN, Syria was in violation of international law by possessing chemical weapons, and other member countries are obliged by the UN Charter to enforce UN law. The coalition thus acted legally. Morally might be a different conversation.

And where was this action when Israel violated dozens of UN resolutions? Like I've been saying, the US actions are damn selective. No logic needed.

Kinda like the 8 missiles israel fired after the staged attacks.

Killing folks. I guess the great un does not mind any of that mess.

As far as to what happened last nite.

The usa spent 100m+ to kill three dead buildings.

A way yuge success.

a reply to: intrepid

I'm afraid you misunderstand my purpose in posting. My statements are not rationalizations, but explanations intended to inform.

Al of this, from the oil discoveries in Saudi Arabia, to the creation of OPEC, to the removal of the dollar's gold standard, to the Iranian Hostage Crisis of the 1970s, to the Twin Towers on 9/11, to the Arab Springs, to the concern over Iranian nuclear ambitions, is related. It is all a single chess game, of which we see only glimpses from time to time as the real players make their moves. The rest of us typically scream about how good or bad these moves are without first seeing the chess board.

I have started several times to write up a complete description of the historical aspects of this oil debacle, but each time I come up with enough OPs to fill the first three pages of the thread... much much more than anyone would bother to read. The information is all out there, though, if one is persistent enough to search through the opinions and open-minded enough to look at the possibilities.

I am trying to show you the chess board. At least then you can see what moves are possible, what moves are foolhardy, and what moves are likely in the near future.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Murgatroid

god is a fantasy. god does not belong in real-world decisions. faith is not fact.

a reply to: SeaYote

The UN in my opinion are next to useless, too many resolutions not adopted, vetos at every bloody turn, decisions not upheld and no way to enforce measures that are agreed. Look at Crimea, the South China Sea etc...

No teeth, no enforcement and no point

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

Last nights attack is a bell that cannot be unrung, however.


It sets a precedent that cannot be followed through because the nature of our political system does not adhere to consistency.

That is, internationally speaking, one of the pitfalls of our system. A dictatorship is admittedly more consistent, but also more dangerous to the citizenry.

In our societal structure, consistency is completely dependent on the will of the people. As you say, that is not very consistent. But it is what it is.

TheRedneck

It's why our foreign policies aren't consistent, because our leadership isn't.


This is why it is my contention that we should avoid foreign conflict except when it directly impacts the security and foundation of the US.


In my opinion.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

We have become nothing but the military muscle for our supposed 'great ally" in the region. The entire Syrian conflict stands to benefit them as much as it does the US.

Of course! Israel is an inherent part of the story, being the only true ally we seem to have in the Middle East. I would hazard to say that the creation of the state of Israel was in itself a part of the plan. That does not mean I oppose Israel's existence, but it means I see their part in the overall game clearly.

Assad is continually under extreme character assault. I have to disagree. Being the leader of Syria places one in the middle of the hurricane where no choice he makes doesn't make some segment mad. His father, Hafez Al Assad only kept the country together through severe brutality - but can not the same be said of all other Middle East countries? Given the amount of religious tolerance and secular government I would call Syria a success story, a country who would be thriving were it not for the intrigues and machinations of the world powers.

It is interesting to note here that the infamous Vlad "the Impaler" Dracule was an absolutely vicious monster to those he did not rule, and yet has been described as a saint to those he did rule. The difference is a matter of perspective.

To me, yes, Assad is a madman. I have been told by others more familiar with the actual situation that this is an accurate description. Incidentally, I have been told by Russian citizens here for study and research that Putin is also corrupt and dangerous. but I cannot speak for those close to either man. I only know Putin and Assad seem to consider themselves patriots to their respective countries.

So did George W. Bush, whom I consider traitorous for introducing the Patriot Act.

TheRedneck

a reply to: intrepid

The US is pretty selective on their actions.

As are you. That statement could apply to every nation on the planet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: crayzeed

Assad might be a madman, but he's their madman. As far as I know Assad has not sent any of his people to other countries to cause trouble. Do Not say Isis as Assad does not count the as Syrian.

I believe I mentioned in my OP that Assad does not see ISIS as a legitimate part of Syria. If I missed that point, accept my apologies.

ISIS is little more than a mostly homeless mercenary force now. They have no country, only a few safe havens.

As for the rest of your post... something to consider...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: intrepid

The US is pretty selective on their actions.

As are you. That statement could apply to every nation on the planet.

TheRedneck

I'm not tossing bombs around. In fact I don't see anyone else doing that except the "coalition".

a reply to: ClovenSky

So what you are saying is the sooner the holy USA dollar is removed as the world's reserve currency, the better?

That depends on your definition of 'better.' If the dollar fails as the IRC, then you might not consider things better. The Great Depression will look like the "good old days."

The USA's very economic survival is dependent on the strength of the dollar. Our national debt is so high that the dollar would become as worthless as Confederate currency overnight.

Globally, that might be wonderful, but I don't think we would consider it 'better.'

TheRedneck