U.S.- War with Syria?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:08 am

ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA


Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:09 am

assateague wrote:I will say this, also:

I don't like Obama, not even one little bit. Not his policies, not his behaviors, not his leadership, not his personality, nothing. BUT. To hear the same voices who were screaming about him using force in Syria now screaming about him asking Congress for permission is bush league. Those same folks now portray him as "weak" because he went to Congress, most often claiming it is an abdication of responsibility, or some sort of cop out. Well, you can't have it both ways. Being upset with him because he was going to launch some missiles, and then being upset because he DIDN'T launch missiles is quite frankly disgusting, and does nothing.

This isn't pointed at anyone here. More to the media, Fox News, and some of the talk shows as well. First they were screaming about not wanting to be involved, and now they're screaming about not being involved fast enough. It's nonsense, and it pisses me off. I don't like Obama, and I won't support him in his goals. But what I also will NOT do is "make up" reasons to bad mouth him. He does enough on his own, without me having to dream up some self-righteous outrage.

Since 9/11, the president has been given emergency powers voted on by congress. It has been extended repeatedly and is in effect to this day.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0910/Obama_extends_911_state_of_emergency.html
Maybe it's a stretch, since he would be fighting on the same side as Al Queda....but...
He does not need to ask congress, it's just a political ploy. At least that is one take on the situation that I have heard...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56143
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:16 am

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:I will say this, also:

I don't like Obama, not even one little bit. Not his policies, not his behaviors, not his leadership, not his personality, nothing. BUT. To hear the same voices who were screaming about him using force in Syria now screaming about him asking Congress for permission is bush league. Those same folks now portray him as "weak" because he went to Congress, most often claiming it is an abdication of responsibility, or some sort of cop out. Well, you can't have it both ways. Being upset with him because he was going to launch some missiles, and then being upset because he DIDN'T launch missiles is quite frankly disgusting, and does nothing.

This isn't pointed at anyone here. More to the media, Fox News, and some of the talk shows as well. First they were screaming about not wanting to be involved, and now they're screaming about not being involved fast enough. It's nonsense, and it pisses me off. I don't like Obama, and I won't support him in his goals. But what I also will NOT do is "make up" reasons to bad mouth him. He does enough on his own, without me having to dream up some self-righteous outrage.

Since 9/11, the president has been given emergency powers voted on by congress. It has been extended repeatedly and is in effect to this day.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0910/Obama_extends_911_state_of_emergency.html
Maybe it's a stretch, since he would be fighting on the same side as Al Queda....but...
He does not need to ask congress, it's just a political ploy. At least that is one take on the situation that I have heard...



I'm no fan of Obama, but I am glad he is consulting with congress. I heard on here, I believe from Spinner, that he was bypassing congress. I remember when someone else did this, and it wasn't such a big deal
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:17 am

wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?


When the goverment has defined the leaders and support elements of AL Qaeda ad terrorists, as such it is unlawful and unconstitutional for our military to support them in any way. They are a defined enemy of the US. For the President or any military leader to order you to support them militarily or in any other way is a violation of their oath. To act on those orders is a violation of your oath.

The oath is to the Constitution, the people, and the leadership in that order. The leadership is last on the list for a reason. Our dear leader has forgotten that he represents the people, not the other way around.

I for one am glad he asked Congress about what to do with Syria. I agree with AT, there are plenty of reasons to disagree with Odumbo. Working with Congress on this one is not one of them.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?


When the goverment has defined the leaders and support elements of AL Qaeda ad terrorists, as such it is unlawful and unconstitutional for our military to support them in any way. They are a defined enemy of the US. For the President or any military leader to order you to support them militarily or in any other way is a violation of their oath. To act on those orders is a violation of your oath.

The oath is to the Constitution, the people, and the leadership in that order. The leadership is last on the list for a reason. Our dear leader has forgotten that he represent the people, not the other way around.

