Syria = WWIII? - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 5th, 2013, 09:48 AM   #41
BlooMule
pew pew
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 24,987
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Default

Them preppers ain't so crazy now is they?


Reading up online, this is scarier than I originally thought. Putin is basically Russian Mob, and we really have no one of importance in our corner.

A very real 'end of the world' scenario.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old September 5th, 2013, 09:54 AM   #42
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
Reading up online, this is scarier than I originally thought.
I think you just summed up the majority of the American public right now.

I made a comment about a job at work saying, "It doesn't matter anyway, they will never build these trucks with WWIII on its way". The other guy said, "Oh, the whole Syria thing?" then walked away not caring.

I think most people, like me until recently, think it's just like ever other mid-east BS situation...
mschaffer66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:01 AM   #43
cerial
Senior Member
 
cerial's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-06-08
Location: Caledonia,MI
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

The message is firm. Use of chemical weapons is not allowed. It was agreed that if they were used then there would be penalties.

That being said we have enough on our plate. Hell, we have so many guest at our table it is causing a migraine. We have not even told them we can't pay the bill yet.

Let countries within the region who are at greater risk handle it. I under stand how doing nothing makes us look weak. This is just one of those cases where doing nothing makes more sense.

This would be like Russia coming over to handle our borders with Mexico using more effective methods that would be considered inhumane. People would be screaming very quickly for them to get the hell out.


It is an issue where a group of higher powers needs to agree and then snuff out the issue. Whether right or not, one lone outlaw going against the wishes of the rest will cause conflict with them.

From a tactical standpoint if this was a setup it is a very impressive one.
cerial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:03 AM   #44
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,365
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Done.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:07 AM   #45
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerial View Post
The message is firm. Use of chemical weapons is not allowed. It was agreed that if they were used then there would be penalties.

That being said we have enough on our plate. Hell, we have so many guest at our table it is causing a migraine. We have not even told them we can't pay the bill yet.

Let countries within the region who are at greater risk handle it. I under stand how doing nothing makes us look weak. This is just one of those cases where doing nothing makes more sense.

This would be like Russia coming over to handle our borders with Mexico using more effective methods that would be considered inhumane. People would be screaming very quickly for them to get the hell out.


It is an issue where a group of higher powers needs to agree and then snuff out the issue. Whether right or not, one lone outlaw going against the wishes of the rest will cause conflict with them.

From a tactical standpoint if this was a setup it is a very impressive one.
Holy shit...that could be by far the most sensible thing you have ever said on this website.

I love the Russia and the Mexican border analogy. Not perfect, but I think that's about as close as you can get to a situation where it would involve another country butting in to our affairs.
mschaffer66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:24 AM   #46
BlooMule
pew pew
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 24,987
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Default

This is the type of situation the UN was supposed to prevent, isn't it?

Seems that for a while, the UN was just America's rubber stamp- now there is real resistance to what is being seen as US Imperialism- and Obama does not know how to react.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:33 AM   #47
SS
Blinded By The Light
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: Mogadishu, Somalia
Posts: 11,891
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Default

Excellent piece by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Quote:
President Obama’s request for express congressional authorization for a limited aerial invasion of Syria raises profound legal and constitutional questions.

For starters, there is simply no legal basis in international law to support an American invasion of Syria. Yet, notwithstanding that, federal law permits the president to commit U.S. military forces anywhere he wants for up to 90 days, without express authorization from Congress.

So, why did Obama ask for the authorization he surely knows he already has?

Since March 2011, Syria has been in the throes of a civil war. Those seeking to oust the government of President Bashar al-Assad are a mixture of his domestic political opponents, disgruntled former Syrian military officers and dangerous radical foreign Islamist fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda. International organizations monitoring the war have put the dead from both sides at more than 100,000 persons.

Can President Obama lawfully bomb Syria to punish its government for violating international norms or to deter it from doing so again? In a word: No.

Until last week, the U.S. had steadfastly stayed out of this war, as its outcome is unlikely to affect American national security.

Though Assad is a former friend who once famously dined with then Sen. John Kerry, he is now a monster willing to go to extremes to stay in power.

On the other hand, our allies in the region surely would prefer that the Syrian government not be run by or under the influence of Al Qaeda, and federal law prohibits Americans and the U.S. government from aiding Al Qaeda.

Hence, our neutrality -- until Obama made a thoughtless and bravado-driven comment during his re-election campaign in August 2012, and now fears that his bluff has been called.

In his comment, the president, sounding like an international policeman -- a position he condemned when President George W. Bush sounded that way -- declared that if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its adversaries, the very use of which is prohibited by all civilized norms, America would revisit its neutrality.

In reliance upon what he now claims is sound intelligence showing government use of chemical weapons on innocent Syrian civilians, Obama last week stated an intention to engage in a limited military invasion of Syria so as to weaken its resolve and ability to fight the rebels further.

Never mind that the photos shown by Obama’s folks of aid workers ministering to the supposed victims of government gassing show the workers without gas masks or gloves, and never mind that the Assad regime has permitted U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access to its materiel, and never mind that the president wants to invade Syria before the weapons inspectors issue their report.

The president wants us to believe that the Assad regime intentionally gassed a thousand Syrian innocents who were of no military value to the rebels or threat to the regime -- and among whom were, according to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), “hundreds of children.”


Even if all this took place as Obama claims, can he lawfully bomb Syria to punish its government for violating international norms or to deter it from doing so again? In a word: No.

International law recognizes only three lawful routes to the use of military force. It recognizes the right of every country to launch military force in order to prevent its own borders from being invaded or to subdue those who commenced an invasion.

It also recognizes the ability of any U.N. member state to come to the aid of any other U.N. member state when one of them has been invaded. And treaties to which the U.S. and Syria are parties permit limited purpose invasions when approved by the U.N. None of these lawful scenarios applies to Syria.

Can Obama just launch an invasion of Syria even if it would be unlawful and even if Congress says no?

Because of the vicissitudes of history, the personalities of presidents and the myopic compromises of past Congresses, the area of presidential war-making has different legal and constitutional ramifications. Under the Constitution, only Congress can authorize the offensive use of military force. James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 make it obvious that the Framers were nearly unanimous in their resolve to keep the war-making power away from the president and repose it exclusively with Congress. They did this clearly and unambiguously in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the precise language of the Constitution and the history of the nation's birth, the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a federal statute enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, does permit the president on his own to use the military for offensive wars for a maximum of 90 days.

Thus, under current federal law, Obama may lawfully bomb Syria even if Congress declines to authorize him to do so and even though such an act would violate international law.

But the WPR is profoundly unconstitutional because it cedes Congress’ constitutional war-making power to the president.

The WPR was an ill-conceived political compromise effectuated by a Watergate-weakened president, congressional hawks who approved of Nixon’s unilateral invasion of Cambodia and sober congressional heads more faithful to the separation of powers.

Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the transfer of constitutional powers among the branches of the federal government is unconstitutional, even if popular and consensual, unless brought about by an amendment to the Constitution.

Thus, Congress can no more let the president start wars than the president can let Congress appoint federal judges, lest the Constitution have no meaning or force of law.

So why does Obama want Congress’ approval to do that which international law prohibits and federal law permits?

Obama knows that war is the health of the state: It unites political adversaries around common patriotic-sounding goals and often generates support for those in harm’s way and resources for the government officials who sent them there.

But, will another war enhance our freedoms or our safety? Will it add to our debt? Will it trash the law? Can we bomb and kill for bragging rights?

The answers are obvious, and they don’t justify war.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2e266WKq2
__________________
-Jeremy

Watch yourself. I'll light you up.
SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:43 AM   #48
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 17,983
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Putin just announced he will give Syria a missile shield if the U.S. acts without the backing of the United Nations (which we all know will never happen).

Thanks to Obama and the Democrats we are officially on the verge of going to war with Russia.
Don't forget the Republicans. There are plenty of them supporting this crap too.

Folks, we finally have some unity between both parties in Washington.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:43 AM   #49
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

I'd really hate to be an active duty serviceman right now.

As stupid as the Iraq/Afghanistan thing seemed at times we had some skin in the game.

On top of whatever may happen with the international community over this, it's just going to be a waste of money, and ultimately US military lives.
mschaffer66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:46 AM   #50
Whatisfreedumb
Senior Member
 
Whatisfreedumb's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-23-11
Location: Harrison twp - MI
Posts: 278
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Whatisfreedumb
Default

And didn't yesterday they just mention they may actually send a vote through to start a draft?
Whatisfreedumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:49 AM   #51
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatisfreedumb View Post
And didn't yesterday they just mention they may actually send a vote through to start a draft?
I'm not sure, but...

mschaffer66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:50 AM   #52
SS
Blinded By The Light
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: Mogadishu, Somalia
Posts: 11,891
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschaffer66 View Post
I'd really hate to be an active duty serviceman right now.

