Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Bubblehead1980]

Absolutely disgusted.Have we learned nothing with Iraq? The war drums are being pounded. Why should more American military men and women die? We must be absorb more debt? We are not supposed to be the beat cops of the world. This was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama and wrong under anyone else who pursues this course.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Absolutely disgusted.Have we learned nothing with Iraq? The war drums are being pounded. Why should more American military men and women die? We must be absorb more debt? We are not supposed to be the beat cops of the world. This was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama and wrong under anyone else who pursues this course.

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

Oh absolutely, it's time for amendments the restrict federal power and especially those of the executive. The presidency needs to be neutered since no man, even those who claim they will will voluntarily surrender the power. I believe a Rand Paul Presidency would curb much of it but not in the meaningful, permanent way it should. No one man or woman should have the power that the presidency currently enjoys. Once congress delcares war, sure their powers should increase but the crap that has went on since korea must stop. Now, if Syria started firing on US ships or was funding terror attacks etc, maybe but this is just us playing world police and it's ridiculous.

[Oberon]

Got to admit, I find myself in the Bubblehead1980 court here, and I never thought that'd happen.
This strike, is a bad idea, and I think everyone down to the lowliest street cleaner can see that. It's not going to do much against the well hidden Syrian chemical installations, and it's just going to annoy everyone in the region, and you can bet anything that the strike will conveniently miss the FSAs chemical weapons, because you know, they're never going to use chemical weapons because they're the good guys (sarcasm).

Obama has, through some pretty muddled foreign policy, painted himself into a corner, he called Assads bluff, and Assad called it right back.
There are only two reasons I can see a semi-rational leader going ahead with these strikes, 1) Is to try to level the playing field a bit so that this civil war continues indefinitely, because no matter who wins in this war, the US and its allies will lose, so the only way the US can win is to keep it going, however to do that they'd need to hit BOTH sides chemical weapons, and I can't see that happening and 2) is to try to prove after the diplomatic disaster that is Egypt that America still has some power in deciding matters in the Middle East, but unfortunately all its going to prove is how little power they have there.

The only way Obama can back out of this with only a minimal amount of loss of face is to put it to Congress, Congress will shoot it down, this much is pretty certain, and if they don't then the blame can be shared, but they will shoot it down and then Obama can turn around and say "Well, I tried, but they won't let me." and walk away.
Can't see that happening though, either. So it'll be another executive decision.
Can you say "Our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defence of peace in south-east Asia?"

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Got to admit, I find myself in the Bubblehead1980 court here, and I never thought that'd happen.
This strike, is a bad idea, and I think everyone down to the lowliest street cleaner can see that. It's not going to do much against the well hidden Syrian chemical installations, and it's just going to annoy everyone in the region, and you can bet anything that the strike will conveniently miss the FSAs chemical weapons, because you know, they're never going to use chemical weapons because they're the good guys (sarcasm).

Obama has, through some pretty muddled foreign policy, painted himself into a corner, he called Assads bluff, and Assad called it right back.
There are only two reasons I can see a semi-rational leader going ahead with these strikes, 1) Is to try to level the playing field a bit so that this civil war continues indefinitely, because no matter who wins in this war, the US and its allies will lose, so the only way the US can win is to keep it going, however to do that they'd need to hit BOTH sides chemical weapons, and I can't see that happening and 2) is to try to prove after the diplomatic disaster that is Egypt that America still has some power in deciding matters in the Middle East, but unfortunately all its going to prove is how little power they have there.

The only way Obama can back out of this with only a minimal amount of loss of face is to put it to Congress, Congress will shoot it down, this much is pretty certain, and if they don't then the blame can be shared, but they will shoot it down and then Obama can turn around and say "Well, I tried, but they won't let me." and walk away.
Can't see that happening though, either. So it'll be another executive decision.
Can you say "Our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defence of peace in south-east Asia?"