I for on am glad he asked Congress about what to do with Syria. I agree with AT, there are plenty of reasons to disagree with Odumbo. Working with Congress on this one is not one of them.



Wait, how exactly are we supporting the elements of Al Qaeda?
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby swampbilly 1980 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:28 am

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:I will say this, also:

I don't like Obama, not even one little bit. Not his policies, not his behaviors, not his leadership, not his personality, nothing. BUT. To hear the same voices who were screaming about him using force in Syria now screaming about him asking Congress for permission is bush league. Those same folks now portray him as "weak" because he went to Congress, most often claiming it is an abdication of responsibility, or some sort of cop out. Well, you can't have it both ways. Being upset with him because he was going to launch some missiles, and then being upset because he DIDN'T launch missiles is quite frankly disgusting, and does nothing.

This isn't pointed at anyone here. More to the media, Fox News, and some of the talk shows as well. First they were screaming about not wanting to be involved, and now they're screaming about not being involved fast enough. It's nonsense, and it pisses me off. I don't like Obama, and I won't support him in his goals. But what I also will NOT do is "make up" reasons to bad mouth him. He does enough on his own, without me having to dream up some self-righteous outrage.

Since 9/11, the president has been given emergency powers voted on by congress. It has been extended repeatedly and is in effect to this day.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0910/Obama_extends_911_state_of_emergency.html
Maybe it's a stretch, since he would be fighting on the same side as Al Queda....but...
He does not need to ask congress, it's just a political ploy. At least that is one take on the situation that I have heard...

There's a long laundry list of issues he's by-passed Congress on, but this one has no positive outcome in the end, err,..well,.. other than saying " I did something about my red line statement".

Whatever negative impact it has, he can use Congress as the scapegoat-
That's the plan here :wink:
Swampbilly1980- I got a feeva',..and the only cure is more Mergansers and face paint.
User avatar
swampbilly 1980
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 9070
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Gloucester,Va.

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:30 am

I think that's the sole purpose of congress existence swampbilly :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby swampbilly 1980 » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:56 am

wanapasaki wrote:I think that's the sole purpose of congress existence swampbilly :lol3:

:lol3: :lol3:
No doubt!

But I'd bet my next paycheck Roosevelt didn't have any hidden agendas' when he went to Congress in 1941. Nor do I believe he'd have let Japan off the hook without the blessings of Congress :wink:
:beer:
Swampbilly1980- I got a feeva',..and the only cure is more Mergansers and face paint.
User avatar
swampbilly 1980
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 9070
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Gloucester,Va.

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:00 am

swampbilly 1980 wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:I think that's the sole purpose of congress existence swampbilly :lol3:

:lol3: :lol3:
No doubt!

But I'd bet my next paycheck Roosevelt didn't have any hidden agendas' when he went to Congress in 1941. Nor do I believe he'd have let Japan off the hook without the blessings of Congress :wink:
:beer:


No, doubt, I couldn't agree more. Mr. Roosevelt, was an amazing president, and we are long over due for another one of him :beer:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:16 am

Just read his speech as to why he is going to Congress.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-31/politics/41635689_1_chemical-weapons-president-obama-regime

He's all over the place.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.


But will he confront this menace that he said MUST be confronted? :huh:

I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

But hey, who am I. I'm only the President and if the country does not want to confront a serious danger to our national security, so be it.

What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?
I think the message is crystal clear. Do NOT use gas and your fine.

If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules?
And he opposed Iraq, why? :huh: I guess he was all for limited strikes until they got the message because that had worked so well during the Clinton administration. :rolleyes:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization,

I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad

Image

Seriously, if he believes everything he says in this speech, his speech should have been that I have the authority, it is the only right thing for American, and that is why I have taken (past tense) the actions that I have taken and if there are consequences for those actions, I am willing to take them because I have done what I believe I must.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:44 am

wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?


