The Red Line: Part Deux

#203
#203
I honestly don't see how this doesn't get the whole region involved should we begin to attack Syria. With Iran and Syria being allies and both realizing this could cost them their regimes, they will stand together and do everything possible to protect themselves.
 
#207
#207
What a cluster - that "red line" comment sure has put us in a corner. We did the same thing to ourselves with the Iraq war build up.
 
#208
#208
volinbham said:
What a cluster - that "red line" comment sure has put us in a corner. We did the same thing to ourselves with the Iraq war build up.
Click to expand...

I think they still could have backed out without Kerry's comments. What if it comes out that the rebels actually used the chemical weapons? Do we bomb them in response?
 
#209
#209
volinbham said:
What a cluster - that "red line" comment sure has put us in a corner. We did the same thing to ourselves with the Iraq war build up.
Click to expand...

It came from an ignorant President on foreign affairs and shows exactly how little credibility he has on the world stage. He's a complete joke and feared by noone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#210
#210
utvolpj said:
I think they still could have backed out without Kerry's comments. What if it comes out that the rebels actually used the chemical weapons? Do we bomb them in response?
Click to expand...

How exactly would the rebels get their hands on chemical weapons? Is it even possible?
 
#212
#212
VOLinthaNATI said:
How exactly would the rebels get their hands on chemical weapons? Is it even possible?
Click to expand...

why not? We are supplying them with weapons "secured" in Libya (Benghazi). There were no chemical weapons there? They were also reported to be responsible for the first reported attack using them in Syria (and why we had to redraw the red line)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
volinbham said:
What a cluster - that "red line" comment sure has put us in a corner. We did the same thing to ourselves with the Iraq war build up.
Click to expand...

Agree. Our leaders appear to never learn.

I also heard today that an estimated 50% of the rebels have Al Qaeda ties. When we bomb are we actually helping the Syrian people or Al Qaeda?
 
#216
#216
utvolpj said:
why not? We are supplying them with weapons "secured" in Libya (Benghazi). There were no chemical weapons there? They were also reported to be responsible for the first reported attack using them in Syria (and why we had to redraw the red line)
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Did we supply them with them? Did someone else? I honestly am just curious how they would get their hands on them unless they took them from the Assad regime.
 
#217
#217
Boston.com - Special reports - News
Joseph Biden Q&A
December 20, 2007
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

No. The President is not above the law, he is bound by valid acts of Congress. Our laws state clearly that no one can wiretap Americans without a warrant. By willfully authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans, the President violated the law, and he should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down and allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die – and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. Thus, the President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.
Click to expand...

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

The Bush Administration has consistently violated the separation of powers and many parts of its national security policy are a bad idea. Warrantless wiretapping, the extraordinary rendition program, the CIA black site program, the “enhanced interrogation” technique program are just several examples of the President overstepping the bounds of Executive Power, and all of them were bad ideas.
Click to expand...
 
#221
#221
Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran | SeacoastOnline.com

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.
Click to expand...
 
#222
#222
volinbham said:
Here we go.

One of the options I've heard mentioned is destroying the stock pile of chemical weapons but wouldn't that just release the chemicals. If so they we in effect caused the resulting impact. Maybe it incinerates them?
Click to expand...

Fuel Air Explosives could destroy the chemicals before they dissipated.
 
#223
#223
Instead of fighting Iran indirectly we should go ahead and do what nobody wants to do.
 
#224
#224
Gramps said:
Agree. Our leaders appear to never learn.

I also heard today that an estimated 50% of the rebels have Al Qaeda ties. When we bomb are we actually helping the Syrian people or Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

Had heard that our strikes will be to basically even the playing field which of course will just extend the civil war.

No good options.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top