Obama just declared war on Syria ?

a reply to: douglas5

Obama has asked congress to go to war against ISIS, not Syria. This declaration of war extends to all territories that ISIS is in. RT doesn't know what it is talking about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you'll notice, RT used a FOX news trick. The title of the OP ED is: DID Obama Just Declare War on Syria? Then, the OP decided to leave off the "DID" to take it from a question to a statement. For the purpose of dishonesty, I imagine.

But people will stoop to any low to take a shot at Obama...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He has basically asked to go to war anywhere isis or associated forces operate

a reply to: douglas5

Yes, that is what I just said.

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He has basically asked to go to war anywhere isis or associated forces operate

What if ISIS is operating in the continental US?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm not sure what to think about this declaration of war (to be honest, I'm against it), but at least Obama is FINALLY following the protocol in the Constitution for declaring war. Which is better than every other president since WWII.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Obama has been bombing Syria for months when they have not given permission ,Dito Israel who have bombed Syria all against International law

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Talk about a conflict of interest with $ 46 million in defence firms behind him ,how in the heck does this not get front page news

That part is easy to answer. The mainstream media is owned by the military-industrial complex, which includes defense firms and politicians.

a reply to: douglas5

These gas/oil pipelines seem to be the real reason for all the conflicts in the MidEast today. And with the U.S. now an oil exporter too, battling in Syria is all about pleasing the Global Elitists ...

www.reuters.com...
(12/31/2014) UNITED STATES NOW AN OIL "EXPORTER"

And - how convenient - the price of oil is now going up again:

gulfnews.com...
OIL TOPS $60 A BARREL FOR FIRST TIME IN 2015

cryptome.org...
FIRE-EYE: BEHIND THE SYRIAN WAR'S DIGITAL FRONT LINES

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: douglas5

Obama has asked congress to go to war against ISIS, not Syria. This declaration of war extends to all territories that ISIS is in. RT doesn't know what it is talking about.

The problem is that if this means unilateral ability to enter any country they are in, then it violates both international law and the national sovereignty of said countries.

Contrary to most westerners' ideas, the west doesn't have the legal or moral right to enter other countries or attack at will.

Completely and utterly misleading thread title. Seems rather intentional, too.

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The world needs to grow a set and impose sanctions against any country involved in war or the support of war no exceptions .

It seems to be the only thing that a country understands ,the threat of financial war

I agree, and the west should be sanctioned for wars going back 50 years, but especially recently. Where are the Iraq War sanctions?

This is the point though, we have the laws in place (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, ICC, etc). But it is not consistently applied. Third world dictators are regime changed, couped, and sanctioned for the very same crimes that often the west commits regarding wars, torture, and so on.

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Obama has been bombing Syria for months when they have not given permission ,Dito Israel who have bombed Syria all against International law

Yup. All unilateral acts of aggression, which actually are considered war crimes under international law. Syria has the right to actually fight back under the universal legal principle of self defense but Syria knows wisely that to do so would spell the end of the regime. The west would therefore stomp on them.

a reply to: MKMoniker

I cannot see Russia sitting back and letting this happen without hitting back hard and dirty ,nothing has been heard about the 80 kg of Neuclear materials ISIS got in Iraq

a reply to: Shamrock6

I removed the DID from the title because Obama is hitting Syria now this is just letting him go large where ever he wants with no oversight , when America is sick of war

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Obama has been bombing Syria for months when they have not given permission ,Dito Israel who have bombed Syria all against International law

Yup. All unilateral acts of aggression, which actually are considered war crimes under international law. Syria has the right to actually fight back under the universal legal principle of self defense but Syria knows wisely that to do so would spell the end of the regime. The west would therefore stomp on them.

Now Europe is starting to get pissed at the sanctions with Germany ,Greece France all starting to have second thoughts about American actions

If you want to understand the politics of war in the region, you need to check out the Territory base setup
and read this book:

a reply to: Ridhya

The lines that were drawn on a map post ww1 and 2 are not a great reflection of the Sunni/Shia divide and will come to a head soon i think with the way things are heating up in the world

originally posted by: douglas5
a reply to: Shamrock6

I removed the DID from the title because Obama is hitting Syria now this is just letting him go large where ever he wants with no oversight , when America is sick of war

So...yes, you did post an intentionally misleading thread title.

Noted.

originally posted by: douglas5
...this is just letting him go large where ever he wants with no oversight

Not true. (not surprisingly)

Obama contends that he already has authority for such deployments under the 2001 authorization permitting use of force against Al Qaeda, which once had ties to Islamic State, as well as the 2002 sanctioning of the Iraq war. Because of that legal authority, the new proposal would not add to his ability to order troops into harm's way. But, the White House argues, it would force lawmakers to assume more of the responsibility —and political heat — for a conflict with no end in sight.

Source