When the goverment has defined the leaders and support elements of AL Qaeda ad terrorists, as such it is unlawful and unconstitutional for our military to support them in any way. They are a defined enemy of the US. For the President or any military leader to order you to support them militarily or in any other way is a violation of their oath. To act on those orders is a violation of your oath.

The oath is to the Constitution, the people, and the leadership in that order. The leadership is last on the list for a reason. Our dear leader has forgotten that he represent the people, not the other way around.

I for on am glad he asked Congress about what to do with Syria. I agree with AT, there are plenty of reasons to disagree with Odumbo. Working with Congress on this one is not one of them.



Wait, how exactly are we supporting the elements of Al Qaeda?



Who comprises a big chunk of the rebels?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:25 pm

wanapasaki wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:That is simply not true. The oath does not force you to obey an unlawful order and places you under direct responsibility for your actions while under orders.


The oath is to : "defend the constitution of the united states, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold all orders given to me by my appointed officers." Off the top of my head, but it was years ago that I had to swear it. How will it be unconstitutional?




This argument worked well at Nuremberg
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:40 pm

Amazing that he served and still doesn't get it. We had very specific classes in Basic Training on what a lawful order was and was not. We had more classes in NCO schools, and there were very specific legal classes when I went through OCS. The issue of unlawful orders and unconstitutional actions is covered by the military ( at least the Army ) at every level of training.

We even had a refresher course with the entire battalion in attendance prior to shipping overseas.

Nuremberg is an excellent example of what happens when you blindly follow orders.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Rat Creek » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:09 pm

Just as soon as I think Obama cannot look more weak and pathetic, he proves me wrong. I listened to his explanation that it was not his red line, but the world's red line and that his credibility is not at risk, but congress' is. :huh:

What delusional world is this nut living in? :huh: All understand he is a grand nacassist, but wow. Did he really blame the world for the red line he drew. That is stepping it up a notch from just blaming Bush. :rolleyes:

Granted he is getting everything he wants on the socialism front, mostly by circumventing congress, but my goodness he is a pathetic excuse for a leader on the world stage. Really embarrassing for America, but I am sure the useful idiots are marveling at how his belt matched his shoes. :bow: :bow: :bow:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:11 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Amazing that he served and still doesn't get it. We had very specific classes in Basic Training on what a lawful order was and was not. We had more classes in NCO schools, and there were very specific legal classes when I went through OCS. The issue of unlawful orders and unconstitutional actions is covered by the military ( at least the Army ) at every level of training.

We even had a refresher course with the entire battalion in attendance prior to shipping overseas.

Nuremberg is an excellent example of what happens when you blindly follow orders.



We had to go through that crap quarterly, too. There was an insane fear that, as an interrogator, we would be ordered into doing something not quite kosher because a muckety muck "wanted the info NOW, and consequences be damned". It was made perfectly clear that those consequences would fall on our shoulders, the performers of those actions, whether ordered to or not. So you're right- the blind obedience thing is pretty silly, and is quite the weak-minded argument.




And I guess wasabi has never watched A Few Good Men :lol3:
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:47 pm

assateague wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Amazing that he served and still doesn't get it. We had very specific classes in Basic Training on what a lawful order was and was not. We had more classes in NCO schools, and there were very specific legal classes when I went through OCS. The issue of unlawful orders and unconstitutional actions is covered by the military ( at least the Army ) at every level of training.

We even had a refresher course with the entire battalion in attendance prior to shipping overseas.

Nuremberg is an excellent example of what happens when you blindly follow orders.



We had to go through that crap quarterly, too. There was an insane fear that, as an interrogator, we would be ordered into doing something not quite kosher because a muckety muck "wanted the info NOW, and consequences be damned". It was made perfectly clear that those consequences would fall on our shoulders, the performers of those actions, whether ordered to or not. So you're right- the blind obedience thing is pretty silly, and is quite the weak-minded argument.




And I guess wasabi has never watched A Few Good Men :lol3:

cliff notes:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56143
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:54 pm

assateague wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Amazing that he served and still doesn't get it. We had very specific classes in Basic Training on what a lawful order was and was not. We had more classes in NCO schools, and there were very specific legal classes when I went through OCS. The issue of unlawful orders and unconstitutional actions is covered by the military ( at least the Army ) at every level of training.

We even had a refresher course with the entire battalion in attendance prior to shipping overseas.

Nuremberg is an excellent example of what happens when you blindly follow orders.



We had to go through that crap quarterly, too. There was an insane fear that, as an interrogator, we would be ordered into doing something not quite kosher because a muckety muck "wanted the info NOW, and consequences be damned". It was made perfectly clear that those consequences would fall on our shoulders, the performers of those actions, whether ordered to or not. So you're right- the blind obedience thing is pretty silly, and is quite the weak-minded argument.




And I guess wasabi has never watched A Few Good Men :lol3:


Hey Ass, what happens when you don't carry out an order in a combat zone unlawful or not? You know that several soldiers were killed by their own units in Iraq and Afghanistan that were "sticks in the mud." One female specifically in the marine corps. Oh yeah and Pat Tillman bypassing the chain of command. I think if many of us were told to execute, whether or not it was an unlawful order or be extinguished by our own units in an 'accident..' Well I think we all know which one you'd choose... Alot of those guys that went into OCS were pathetic.. I never saw so many good people turn into mindless robots and paper pushers. There are some great officers, but 80% of them are snot nosed punks, expecting a CSM to drop what he is doing and render the proper salutation and at the same time hassle him into performing their jobs. Be that as it may, if we strike Syria and we demonstrate a show of force in Jordan, I can personally guarantee you, the militray branches when told to jump by Obama, will simply ask : "How high?" Scaup, I'm amazed that such a person with your experiences in the military, that you refuse to believe that there are any kind of flaws in the everyday operations that occur in combat zones on a daily basis :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:12 pm

When you violate the law you violate the law. Period. Hopefully the "but I was in a combat zone" defense will play out well for you. But it most assuredly isn't an excuse. And somebody in a dress uniform holding a piece of paper in front of their face is hardly in a combat zone.


Go thump your chest elsewhere. Preferably somewhere where people don't care about the substance, or lack thereof, of your argument.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:26 pm

assateague wrote:When you violate the law you violate the law. Period. Hopefully the "but I was in a combat zone" defense will play out well for you. But it most assuredly isn't an excuse. And somebody in a dress uniform holding a piece of paper in front of their face is hardly in a combat zone.


Go thump your chest elsewhere. Preferably somewhere where people don't care about the substance, or lack thereof, of your argument.



lol play out well? No war crimes on my behalf. Ass, you crack me up.. When are you going to get off your high horse? How was I thumping my chest? I see plenty of people calling you out, and your responds are feeble and cowardly. ALWAYS attacking their character in general because their political beliefs are different from your own. You do this ALL the time. You may attempt to be clever through the internet, but can guarantee quite the opposite in person. If not, you must have had you Assa handed to you countless times. You sir, are a joke and a narrow minded one at that.. Play with the big boys when you have more talent, than sabotaging character. :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:30 pm

Obama's BS On Chemical Weapons In Syria


Obama is spouting off from the ass once again in Sweden.

Every time this buttclown, McStain, Graham or the others open their mouths (or McStain plays poker during the Senate hearing yesterday) they continue to obfuscate and ignore the bottom line:

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

The rest of this debate is arm-waving.

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

Al Qaida is a sworn enemy of the United States. The United States has ratified their statement of being our enemy through more than 10 years of continual declaration of a "state of emergency" citing the so-called "war on terror."

It is an act of Treason according to our Constitution to provide material aid and comfort to a sworn enemy of our nation.