Haha.Well, this is not a left or right issue really, it is about right and wrong. Our government is out of control on almost every level(has been but its upped the game last 4-5 years) This need to play beat cop has more to do with one man's(the president, not just obama either) ego and postering than anything.Sure, it's awful what is happening in Syria and i am not against arming the rebels and sanctions etc but strikes that put american servicemen/women and equipment in harms way, risking more of our money, and risking igniting a regional conflict(this is how bigger wars get started) is just outrageous to pretty much anyone but those in D.C. The US is not supposed to be the world's beat cop. Only when our interests are directly threatened should we go to war with congressional approval. Sad that the next constitutional amendments need to be those to curb executive power, the nature of man, eh.

Watch things escalate and a "peacekeeping" ground force has to go in, of course with mostly US troops.Iraq etc all over again but maybe even worst. This will just piss more muslims worldwide off and spark more violence. We are a world and diplomacy etc is fine but playing beat cop is just an outrage. We learned this with Iraq, well the people did.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Oh absolutely, it's time for amendments the restrict federal power and especially those of the executive.

I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

Until the politicians can answer questions about the aftermath they shouldn't push their ideas for intervention.
None have made any real sounds on the "then what?" question

[STEED]

Lets get in there and kill them all.

^Thats what you get reading the Mail/express in the UK, just one of many crass comments I have heard made.

Looks like the saying, the only thing the human raced has learnt it has learnt nothing.

For flips sake we have a big problem in the West that is...DEBT! War adds to the debt you morons.

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by STEED

Lets get in there and kill them all.

^Thats what you get reading the Mail/express in the UK, just one of many crass comments I have heard made.

Looks like the saying, the only thing the human raced has learnt it has learnt nothing.

For flips sake we have a big problem in the West that is...DEBT! War adds to the debt you morons.

Some how STEED me thinks toff boy and that bald headed bastard Hague could not give a toss about the debt or the loss of live.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by STEED

Lets get in there and kill them all.

^Thats what you get reading the Mail/express in the UK, just one of many crass comments I have heard made.

Looks like the saying, the only thing the human raced has learnt it has learnt nothing.

For flips sake we have a big problem in the West that is...DEBT! War adds to the debt you morons.

Since our paper money is no real money in the original meaning of the word, but from a banker's POV are debt titles, one could argue - and Keynesians do that in a way - that you cannot have enough debts, because the higher your debts, the richer you are!

I love the German word game. In German, a banknote or paper money is "Scheingeld". Schein=banknote. Schein also has a different meaning: appearance, semblance, meant to point at the illusory nature of something.

Scheingeld=paper money=illusory money.

[MH]

P.S. And another small detail: still no evidence has been shown and presented that allows to say that indeed Assad's troops have committed the massacre. It could as well have been the rebels. Many of their factions give as much for civilian lives as Assad, and martyrdom ranks high in their ideologic book. I see it as very likely that it were chemicals used, yes. But no word on what sort of weapons or agents. That it was one side or the other I see as a 50:50 case so far. Because we do not know.

That is more of a reason to blow up whatever stockpiles they can drop their bombs on.
Syria may go its own way but with less chemicals in its backyard.
A point can be made here as well , Mr Obama and other western powers deliver what is promised.
Something that has become a very questionable issue lately.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by MH

That is more of a reason to blow up whatever stockpiles they can drop their bombs on.

Just FYI, dropping bombs on a chemical stockpile, is an inherently bad idea.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.

Too true. The first thing that would get put on the chopping block, is all the things on the Bill of Rights that the left does not agree with. In their ignorance and arrogance they would make things far worse.

I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

I know your not talking to me, but i figured i'd offer this up anyway. I personally would propose anything that would get rid of the professional politicians that have become a ruling class that should not exist. Mainly, TERM LIMITS. All seats in the house, and the senate should have a 2 term limit. Chief justices should have term limits. Every position in government should have term limits. Continuity be damned.

We currently have the best government money can buy, and THAT needs to change, and it really needed to change decades ago. Go after ALL (yes all) special interests, and do whatever it takes to remove them from politics. The only people congressman should be listening to is their constitutes from their districts from which they were elected. Dream a little dream.

Of course, none of that will happen. What will happen is the "ruling elite" will further cement themselves more power, the "war on terrior" will continue perpetually without end, our government will continue to be bought and paid for investment by the "real owners", and "we the sheeple" will continue to have our civil liberties taken out from under us as we sit on our asses watching

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.