As stupid as the Iraq/Afghanistan thing seemed at times we had some skin in the game.

On top of whatever may happen with the international community over this, it's just going to be a waste of money, and ultimately US military lives.
Wife and Mom specifically asked me if I could be recalled to active duty even though I'm a disabled vet. Not really sure how I feel about being ineligible due to my back injury.

This whole thing is out of control.
__________________
-Jeremy

Watch yourself. I'll light you up.
SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:57 AM   #53
Immortal
NO RELIGION WAT!
 
Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: In my garage
Posts: 25,800
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Default

Fuck the UN.
These guys need to shut the fukc up and do more than diarrhea at the mouth.

Fuck Russia.
I do not have an issue with this country, but they are old and severely under maintenanced in the war department.

Fuck Syria.
Fuck em.

Now China will be a problem if they intervene. Then ladies and gentlemen we will have a scary war.
Immortal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:58 AM   #54
mschaffer66
Senior Member
 
mschaffer66's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,214
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Wife and Mom specifically asked me if I could be recalled to active duty even though I'm a disabled vet. Not really sure how I feel about being ineligible due to my back injury.

This whole thing is out of control.
I think you should feel lucky.

I don't see any reason in fighting and dying for someone else's war, based off some unknown agenda, that no one besides the few in charge even want to happen.
mschaffer66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 10:59 AM   #55
SS
Blinded By The Light
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: Mogadishu, Somalia
Posts: 11,891
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immortal View Post
Fuck the UN.
These guys need to shut the fukc up and do more than diarrhea at the mouth.

Fuck Russia.
I do not have an issue with this country, but they are old and severely under maintenanced in the war department.

Fuck Syria.
Fuck em.

Now China will be a problem if they intervene. Then ladies and gentlemen we will have a scary war.
Russia isn't as "old" and "under maintenanced" in the war department as you think.

This isn't 1990. Russia's core military is very very very strong. China has also moved assets into the region to counter us.
__________________
-Jeremy

Watch yourself. I'll light you up.
SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 11:20 AM   #56
BlooMule
pew pew
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 24,987
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Russia isn't as "old" and "under maintenanced" in the war department as you think.

This isn't 1990. Russia's core military is very very very strong. China has also moved assets into the region to counter us.
Isn't China's active military larger than the US population?

Well, not really, but China has about 3 million combine active and reserve, Russia has about the same (but reversed as far as active and reserve) and the US has about 2.5 million.

List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

The US against a combined Russian and Chinese military would not fare well, I'm afraid.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 11:29 AM   #57
Immortal
NO RELIGION WAT!
 
Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: In my garage
Posts: 25,800
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Russia isn't as "old" and "under maintenanced" in the war department as you think.

This isn't 1990. Russia's core military is very very very strong. China has also moved assets into the region to counter us.
I like how proud a people they may still be. Just too bad their government got corrupted and fucked. I associated that with a lack of funds to care for their military and technologies.

I really hope we do not take military action. Not that we won't be able to squash those that oppose us, but that we won't be able to squash them with enthusiasm.
Immortal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 11:30 AM   #58
SS
Blinded By The Light
 
SS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 12-12-05
Location: Mogadishu, Somalia
Posts: 11,891
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
Isn't China's active military larger than the US population?

Well, not really, but China has about 3 million combine active and reserve, Russia has about the same (but reversed as far as active and reserve) and the US has about 2.5 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tary_personnel

The US against a combined Russian and Chinese military would not fare well, I'm afraid.
Unless the nukes come out.

Then NO ONE on this PLANET will be in a very good spot.
__________________
-Jeremy

Watch yourself. I'll light you up.
SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 11:32 AM   #59
Immortal
NO RELIGION WAT!
 
Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: In my garage
Posts: 25,800
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 59 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Unless the nukes come out.

Then NO ONE on this PLANET will be in a very good spot.
Well lets not go there. I don't have enough bullets.
Immortal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2013, 11:33 AM   #60
BlooMule
pew pew
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 24,987
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SS View Post
Unless the nukes come out.

Then NO ONE on this PLANET will be in a very good spot.
I seriously hope it would never come to that. In this regard, I'm worried it would be Obama pushing the button first.
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.55358 seconds with 82 queries