Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
NYrepublican

Syria

Recommended Posts

Do you think Trump will order a strike or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Do you think Trump will order a strike or not?

At this point, the only document Trump could sign that I would at all find admirable, respectable, and having any integrity and ethics is his own resignation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

At this point, the only document Trump could sign that I would at all find admirable, respectable, and having any integrity and ethics is his own resignation.

I think Trump should strike there shouldn't be any excuse for this. Russia will not launch WW3 over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I think Trump should strike there shouldn't be any excuse for this. Russia will not launch WW3 over this.

Everything I've read says Assad ordering the chemical is only an ALLEGATION, not anything proven. I've also read that it's possible some of Assad's chemical weapon launch sites MAY be under the control of other, less restrained or ethical militia groups in Syria and unaccounted for. I think that should be looked into before firing missiles at a heavily populated city like Damascus and killing large numbers of civilians and destroying civilian infrastructures (which should be avoided at all costs by any responsible military in this age of precision bombing and smart bombs anyways - you'd THINK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NYrepublican Also, there is, legally speaking, another issue with Trump just casually "ordering a strike." Legally and Constitutionally, as well as diplomatically and by accepted international law and convention, just a barrage of missiles requires a formal DECLARATION OF WAR against the Syrian Arab Republic (not ISIS or other insurgent militia groups, but Assad's government in Damascus), which has NOT formally been made to date, and, Constitutionally, requires Congressional approval - contrary to what many Americans believe today, it CANNOT be done legally or Constitutionally by executive order alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

@NYrepublican Also, there is, legally speaking, another issue with Trump just casually "ordering a strike." Legally and Constitutionally, as well as diplomatically and by accepted international law and convention, just a barrage of missiles requires a formal DECLARATION OF WAR against the Syrian Arab Republic (not ISIS or other insurgent militia groups, but Assad's government in Damascus), which has NOT formally been made to date, and, Constitutionally, requires Congressional approval - contrary to what many Americans believe today, it CANNOT be done legally or Constitutionally by executive order alone.

There's a difference between de jure law and de facto law. Obama could invade Libya without a formal declaration of war and that's more than Trump's calling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

There's a difference between de jure law and de facto law. Obama could invade Libya without a formal declaration of war and that's more than Trump's calling for.

There was no standing government in Libya when Obama intervened. He didn't intervene, outside of military advisors and aid to rebels, until Gadaffi was killed and his government collapsed. But even so, you do bring up a good point. It further reinforces a statement I made on another thread very recently that every living sitting and former U.S. President except Jimmy Carter belongs in jail for several major, but different, offenses each. The White House is becoming a breeding pit for vile war criminals and international gangsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

I think Trump should strike there shouldn't be any excuse for this. Russia will not launch WW3 over this.

The statements on both sides were for domestic consumption. They want to appear strong. I don't want to go to war, since I've already signed a contract with the Navy. I wouldn't run if we did, but I would be very displeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 9:04 PM, NYrepublican said:

Do you think Trump will order a strike or not?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes

And would you, as a professed Christian, support him for doing so? I'll give two quotes by Christ before you answer.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there was a strike. There were only three causalities. But they were ALL civilians. Funny how this works. Wars are SUPPOSED to be between governments and militaries, but so many more civilians end up dying in each one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

And would you, as a professed Christian, support him for doing so? I'll give two quotes by Christ before you answer.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

I'm generally anti-intervention and anti-war as you know. Most Christian churches agree that war is only permissible if it the last option and there is a clear and present danger. I think what he did was morally permissible IF and only IF what the Pentagon said was true: "No civilian casualties and only the 3 large chemical weapons plants were struck"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I'm generally anti-intervention and anti-war as you know. Most Christian churches agree that war is only permissible if it the last option and there is a clear and present danger. I think what he did was morally permissible IF and only IF what the Pentagon said was true: "No civilian casualties and only the 3 large chemical weapons plants were struck"