I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

First things first, impeach Obama! Bring Bush up on war crimes and perjury charges.
Toss out every currently sitting senator and congressman just to be sure we get all of them who went along with this insanity called the Patriot Act and start all over.
Repeal the Patriot Act!
Do away with all of these overly expanded, redundant departments and agencies that have been given carte blanche to do as they will like the NSA, DHS etc, etc.
Clean house at the CIA.
Audit the treasury.


I'm not looking for a constitutional rewrite per se. Just add some modern language to it. After all, it was written for the 18th century and the founding fathers couldn't have possibly seen what our government would become in 237 years. A bloated morass of little Napoleons in departments and agencies without end. A nation tangled up in red tape and a government that is competing with its citizens, instead of doing the will of the citizens. They have done too much to create a government run by corporate influence and special interest groups. Running us way beyond broke with war after war after war.
Obama seems to be looking to start world war III and his cronies in congress are going along with it. Do they really think they could win a global thermonuclear conflict while they all hide out under ground in their bunkers?
Armageddon may be closer than you think and we don't get a golden ticket invite to the bunker. Surviving the first strike will still carry a death sentence down the road. Albeit, a long and lingering one.
It would take care of the global warming problem.
Though, from what I've been reading, we may not need to worry about it if we get hit with a kill shot CME from the sun next month.
Talk about rendering all of this crap moot!

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.


I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

Oh Obama has as much power as he thinks, he disregards law or "interprets" it to his liking.Things obviously need to be more clearly spelled out to prevent future presidencies such as his or that of his predecessor and those before even but the last two seem to have abused their power as well.

Amendment wise. Term limits for one. We managed to get one through limiting the Presidency because many saw how dangerous Roosevelt had become.I think Roosevelt was a good man overall but he was a man and let power corrupt him, his radical social policies opened the door and was the foundation of where we are today.I will praise him for his leadership in the war and his inspiration but his policies on the economy were crap, the war saved the economy, not his domectic policies.Keynesianism just never works.Anyways, such term limits should be imposed for Senators and Congressmen. One six year term for Senators, may run for a second after sitting out for six years, two terms maximum. Two 2 year terms for reps, that is it.Ten year term for supreme court justices and 6 years for all other federal judges, they are part of the problem as well.Amendment cutting pay and benefits of congress and president and all federal employees.They are way over compensated. Basically an amendment to curb what has become an elite political class in this country.

Amendment that would get the money out of politics. strict, clear laws on donations, gifts, trips, etc. to lawmakers. No lobbying by business or special interests.Private citizens may protest, show up to talk to members etc but absolutely nothing of value may given etc.

Repeal of the 16th amendment is also needed, starve the beast of it's funding, we won't have such a problem and it would solve the immorality of taxing people's income directly.The language of this amendment would also prevent the bloodsuckers from creating an outrageously high VAT tax etc. Perhaps replace the amendment with a low flat tax of 8 percent, with few exemptions, perhaps for elderly and low income.

Amendments that hold those who create, pass, sign and have ANYTHING to do with laws that obviously violate the constitution of the united states a felony offense. Drone strikes on US citizens without a trial? felony. Indefinite detention of a US citizen no matter what the charge? Felony.

An amendment to clarify the commerce clause since the supreme court botched that one. The amendment would state that under no circumstances may the federal government force citizens to purchase a product or service from any entity whatsoever, be it private, public, or a combination.

An amendment that abolishes the NSA and strictly prohibits the activities revealed by snowden. This amendment would also make a real FISA court, not the facade there is now.

A transparency amendment that demands transparency at all levels of government.No secrets from the public.period.

Basically, we need a series of amendments to correct some mistakes and address the long term institutional problems of the is nation. I agree, we have to be careful, don't want a new constitution created with undue left wing influence.

I disagree, the Presidency has immense power now days, esp when you have someone who like the current one who has a penchant for ignoring the law and doing as he wishes in many instances.Unfortunately, this is the nature of man, to seek as much power as possible and it is too much power for one man to have. The moment it was revealed obama ordered a drone strike on a US cititzen which is tantamount to a summary exectuon, he should have been impeached.The presidential power to pardon should be abolished as well. I would say this is Bush did it(never did it to a US citizen to my knowledge) or if Rand Paul were to do it(we know he never would)