Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Rockstar]

I am so embarrassed, apparently truth, common sense and reason nolonger sell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e47d8d39bb2c


Should we select another panel to investigate?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I am so embarrassed, apparently truth, common sense and reason nolonger sell.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e47d8d39bb2c


Should we select another panel to investigate?

yah, the alt-left is going off the deep end. The Syria strike basically blew up the Trump-Putin collusion fable, so they have to come up with an even more convulated fairy tale.

Expect a lot of delusions coming from the looney left in the short term.

[mapuc]

After having read Danish and Swedish article about this American strike on Syria I have between the lines seen a pattern

If a Word war should be the cause of this-The future will write the bullet that started word war was the American attack on Syria, it will not be any of the Syrian's chemical attacks or the Russian-All the blame will be on USA.

Markus

[Platapus]

Although the US is not especially interested in such technicalities, it would be interesting to learn of the legalities of this airstrike.

[ikalugin]

Implying that the lone superpower (or any power for that matter) cares about International Law when said law does not suit it's agenda.

[mapuc]

I hope I have misunderstood what the host in the news program said some minutes ago.

Russia and Iran send a warning to USA-Future attacks on Syria will be seen as an attack on their country.

Markus

[Dowly]

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...84560904773633

[mapuc]

You may think that Assad will think twice before he commit another Chemical attack on his people- I say he will not, not after Russia and Iran have given him massive support.

We will from now on see more intense bombing against the terrorist and the civilians.

Markus

Edit of my former post #1251

Now I know what have been said- A Danish news paper has a printet version of what this host said before. I have used google translate

"US attack on Syria Friday crossed "red lines", and from now on we will respond to any aggression, says the command center for Russia, Iran and allies, which include Syria and Hezbollah.
"The US aggression against Syria is an excess of red lines. From now on, we will respond with force to any aggression or any excess of red lines - no matter who it is."
"The United States knows our ability to respond strongly again," says the statement, which was issued by the group on the media Ilam al Harbi."

Originally Posted by Dowly

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...84560904773633

Brilliant.
And so sad also.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Dowly

"Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." -The God King Donald Trump, 2012

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...84560904773633

Funny, In a sort of OMG we are totally screwed sort of way

[Jimbuna]

I'm not convinced Trump is the sort of individual who takes well to threats so it may well turn out to see pretty soon which way matters will turn out....pear shaped or otherwise.

[Rockstar]

What I heard last year from the other presidential candidate and her party, confrontation with Russia is good and the direction they wanted to go too. So I reckon those who voted for her should be content with it. Great again!

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Although the US is not especially interested in such technicalities, it would be interesting to learn of the legalities of this airstrike.

difficult to answer, since international law and even U.S. Constitutional law is in a grey area.

Under international law, an act of war is only valid if:

1. it is expressly authorized by the UN; or

2. it is done in self-defense.

Obviously the Syria strike does not fit either category and would seem to be illegal.

However, there is also a growing consensus in the international community that there is also a "duty to protect" civilians from the actions of their own government which would mean that the Strike could be legal.

Under the U.S. Constitution, POTUS derives his power from his position has commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. As C-in-C, he has wide latitude to use military power as he sees fit in what he deems to be the best interest of the USA.

Congress has the express power to declare war, but in the 230 years since the Constitution was enacted, it still has not been clearly established when POTUS has to go to Congress to get his military actions approved.

so you can argue the Strike was legal/illegal/Constitutional/Un-Constitutional... take your pick.

Bottom line: a U.S. President can pretty much take whatever military action he sees fit.

[ikalugin]

However, there is also a growing consensus in the international community that there is also a "duty to protect" civilians from the actions of their own government which would mean that the Strike could be legal.

It may make it, arguably, moral but it does not make it legal, as there is no legal structure to support it.

If there is - present it here please.

[Rockin Robbins]

There is no legal structure to which a State is subject. Each independent country forms its own law, which may or may not constrain its leadership.

Russia had "no legal right" to play with Ukraine. The US had "no legal right" to send troops to Kosovo. The Japanese had no "legal right" to annex Manchuria. The Allies had no "legal right"
to invade Normandy. All this talk about legal rights is nonsense.

States will do what they see is necessary or just what they want to do and other states will respond as they see fit. States do not even act in their own best interest much of the time and self-interest has no bearing on "legality." Where the actions of states are concerned, legality is not even a thing. It is silly even to raise the issue.