In Christian doctrine, killing is NEVER, in essence, right, justified, or permissible. It's always a sin, at the end of the day. If it does end up being done by necessity, a Christian must still go on bended in prayer before God through Christ and, knowing it was a sin, even if necessary, sincerely and repentently  ask forgiveness. It is the last part there that worries me about a lot of how many Christian leaders portray war and violence - that is, they seem to view, and teach, that if the violence was deemed necessary, it was never actually a sin and requires no repentence or asking for forgiveness like other sins do, and, in fact, in some circles of teaching, it is even acceptable to glorify, romanticize, and seek out war on such premise, and be proud of having done the butcher's work as though any good, hard, honourable job had been done. That is the viewpoint of a number of very vocal Christian leaders and teachers that worries me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Patine said:

In Christian doctrine, killing is NEVER, in essence, right, justified, or permissible. It's always a sin, at the end of the day. If it does end up being done by necessity, a Christian must still go on bended in prayer before God through Christ and, knowing it was a sin, even if necessary, sincerely and repentently  ask forgiveness. It is the last part there that worries me about a lot of how many Christian leaders portray war and violence - that is, they seem to view, and teach, that if the violence was deemed necessary, it was never actually a sin and requires no repentence or asking for forgiveness like other sins do, and, in fact, in some circles of teaching, it is even acceptable to glorify, romanticize, and seek out war on such premise, and be proud of having done the butcher's work as though any good, hard, honourable job had been done. That is the viewpoint of a number of very vocal Christian leaders and teachers that worries me.

You are actually incorrect there. Killing is not always a sin, in fact when you make the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is important. "Killing" is morally permissible while "Murder" is not. I'm not sure what sect of Christianity you fall but it is not derived from the word of Christ and the truth of the Holy Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

You are actually incorrect there. Killing is not always a sin, in fact when you make the distinction between "kill" and "murder" is important. "Killing" is morally permissible while "Murder" is not. I'm not sure what sect of Christianity you fall but it is not derived from the word of Christ and the truth of the Holy Bible.

No, you are incorrect. The difference between "killing" and "murder" is detailed in the Torah. However, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross changed quite a few rule, as Paul and other Epistle writers state (though the whole message is spread across the Epistles, and is not all detailed in one place). The DEATH of Christ, or the sacrifice of His BODY, paid the wages of sin, which were long ago stated to be death, for all who followed His path to Salvation. But, in the Eucharist, as I'm sure you know, His BLOOD is mentioned separately as a distinct part of the sacrament. This is believe the shedding of His BLOOD at the Crucifixion, His flogging by the crowd on the way to Calvary Hill, and such torture as the Crown of Thorns, also pay a monumental debt for all who follow His path - the blood constantly demanded in the Old Covenant, for punishment, ritual, war, etc. - and thus, such a need for blood becomes, not only unnecessary, but lack "righteousness" in Christian doctrine, unlike in the earlier Jewish doctrine, or even the later Islamic doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions regarding the strikes.

1. Were they constitutional?  I'd argue that they were not.  Congress has not authorized force, and the US wasn't in any immediate danger.

2. Did Assad actually use chemical weapons during this latest alleged attack?  I'm skeptical because of the fact that it wouldn't make any sense.  Why would he do that even after Trump stated that the US was going to withdraw?  Unless he's just some idiot that knows nothing of geopolitics, he wouldn't have done something like that.

3. What are these strikes actually going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

I have a few questions regarding the strikes.

1. Were they constitutional?  I'd argue that they were not.  Congress has not authorized force, and the US wasn't in any immediate danger.

2. Did Assad actually use chemical weapons during this latest alleged attack?  I'm skeptical because of the fact that it wouldn't make any sense.  Why would he do that even after Trump stated that the US was going to withdraw?  Unless he's just some idiot that knows nothing of geopolitics, he wouldn't have done something like that.

3. What are these strikes actually going to do?

There's also the fact that, while the U.S. is easily arguably in a state of war with ISIS due to ISIS backing, equipping,  and organizing terrorist attacks against the U.S. and it's NATO allies, the U.S. has also not made any formal declaration of war, with a full Congressional vote, against the Syrian Arab Republic, Assad's government centered in Damascus, which is definitely NOT the same regime at all as ISIS, wherever they may be centred now since Mosul and Raqqah have been captured. That's also a note against the strike's legality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

1. Were they constitutional?  I'd argue that they were not.  Congress has not authorized force, and the US wasn't in any immediate danger.

