Can't wait for the media spin outlining how those requesting congressional approval are "inhumane animals willing to sit on the sidelines while monsters kill their own citizens, all in the name of bothersome technicalities" or something...May ready to bypass Parliament & approve UK military intervention in Syria – BBC
Published time: 11 Apr, 2018 18:49Edited time: 12 Apr, 2018 08:23
© Tom Nicholson / Global Look Press
UK Prime Minister Theresa May appears ready to get the UK involved in a possible military strike against Syria without seeking the Parliament’s approval, the BBC reports citing “well-placed sources.”
- 19862
- 1
May reportedly sees an “urgent” need for a response, according to government insiders. She also appears to believe a military intervention will prevent further chemical incidents in Syria
https://www.rt.com/uk/423861-may-no-parliament-approval-syria/
International Syria Conflict: Bombs away boys. (Israel openly admits to bombing Iranian bases in Syria)
- Thread starter mcveteran81
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
I have family in Syria, people were tired of Assad regime and wanted renewal, they went to the streets for but they did not want to be used by other countries for it. Borders should be respected and using terrorists in a proxy war to me is a war crime.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 10,664
- Reaction score
- 4,606
I did not imply that, I meant is even if that was the case does it give EU/US the right to fund terrorists groups or wage further war and kill thousands?
If the concern was real US/EU would use diplomacy. But it seems Israel is crazy on diminishing Iran power and get to war with both countries to ensure their future.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,758
- Reaction score
- 3
May ready to bypass Parliament & approve UK military intervention in Syria – BBC
Published time: 11 Apr, 2018 18:49Edited time: 12 Apr, 2018 08:23
© Tom Nicholson / Global Look Press
UK Prime Minister Theresa May appears ready to get the UK involved in a possible military strike against Syria without seeking the Parliament’s approval, the BBC reports citing “well-placed sources.”
- 19862
- 1
May reportedly sees an “urgent” need for a response, according to government insiders. She also appears to believe a military intervention will prevent further chemical incidents in Syria
https://www.rt.com/uk/423861-may-no-parliament-approval-syria/
that article is from before the attack.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, and people should know that like trump in the US, they are breaking the law to make these attacks.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,758
- Reaction score
- 3
is it? i just read that US president can attack countries as he chooses for up to 90 days. apparently drone strikes covert strikes, use of private contractors and CIA does not count. Because you guys have never stopped doing that.
Can't be bothered to follow the most basic principle to a democracy, rule of law, when we're busy spreading democracy, c'mon now.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
We have been in Syria with US troops for far longer then 90 days.
I mean it is insane. We actually built military bases there, and somehow pretend that isnt a invasion.
I know alot of posters seem to think I am making a mountain out a mole hill, but i see it very differently. You don't back animals into corners. I don't care how much bigger you are, when it feels threatened it will strike at you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,758
- Reaction score
- 3
so the definition is US troops? because you guys actively had covert forces, US special forces throughout latin america and since your war on terror maintain bases and covert operations everywhere. Those are soldiers but is it because they are special forces it dont matter?
i do agree though you are in syria illegally if we are being technical. I do hope the US can stop the bloodshed i think Assad needs to go personally but his government should stay. The kurds need there own state as well.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 18,237
- Reaction score
- 12,103
The attack set a bad precedent (Trump, May and Macron basically went rogue), but it was executed on such a small scale, and against such carefully selected targets, that it's difficult to truly rally any kind of opposition against what happened.
We must simply hope that this doesn't serve as silent encouragement for the above trio, to push their boundaries even further, this time with a much larger scale attack, and again without congressional approval. The strategy going forward will certainly be impacted by the people's response, in France, UK and the USA. If the people respond overwhelmingly positively, then it's definitely going to encourage more use of force in the future.
I really can't bother with making a big deal of some empty halls being bombed though, considering what has taken place in Syria already (from all sides), people being bombed to smithereens by the thousands. Compared to that, this was nothing. A very high-profile slap on the wrist, that somehow got more coverage than bombings which took out dozens of civilians.
We must simply hope that this doesn't serve as silent encouragement for the above trio, to push their boundaries even further, this time with a much larger scale attack, and again without congressional approval. The strategy going forward will certainly be impacted by the people's response, in France, UK and the USA. If the people respond overwhelmingly positively, then it's definitely going to encourage more use of force in the future.
I really can't bother with making a big deal of some empty halls being bombed though, considering what has taken place in Syria already (from all sides), people being bombed to smithereens by the thousands. Compared to that, this was nothing. A very high-profile slap on the wrist, that somehow got more coverage than bombings which took out dozens of civilians.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
Most of the grey area here, comes down to the supreme court never being forced to rule on any of this. Whether special forces count, is a question that could only be answered in the supreme court.
As far as that goes, the supreme court has never ruled on whether the presidents claim to being able to do this for 90 days is even constitutional.
Many would argue that there is no room for interpretation here. That per the constitution, only Congress can authorize war. I am one of those.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree. I just don't think this is over.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 30,221
- Reaction score
- 28,252
Posted this in another thread, but this seems like a better place for it.
If a big war breaks out in the ME, they already have a hundred thousand (if not more) potential insurgents in Europe, ready to Jihad, if they actually had momentum.
Just a thought.
If a big war breaks out in the ME, they already have a hundred thousand (if not more) potential insurgents in Europe, ready to Jihad, if they actually had momentum.
Just a thought.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 18,237
- Reaction score
- 12,103
I can't speak as to whether it's over or not. It's probably in everybody's best interests if it was. There are some circles that don't want the war to be over, certainly. There are some high profile politicians and lobbyists who do legitimately believe in bringing about regime change, by force. But it's not in Trump's, or Macron's or May's interest to make it seem like they will get bogged down in another attempted regime change, after the disastrous Iraq/Libyan campaigns. Even if they are aligned with the agenda of escalating war in the Middle East, their personal success in politics will probably come first, if the negative response to any sort of further escalation is strong enough.
They will want to gauge the responses of the people very carefully, if they wish to be elected for another term. People can downplay it all they want to, but there's a fairly strong "anti-war" side to the modern American right, nowadays, frustrated with the military failures of the past 50 years. And it's not just purely about pandering to populist positions either. The people are simply losing their faith in the "military approach" which hasn't truly been effective since WW2. What have been the successes, since maybe Japan, or Korea? People believe in fixing America's problems with good domestic policy, rather than other countries' problems with bombs. The latter doesn't seem to be very effective.
Ideally, America would use its "big stick" in a very carefully calculated manner. Total withdrawal is not an option, because whether we like it or not, there are a lot of sharks that stay beneath the surface because of the threat of America's military might. America's strength needs to be present and visible. But it also needs to be constrained by legality and tempered with caution.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
I think what we are seeing is the beginning of a major air offensive. I think we could even see gulf state and Israeli troops invade syria.
This will all just be a pre-amble to extending the war to Iran, which was the real goal of destabilizing syria, and the whole ME.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2017
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reaction score
- 1,788
So, in other words, you can't explain how ISIS is supposedly allies with Assad.
Because they aren't.
Because you're an illiterate retard.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2017
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reaction score
- 1,788
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 21,032
- Reaction score
- 19,123
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 8,758
- Reaction score
- 3
this cant be true. Some Americans say this i see but it just way to deflect critisim of your own government and military complex. Was it israel fault you guys empowered psycho fascists in latin america? etc i think you need to maybe realize that your own government has it own
- Status