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

I am not convinced that Assad's people used the chemical weapons. They would be insane to do so; they are winning the civil war and irrespective of winning or losing there was no political calculus that makes sense for them to use this sort of munition.

There is always, of course, the possibility that Assad is in fact insane, or that one of his field people used the weapons without his explicit consent.

The risk we take if we're wrong on who used the chems, however, is beyond belief; these rebels have a history of videotaping their heinous actions in ways that cannot be refuted later, such as cutting off people's heads, burning churches with people inside and eating hearts.

If, in fact, they used the chems the minute the missiles fly you can expect proof of their action and a loud cheer for the United States to come from them, complete with a video showing them firing the shell into the buildings that had the victims in them, leaving exactly zero doubt who did what and what they did it with.

But let's assume I'm wrong on this and Assad did use them, despite there being no logical reason for him to have done so.

Then it still comes back to this:

A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.

We can't get around that reality folks, and it is that reality which were our nation, military and civilian leadership comprised of people who had allegiance to our country rather than a bunch of Muslim jihadists we would not be having this "discussion" and "vote."

America is about to provide formal support to and the military air power for Muslim Jihadists.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56143
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:34 pm

I never said there were no flaws. The military is full of humans which are all flawed. I said there are classes that handle this and individuals get tried under the UCMJ or disciplined by their leadership on a regular basis when they violate the rules.

I have to agree that most officers suck. I would say 5% are good to great, 10% might be sufficient, and the rest are officious azzes with little to no real value. That is why I went to OCS and then refused a commission. I was ordered to OCS, ran the course and simply did not want to become an officer after what I saw. I knew the school was f'd up when they told me they were going to beat the NCO out of me to make me an officer.

I refused two direct orders in combat while overseas. Both of them ended up with the Lieutenant and I in front of the Colonel. Both incidents saw me walking back to my platoon with no disciplinary action taken. Followed any hour or so later by a chastized Lieutenant. During the last 6 months of our tour I was the Platoon Sergeant and acting Lieutenant for my platoon.

I am not sure what group or unit you served in. The one I served in upheld the rules, obeyed the UCMJ, and more than one NCO refused an unlawful order. Each incident was reviewed by the chain of command and handled appropriately. Lieutenants are a private with a butter bar and authority. Many of them make stupid or illegal decisions, simply not knowing better. Our leaders understood this and operated accordingly. The Platoon Sgt. is there to guide, coach, counsel, and teach the Lt. enough to survive and become a good leader. At times that includes telling the Lieutenant no.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:10 pm

At least I can agree with you in several ways. But I have seen unlawful orders defended by colonels on a personal level. Fortubately enough not even the government could defend them from the media
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:47 pm

wanapasaki wrote:
assateague wrote:When you violate the law you violate the law. Period. Hopefully the "but I was in a combat zone" defense will play out well for you. But it most assuredly isn't an excuse. And somebody in a dress uniform holding a piece of paper in front of their face is hardly in a combat zone.


Go thump your chest elsewhere. Preferably somewhere where people don't care about the substance, or lack thereof, of your argument.



lol play out well? No war crimes on my behalf. Ass, you crack me up.. When are you going to get off your high horse? How was I thumping my chest? I see plenty of people calling you out, and your responds are feeble and cowardly. ALWAYS attacking their character in general because their political beliefs are different from your own. You do this ALL the time. You may attempt to be clever through the internet, but can guarantee quite the opposite in person. If not, you must have had you Assa handed to you countless times. You sir, are a joke and a narrow minded one at that.. Play with the big boys when you have more talent, than sabotaging character. :lol3:



Sorry that it bothers you so much to have it pointed out that your argument makes no sense. Hardly a character assassination.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:54 pm

Image
your argument does not fly Wanapasaki...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56143
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: U.S.- War with Syria?

Postby wanapasaki » Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:11 pm

Lol thanks for the confirmation Inda. Sure there will be more to follow :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests