M
member 3289
Guest
It was necessary. If we hadn't responded, the next attack by them would've come sooner and/or been more deadly.
We did it in Syria so as not to undermine/embarrass the young Iraqi government.
We did it in Syria so as not to undermine/embarrass the young Iraqi government.
the ironing is they bombed POC and mooslems
Progress: Biden Administration To Apply 'Black Lives Matter' Decals To All Attack Drones
U.S.—Now this is progress: in a move to bring attention to issues of social justice in the United States, the Biden administration has announced that all attack drones used to bomb countries in the Middle East will have "Black Lives Matter" decals applied to them.babylonbee.com
I hope that plane is non binary
He been banned from Twitter yet?
M
member 3289
Guest
I doubt it. It didn't take that long for me to think Iraq was a mistake, and I still think Afghanistan was necessary.Give it 20 years and you will feel differently.
Necessary for what? An oil pipeline?
M
member 3289
Guest
Necessary to remove the Taliban-run government that was supporting and harbouring al-Qaeda.
Say what you want, but the Taliban isn't running the government now.
Isis is probably worse than all those groups you just named and we threw gasoline on a fire. an irainian form of isis would be pretty nasty doe. Iranians are a lot smarter harder working than afghans and iraqis.
M
member 3289
Guest
We didn't have a choice. The strike was retaliatory, not preemptive.
We've struck these groups before. They're under Iran's thumb and Iran doesn't want war.
The strikes were illegal. President did not have congressional authorization
He is a war monger. And his secretary of defense used to be on ratheons board
This is just the start of the war crimes
He is a war monger. And his secretary of defense used to be on ratheons board
This is just the start of the war crimes
M
member 3289
Guest
What was the alternative? They attacked our base in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Well, when Trump was in charge they were supposed to turn the other cheek because war is bad.
The U.S.A. is not at war with Syria, and Congress didn't authorize the attack, makimg it illegal to the best of my monkey brains knowledge
In terms of what we should have done, which is a separate question, i admittedly do not have enough information to make a recomendation.
But i am 100% against using Syria as a playground for american bombs. Biden will get away with it because no one gives a shit about Syria or Syrians (no one being the leaders of the USA and other nations)
Its sad. Wrong. And disgusting.
M
member 3289
Guest
It's debatable but doesn't appear to be illegal.
Biden is using the broad argument for the right to self-defense. As I've stated, this was a retaliatory strike and it's why I don't have a problem with it.
We should note that both Obama and Trump took action in Syria:
- Obama used the 2001 AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) in Afghanistan/2002 AUMF in Iraq as a basis. This use is still on the books today as the wars in these countries have not ended. Blame Bush/Cheney for creating such a wide scope through which Presidents can circumvent Congress to act militarily.
- Trump bombed Syria and used both self-defense and the 2001/2002 AUMF.
Biden tells Congress Syria strikes are consistent with U.S. right to self-defense
President Biden told Congress that his orders for airstrikes in Syria were consistent with the U.S. right to self-defense.
A Letter to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate Consistent with the War Powers Resolution | The White House
Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At my direction, on February 25, 2021, United States forces conducted a targeted military strike against
M
member 3289
Guest
K
@kaladin stormblessed but it absolutely makes Biden, VP Harris, and Press Secretary Psaki hypocrites for questioning the legal authority Trump had when authorizing strikes in Syria (tbf I supported those strikes by Trump as well).
M
member 1013
Guest
I’m disappointed no one has blamed israel yet 
I hear ya. But i am against them having done it as well without congressional approvalIt's debatable but doesn't appear to be illegal.
Biden is using the broad argument for the right to self-defense. As I've stated, this was a retaliatory strike and it's why I don't have a problem with it.
We should note that both Obama and Trump took action in Syria:
- Obama used the 2001 AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force) in Afghanistan/2002 AUMF in Iraq as a basis. This use is still on the books today as the wars in these countries have not ended. Blame Bush/Cheney for creating such a wide scope through which Presidents can circumvent Congress to act militarily.
- Trump bombed Syria and used both self-defense and the 2001/2002 AUMF.
Biden tells Congress Syria strikes are consistent with U.S. right to self-defense
President Biden told Congress that his orders for airstrikes in Syria were consistent with the U.S. right to self-defense.www.cnbc.com
A Letter to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate Consistent with the War Powers Resolution | The White House
Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At my direction, on February 25, 2021, United States forces conducted a targeted military strike againstwww.whitehouse.gov
My limited understanding is that the president can only make a unilateral decision like that if our homeland is ubder threat
Some of the very few congressmen who i trust have called it illegal, so without doing my own research, i am going to believe them (people like my boy Ro Khanna)
Bernard Sanders: “Our Constitution is clear that it is the Congress, not the President, who has the authority to declare war."
Ro Khanna: “There is absolutely no justification for a president to authorize a military strike that is not in self-defense against an imminent threat without congressional authorization.”
Exactly
Side note. Alot of americans (and id guess people here as well) hate my girl Ilhan Omar ... but shes one of the very few good people in congress imo
Here she is calling out the press secretary as you did (i think she is retweeting psakis tweet against trump for doing the same)
M
member 1013
Guest
R u drunk
Lol what? I tend to only drink once a month. And never at 10am lol
M
member 1013
Guest
*shakes head sadly*
Oh but when i drink, i go hard
I only know one speed for everything. And thats as hard as i can go until i cant go anymore
)))
M
member 3289
Guest
I think the authorization is there. We used it to attack and eventually eliminate ISIL territorial control in Syria. ISIL had spread from Iraq into Syria and that was the justification.
The PMF/Kata'ib Hezbollah did the same thing. And despite technically and only nominally being part of the Iraqi military, they've still attacked us and they're still supported financially and militarily by our regional nemesis Iran.
If Congress wants to redefine the scope of Presidential power under the 2001/2002 AUMF, that's fine.
But again, I stress, WE WERE ATTACKED FIRST (not shouting at you, just trying to get you to understand by speaking Jersey). We didn't become global hegemon by falling down and saying "ow, daddy, my pussy hurts" every time someone bombed us.
Don't forget (you may have written it but I don't pay attention to most of what you write) that Trump also argued that a retaliation via airstrike like this isn't war and therefore didn't need the approval of Congress.
I mean... It's not how I would go with it but it's not entirely wrong either.