/dev/null Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-16-08-39-42 I don't follow the minutia of the Congressional record, so can somebody point me in the direction of the vote authorizing the use of ground forces in Syria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-16-08-39-42 I don't follow the minutia of the Congressional record, so can somebody point me in the direction of the vote authorizing the use of ground forces in Syria? I'm glad he is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-16-08-39-42 I don't follow the minutia of the Congressional record, so can somebody point me in the direction of the vote authorizing the use of ground forces in Syria? Pretty sure the force authorization from 2001 (which has been used against ISIS) still covers this. But I'm not sure. "The 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks authorized “appropriate force” against terrorists who “planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks. That AUMF has been used as the legal justification for American military action against al-Qaeda terrorists anywhere in the world." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faq-authorization-military-force-fight-isis/story?id=28894024 Edited May 16, 2015 by GreggyT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Pretty sure the force authorization from 2001 (which has been used against ISIS) still covers this. But I'm not sure. "The 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks authorized “appropriate force” against terrorists who “planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks. That AUMF has been used as the legal justification for American military action against al-Qaeda terrorists anywhere in the world." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faq-authorization-military-force-fight-isis/story?id=28894024 yep and I think it's good against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda affiliated forces - Which may have led to the US government labeling every Muslim group who has goals in conflict with ours as being affiliated with al-Qaeda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 Pretty sure the force authorization from 2001 (which has been used against ISIS) still covers this. But I'm not sure. "The 2001 AUMF passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks authorized “appropriate force” against terrorists who “planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks. That AUMF has been used as the legal justification for American military action against al-Qaeda terrorists anywhere in the world." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faq-authorization-military-force-fight-isis/story?id=28894024 So a 15 year old authorization to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks can be used as justification to send ground forces into any Middle Eastern country? Where does AUMF stop? Does it just apply to Middle Eastern countries? Can we launch a raid into Western China? Southern Russia? Could AUMF have been applied to execute a raid in Paris prior to Charlie Hebdo? The recent failed attack in Texas shows that ISIS is in the United States. Does AUMF give the President authority to execute a raid on US soil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-16-08-39-42 I don't follow the minutia of the Congressional record, so can somebody point me in the direction of the vote authorizing the use of ground forces in Syria? War Powers act. Don't need authorization for another 89 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Official statements are offensively hypocritical: "The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies," Carter said. - he was no threat to US citizens, in fact our activities over there only serve to create blowback which put citizens in harms way (see 9/11). What friends and allies do we have there? Just foreign govts that exploit us "We have warned the Assad regime not to interfere with our ongoing efforts against ISIL inside of Syria," she said. "As we have said before, the Assad regime is not and cannot be a partner in the fight against ISIL. In fact, the brutal actions of the regime have aided and abetted the rise of ISIL and other extremists in Syria." - we turned Isis into a legitimate force it is by destabilizating of Syria and Iraq. Assad had for years effectively contained these threats. Same thing with the houthis in Yemen, who defeated al Qaeda and had no gripes with us, but we're assisting in their demise http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/16/us-special-forces-isil-syria/27434035/ Edited May 16, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 So a 15 year old authorization to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks can be used as justification to send ground forces into any Middle Eastern country? Where does AUMF stop? Does it just apply to Middle Eastern countries? Can we launch a raid into Western China? Southern Russia? Could AUMF have been applied to execute a raid in Paris prior to Charlie Hebdo? The recent failed attack in Texas shows that ISIS is in the United States. Does AUMF give the President authority to execute a raid on US soil? My understanding of it (which is laymen's at best) is yes. It's a remnant of the Bush doctrine that Obama kept. The AUMF has been the cornerstone of our perma-war society for the past 14 years. It's not going away either, at least as long as the war on terror continues. Which will be forever. War Powers act. Don't need authorization for another 89 days. Do you even need to use the War Powers Act for Special Operations? I thought that was the whole point of the AUMF after 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Do you even need to use the War Powers Act for Special Operations? I thought that was the whole point of the AUMF after 9/11? Smoke 'em out of their caves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 9-11, never forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 We don't want to wake up to a mushroom cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Our Next Mideast War – Syria by Patrick J. Buchanan, May 15, 2015 As one might expect, Sen. Lindsey Graham is all in. Late in April, he declared, "Assad has to go. … We’re going to have to send some of our soldiers back into the Middle East." Graham is willing to commit 10,000 U.S. ground troops. "I would integrate our forces within a regional army. There is no other way to defend this nation than some of us being on the ground over there doing the fighting." Wednesday, The Washington Post laid out the game plan for war on Syria. While we cannot create a NATO with kings, emirs, sheiks, and sultans, says the Post, "[T]here is a way that Mr. Obama could serve both the U.S. interests and those of the Gulf allies: by attacking the Middle East’s most toxic, and destabilizing force, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. Syria’s dictatorship is Iran’s closest ally in the region, and its barbarity opened the way for the rise of the Islamic State. Recently, it has suffered battlefield reverses, in part because of increased Gulf aid to rebel forces. "If Mr. Obama were to … create safe zones in northern and southern Syria for the rebels, the balance could be tipped against Damascus and Tehran – and U.S. allies would have tangible reason to recommit to U.S. leadership." Consider what is being recommended here. The Post wants Obama to bomb a Syrian nation that has not attacked us, without congressional authorization – to aid rebels whose most effective fighters are al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists. And we’re to fight this war – to nullify ultra-rich but unhappy Gulf Arabs? Obama must also "do more about Iranian aggression," says the Post. But against whom is Iran committing aggression? In Syria, Iran is backing a regime we recognized until a few years ago, that is under attack by terrorist rebels we detest. In Iraq, Iran is backing the government we support, against ISIS rebels we detest. Bottom line: A U.S. attack on Syria is being pushed by the War Party to propel us into a confrontation with Iran, and thereby torpedo any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2015/05/14/our-next-mideast-war-syria/ Edited May 21, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Had a target rich scenario on a silver platter. IF anyone was really serious about destroying ISIS wouldn't one of our satellites pick this up and a great many of these guys could be taken out nicely? They concentrate on spying on us with the NSA and all but when a bunch of murderers gather in one spot out in the open with no cover we don't seem to know about it. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-holds-massive-military-parade-in-west-anbar-celebrating-victory-in-ramadi-wheres-the-coalition/ Edited May 21, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Had a target rich scenario on a silver platter. IF anyone was really serious about destroying ISIS wouldn't one of our satellites pick this up and a great many of these guys could be taken out nicely? They concentrate on spying on us with the NSA and all but when a bunch of murderers gather in one spot out in the open with no cover we don't seem to know about it. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-holds-massive-military-parade-in-west-anbar-celebrating-victory-in-ramadi-wheres-the-coalition/ It's a good question you ask. And the answer is that Sunni countries by and large don't help us against Sunni extremists, as the extremists are doing their dirty work against the Shiites. And the Shiites (Iran, Assad, Hezbollah) whom are the only ones willing to take on the Sunni extremists are opposed by powerful Saudi and Israel influences in Washington. So even though they're our natural allies, we're stuck catering to our "alleged" allies, at great cost. Edited May 22, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 (edited) Senate Democrats call on Obama to resettle 65,000 Syrian refugees The Hill ^ | 05/21/2015 A group of Senate Democrats is urging the Obama administration to allow at least 65,000 Syrian refugees to settle inside the United States. “While the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees, we must also dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees that we accept for resettlement,” the group of 14 lawmakers — led by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) — said Thursday. The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration. (Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ... What could go wrong ? . Edited May 25, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Senate Democrats call on Obama to resettle 65,000 Syrian refugees The Hill ^ | 05/21/2015 A group of Senate Democrats is urging the Obama administration to allow at least 65,000 Syrian refugees to settle inside the United States. “While the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees, we must also dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees that we accept for resettlement,” the group of 14 lawmakers — led by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) — said Thursday. The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration. (Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ... What could go wrong ? . Ask Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Senate Democrats call on Obama to resettle 65,000 Syrian refugees The Hill ^ | 05/21/2015 A group of Senate Democrats is urging the Obama administration to allow at least 65,000 Syrian refugees to settle inside the United States. “While the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees, we must also dramatically increase the number of Syrian refugees that we accept for resettlement,” the group of 14 lawmakers — led by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) — said Thursday. The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration. (Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ... What could go wrong ? . While I'm not nearly the xenophobic !@#$ the rest of you are...it's not like no one's ever infiltrated a refugee camp before. Wait, what's that? The administration will thoroughly vet every refugee to make sure they're not a threat? Yeah...too bad this administration has demonstrated it can't be trusted to do even the smallest task properly. No doubt vetting refugees wouldn't extend past "Will they vote Democrat?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Makes no sense to send troops into Syria given that climate change is driving the unrest there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Makes no sense to send troops into Syria given that climate change is driving the unrest there. No, it's okay. The Pentagon already has working operational plans for dealing with climate change. http://www.scribd.com/doc/242845848/Read-DoD-report-2014-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Roadmap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Ask Europe. I don't think Greece or Italy have a bright future. When Kadaffi was in power they had a deal to keep the refugees out of Europe. It's a good question you ask. And the answer is that Sunni countries by and large don't help us against Sunni extremists, as the extremists are doing their dirty work against the Shiites. And the Shiites (Iran, Assad, Hezbollah) whom are the only ones willing to take on the Sunni extremists are opposed by powerful Saudi and Israel influences in Washington. So even though they're our natural allies, we're stuck catering to our "alleged" allies, at great cost. http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/isis-strategic-asset.html/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts