Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Mr Quatro]

What if your neighbor was seen spanking his child in his backyard rather severely?

The little child was yelling, screaming, crying bloody murder and hollering at the top of his lungs. Yet the fathers backside was to you and you couldn't get a good angle for a picture of the man doing the crime. You are almost certain it was him so you check it out.

You have your child go over and ask the little boy what was going on and the child said that his father beat him unmercifully for no apparent reason.

You call the cops, but they do nothing. The father finds out from the police that question him that the American neighbor on his left did this (not the Jewish neighbor on his right).

The father writes a dirty note to both neighbors threatening to take action against both of them. He will put nails in their driveway, he will spray all of their trees with harmful poisons, he will tear down their satellite antenna, he will cut off their phone, lights, gas and internet service.

What do you do?

Do you live in fear? Stay the course? Get other neighbors to help you fight back?

Draw your conclusions from the same thing President Obama and the US Congress have to face soon and very soon.

Fear is the number one enemy ... always has been and always will be

President Obama is doing the right thing now it is up to the US Congress to decide if the punishment phase should go into effect.

[Wolferz]

Right you are Platapus. They can determine what type of agent it was with blood and tissue samples but, it will be nearly impossible to finger the culprit who pulled the trigger without getting your hands on all of the people Assad put in charge of his chemical weapons and all of the FSA people who might of had access to chemical agents via outside sources.
It'll take a whole lot of time and waterboarding to get these suspects to confess their involvement. Even then, the information would be suspect.

I don't think the intelligence community can truthfully say they found a smoking gun.

But, like every other untenable war, this one will be started with a lie too.

[Tchocky]

Not to get semantic - but nobody is starting a war in Syria. It's been at war for years.

[mapuc]

Have to write this

A friends friend wrote this on my friends wall(FB)

"USA is in for a big surprice-they are facing Syria's highly competent military machine"

I do not like to mock people, but I was about to laugh at what I read.

I know they have advanced russian SAM-system..however it's not the russian that control them and I don't know how well trained the syrian is.

Markus

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Not to get semantic - but nobody is starting a war in Syria. It's been at war for years.

Yes. And it's their war.

[Platapus]

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.

So no the president can't legally just decide to send US Military into hostilities. That's the whole purpose of the War Powers Act, and the reason no President since 1973 has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

If in the instance of item 3, the President must provide specific information as soon as possible. The exact words are "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after such introduction shall consult regularly with Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

If after 60 days from either the delivery of the first report or the deployment of US Armed Forces, the Congress has not either declared war nor issued a statutory authority, the President must recall all US Armed Forces. There is an option to extend this an additional 30 days for the purpose of withdrawal logistics.

So no the president can't just decide to send in the troops and yes the president needs congressional approval if he can make a legal decision to send in the troops.

I think the War Powers Act is a necessary check on the powers of the Executive and Commander in Chief.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Wonder if the Soviets have any underwater assets in the area

Earlier this year there was a 2 Russian subs on maneuvers in the Med, 1 nuc and one diesel. I doubt those two boats are still on station but they were most likely replaced by other subs.

There was a E-6B Mercury spotted near the UK heading south so it would be a good guess that the US has one or more subs out there.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.

So no the president can't legally just decide to send US Military into hostilities. That's the whole purpose of the War Powers Act, and the reason no President since 1973 has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

If in the instance of item 3, the President must provide specific information as soon as possible. The exact words are "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after such introduction shall consult regularly with Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

If after 60 days from either the delivery of the first report or the deployment of US Armed Forces, the Congress has not either declared war nor issued a statutory authority, the President must recall all US Armed Forces. There is an option to extend this an additional 30 days for the purpose of withdrawal logistics.

So no the president can't just decide to send in the troops and yes the president needs congressional approval if he can make a legal decision to send in the troops.

I think the War Powers Act is a necessary check on the powers of the Executive and Commander in Chief.

I toke a copy of this and posted it on some of my friends wall. That because they wrote things like

Obama is a war... He is only interested in sending American soldie into an another war etc etc.

Your posting said it very clearly why these people had a wrong idea of how things works in USA and for the president. Regarding sending American soldie into a war.

Markus

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Packlife

Yea I understand a lot of ppl have already died, but for Obama to go out on tv an say I've decided to use military force against Assad's regime an then say but first I'm chill for 10 days waitin for congress to come back from break. He could of at least asked them to come back early, but I did hear that the senate might come back early an do a vote of their own. What's crazy is Obama doesn't even need congress's authorization to do what he wants to do. If he wanted to declare an all out war on Syria then he'd need the congress to authorize that. An what I meant by the God have mercy on those who will suffer from his decision now, was that Assad is going to seriously crank up his attacks on the Syrian rebels an civilians. The weapons inspectors weren't even outta Damascus an the artillery batteries had started up again. Assad said he might attack Israel in retalliation, thats a horrible move on his part Israel is itching for a reason to go off on him. I think it was the Israeli PM or DM who said if anybody attacks them they will defend themselves "ferociously". An you know Israel does not play around they will tear somebody up bad.

You know that Iran and Hezbollah - armed up to the teeth and having stalled the Israelis in 2006 while now being better armed, trained and dug in - are sitting right at the Israelis' border in Lebanon, yes? Believe me, Hezbollah just waits for the Israelis to move. And also believe me that while the Israelis may be willing to retaliate against Syria in case of being attacked, they are nevertheless not eager at all to get drawn into this mess. They already have security concerns enough.

[Packlife]

Yeah I know Hezbollah an Iran are waitin but Hezbollah got their hands full fighting for Assad against the rebels an they're having trouble back home w/ Sunni militias been bombing them left an right. Besides we wouldn't leave Israel hanging between the US an Israel it would naasty for those two.

[Armistead]

We need to keep out, two of our enemies fighting each other, sad that innocents are dying, but we killed our fair share in Afgan and Iraq war. It will cost billions of dollars and solve nothing, cept whoever wins we'll be in conflict with. Millions are dying in Africa from war, so it's certainly a political ploy by Obama. War will come soon enough with the entire area, let's wait til then.

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Armistead

We need to keep out, two of our enemies fighting each other, sad that innocents are dying, but we killed our fair share in Afgan and Iraq war. It will cost billions of dollars and solve nothing, cept whoever wins we'll be in conflict with.

I agree 100%. It's "amateur hour" at the White House.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

I agree 100%. It's "amateur hour" at the White House.

Agreed! When Obama spoke that he made the decision to attack, I almost laughed when he said he made another decision to ask congress. He should've just stated he was going to congress. Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Agreed! When Obama spoke that he made the decision to attack, I almost laughed when he said he made another decision to ask congress. He should've just stated he was going to congress. Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

Congress..... I see a move to blame it on the republicans. Starting timer...now.

Originally Posted by Platapus

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.

Easily solved on 3.
Park a destroyer in disputed waters during fighting and then claim someone shot at it.
Its worked before.