On what legal authority did trump bomb then syrian military?

Jarod said:
Funny how repugs were against Obama doing the same thing for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Funny thing but Republicans were against Obamy acting like a pussy and not pulling the trigger on his line in the sand propaganda speech when he made a threat if chemical weapons were ever used. Then the rhetoric from the left was the propaganda that Syria had gotten rid of all the chemical weapons thanks to Obama. This latest attack demonstrated the truth....Syria thinks that OBAMA is a pussy coward and found out that Trump was not. The opposite of what you have just suggested. The best reverse barometer continues to be....just simply watch the lips of any democrat...whatever comes from their mouth...the opposite is true. :)
 
I remember the 2012/2013 debate on here after Assad gas babies the first time and Obama's red line statement and Desh was for the U.S. retaliating. She didn't discuss if we needed legal authority to do so however. I guess now that matters.
 
evince said:
where was the congressional input?
Click to expand...

I know, huh. A little trip down memory lane for cons...

WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.

Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html
 
anatta said:
Russia was invited in by the democratically elected government of Syria
Click to expand...

images


As usual.

The Baath party came to power in a coup and first held a multi candidate election in 2014 (over 50 years later).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Syrian_coup_d'état
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014
 
christiefan915 said:
I know, huh. A little trip down memory lane for cons...

WASHINGTON — President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.

Although Congressional leaders hailed his decision to seek the permission of lawmakers who had been clamoring for a say, the turnabout leaves Mr. Obama at the political mercy of House Republicans, many of whom have opposed him at every turn and have already suggested that Syria’s civil war does not pose a threat to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html
Click to expand...

and the donnald said it too



will all the right just go along with trumpy?
 
Element-22-Cat said:
Russia has elections. Are they democratic elections?
Click to expand...
pro forma legitimate..I'm not here to put up Assad as some kina western ideal.
And the common theme is he lost legitimacy because of the barrel bombs etc.
The whole concept of international law in Syria is squishy...

But if you look at Russia it's a 2 edged sword -Assad was going to fall a year or so ago.

And that's the real question everyone breezes past "what's next" -the Islamists ( al-Nusra )backed by the Iranians still hold the strongest hand.

Can "negotiations" produce anything but the strong hand?
 
anatta said:
pro forma legitimate..I'm not here to put up Assad as some kina western ideal.
And the common theme is he lost legitimacy because of the barrel bombs etc.

The whole concept of international law in Syria is squishy...
But if you look at Russia it'sa 2 edged sword -Assad was going to fall a year or so ago.

And that's he real question everyone breezes past "what's next" -the Islamists ( al-Nusra )backed by the Iranians still hold the strongest hand
Click to expand...
In other words Russia doesn't have legitimate democratic elections. It's basically a one party system with Putin at the head. So just because you have an election it doesn't make it an actual democratic election.

The barrel bombs have been going on for years.... why now? Only a week ago both Tillerson and Haley took regime change in Syria "off the table". Whether international law in Syria is squishy is irrelevant to the fact Assad has "crossed the line" many times and Trump was dead set against attacking Syria. He warned that many very bad things would happen if they attacked Syria and yet here we are.

And yes, what next? Tillerson has been talking tough, regime change talk. Blowing up on airport runway hasn't altered the reality of the Syrian civil war.
 
cawacko said:
I remember the 2012/2013 debate on here after Assad gas babies the first time and Obama's red line statement and Desh was for the U.S. retaliating. She didn't discuss if we needed legal authority to do so however. I guess now that matters.
Click to expand...

Check out the thread I bumped. The Republicans blocked Obama from doing what Rump did.
 
Rump caused the use of Chemical Weapons by signaling that he would not get involved.
 
Element-22-Cat said:
In other words Russia doesn't have legitimate democratic elections. It's basically a one party system with Putin at the head. So just because you have an election it doesn't make it an actual democratic election.

The barrel bombs have been going on for years.... why now? Only a week ago both Tillerson and Haley took regime change in Syria "off the table". Whether international law in Syria is squishy is irrelevant to the fact Assad has "crossed the line" many times and Trump was dead set against attacking Syria. He warned that many very bad things would happen if they attacked Syria and yet here we are.

And yes, what next? Tillerson has been talking tough, regime change talk. Blowing up on airport runway hasn't altered the reality of the Syrian civil war.
Click to expand...

well you can look at the polls, and it's clear nobody could beat Putin -not even Kasparov or the latest reformer.
"democratic" is about how much of a level the society is -clearly Russia has a long way to go to -yet it's safe tosay Putin would win even without his heavy hands..

The Trump adm was saying a couple days ago "Assad does not have to go" - then Tillerson comes out and says he does.
But he didn't say thru regime change; it's supposed to be yet another round of talks ( Geneva..what? 40.0?)
that gets all these factions that HATE each other and call each other TERRORISTS,and produce a peaceful transition?

So look at the battlefield -where we've always had to look. Russia shut us out of negotiations last time
If we are in them this time -does it really matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top