Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I guess we should just admit that the UN Charter isn't up to the new challenges of the 21st century and reorganize the world order.
That is not what interests Monti.
What folks? Three times Obama dispatched Clinton to the UN to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria, all three times China and Russia said NO!
The British parliament pulled their support of the notion, them folks didn't want it.
Obama tried to get US congressional approval, those folks didn't want it.
70% of Americans were against it! them folks didn't want it. Other than the neocon freaks that want war everywhere, all the time, what folks want it.
Oh, you mean the Saud and the Sunni, plus the Shia in Iraq? Since they weren't capable of doing it.....are you saying we shouldn't walk the walk when trying to get them to put people in on the ground.
You do know.....that when Leading, sometimes it takes getting out in front. Not sitting in the back behind a desk and telling others what they need to do. When left with no other good choices. Actions speak louder than words.
Now ISIS knows.....we are in their backyard. Just like they are in ours.
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?The rule of law, international law, the will of the American people, congressional procedure, US credibility, all things that should interest you too. No i in my UN.
And now we know that the US White House as usual does what it wants. **** Russia and China, **** the UN, **** the British, **** the US congress, **** your constituency. But I already knew none of that matters to warmongering neocons.
Thankfully, China and Russia do not override the foreign policy interests of the US as a solitary actor.
US forces carried out the raid. What the British parliament voted upon was again a matter of international cooperation, not a permission slip for us to go it alone.
Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS. The congressional vote pertained to acitvely taking the side of Syrian separatists opposite Assad.
Patently false. 60 percent of Americans favor the use of force in Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, with 4 in 10 in favor of sending ground troops (not to be conflated with commandos in a raid scenario, as depicted in the OP).
Slightly Fewer Back ISIS Military Action vs. Past Actions
Simply a fact-free rant of a post
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?
Repeating an erroneous statement is literally all you can muster? The UN voted on cooperative action which was promptly vetoed by Russia. The Nations in their name indicates that more than one is usually involved. They did not and cannot, however, strip the US of our ability to act in our own best interest when it comes to pursuing terror cells within Syria.Really now. They certainly shut the US down at the UN. Remember, Obama wasn't allowed to defend his red line.
Of course they are. Monte seems to be utterly befuddled by the concept though.A sovereign state is Well within its Right to take military action against terrorist forces that operatie against its interests, Whenever those forces are to be found.
Did you forget the French wanted to go into Syria? You didn't want to say the French are Neo Cons did ya?
What law would prohibit a raid of this nature?
Repeating an erroneous statement is literally all you can muster? The UN voted on cooperative action which was promptly vetoed by Russia. The Nations in their name indicates that more than one is usually involved. They did not and cannot, however, strip the US of our ability to act in our own best interest when it comes to pursuing terror cells within Syria.
Of course they are. Monte seems to be utterly befuddled by the concept though.
Oh, you mean the Saud and the Sunni, plus the Shia in Iraq? Since they weren't capable of doing it.....are you saying we shouldn't walk the walk when trying to get them to put people in on the ground.
You do know.....that when Leading, sometimes it takes getting out in front. Not sitting in the back behind a desk and telling others what they need to do. When left with no other good choices. Actions speak louder than words.
Now ISIS knows.....we are in their backyard. Just like they are in ours.
Nope! Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS, and the US, despite your most sincere wishes, is not constrained by the whims of China and Russia.Such military action requires a UN resolution. China and Russia already said no.
Use of force in Syria to oust Assad /= ISIS.Obama sought a United Nations resolution for the use of force in Syria, DENIED! He's using a back door approach. And the only reason that you guys are down with it, is because you support a US war in Syria, and are willing to look the other way on the rules.
Nope! Congress has already authorized the use of force against ISIS, and the US, despite your most sincere wishes, is not constrained by the whims of China and Russia.
:lol:Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
By PETER BAKER and JONATHAN WEISMANAUG. 31, 2013. FAILED TO GET IT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
The United States does not expect a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria's chemical weapons to include a potential use of military force due to Russian opposition. Failed to get it.
U.S. not expecting U.N. resolution on Syria to include use of force | Reuters
Military strike against the Syrian Government.
:lol:
Failing to get it indeed.
Use of force in Syria to oust Assad /= ISIS.
Yes. Sort of like the Doolittle raid on Japan. Low cost, relatively small number of men, but an important impact on enemy moral, which to ISIS is very important for recruitment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?