2. Did Assad actually use chemical weapons during this latest alleged attack?  I'm skeptical because of the fact that it wouldn't make any sense.  Why would he do that even after Trump stated that the US was going to withdraw?  Unless he's just some idiot that knows nothing of geopolitics, he wouldn't have done something like that.

3. What are these strikes actually going to do?

1.The WPA is basically ignored to such an extent nowadays that it's basically irrelevant

2.He might be testing trump after his statement that the  US would withdraw.

3.Make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

No, you are incorrect. The difference between "killing" and "murder" is detailed in the Torah. However, Christ's sacrifice on the Cross changed quite a few rule, as Paul and other Epistle writers state (though the whole message is spread across the Epistles, and is not all detailed in one place). The DEATH of Christ, or the sacrifice of His BODY, paid the wages of sin, which were long ago stated to be death, for all who followed His path to Salvation. But, in the Eucharist, as I'm sure you know, His BLOOD is mentioned separately as a distinct part of the sacrament. This is believe the shedding of His BLOOD at the Crucifixion, His flogging by the crowd on the way to Calvary Hill, and such torture as the Crown of Thorns, also pay a monumental debt for all who follow His path - the blood constantly demanded in the Old Covenant, for punishment, ritual, war, etc. - and thus, such a need for blood becomes, not only unnecessary, but lack "righteousness" in Christian doctrine, unlike in the earlier Jewish doctrine, or even the later Islamic doctrine.

This is entirely incorrect and Theologically illiterate. The Blood of Christ pays the price for ours sins and it is up to humans to accept that Love and Forgiveness, this is true, but that in no way means that the Holy definitions of kill and murder are changed. It is of course Christian to defend ones life and the lives of others. We are called to do so. Christ recognizes this in Luke 22:36. The blood of Christ is connection to humanity, it is the price paid for our sin, the perfection of forgiveness, but we are still called to defend life in whatever manner that takes, including the seldom killing. Not to be confused with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

1.The WPA is basically ignored to such an extent nowadays that it's basically irrelevant

2.He might be testing trump after his statement that the  US would withdraw.

3.Make a point.

Just because it's been ignored in the past extensively, by political and military leaders and lawmakers who all belong in jail, I might add (none of them will go to jail over such things, of course, - there will be no justice in that regard, a crime, in and of itself), but that fact doesn't mean that a crime suddenly becomes right or justifiable and should continue, and become viewed as though it is now right, or at least, "standard procedure," to do such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Just because it's been ignored in the past extensively, by political and military leaders and lawmakers who all belong in jail, I might add (none of them will go to jail over such things, of course, - there will be no justice in that regard, a crime, in and of itself), but that fact doesn't mean that a crime suddenly becomes right or justifiable and should continue, and become viewed as though it is now right, or at least, "standard procedure," to do such.

I still think it was a good action to show that chemical weapons use won't be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

This is entirely incorrect and Theologically illiterate. The Blood of Christ pays the price for ours sins and it is up to humans to accept that Love and Forgiveness, this is true, but that in no way means that the Holy definitions of kill and murder are changed. It is of course Christian to defend ones life and the lives of others. We are called to do so. Christ recognizes this in Luke 22:36. The blood of Christ is connection to humanity, it is the price paid for our sin, the perfection of forgiveness, but we are still called to defend life in whatever manner that takes, including the seldom killing. Not to be confused with murder.

I don't see, in many (I won't say all, but many) who serve in the militaries, police forces, and certainly executioners - the ones defending life, as you say - who claim to be Christian much of the Love and Forgiveness that Christ enjoins Christians themselves to show to ALL others - not just other Christians or those who follow lifestyles "palatable" to Mosaic law, but ALL others - but, instead, I see, in so many of them, a vindictiveness, harshness, zeal for blood, and even outright hatred, qualities which are Unchristian in all cases by their very nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I still think it was a good action to show that chemical weapons use won't be tolerated.

So, what would you suggest for just as good actions to show the major powers unilateral attacks on sovereign nations they're not at war with under no burden of proof, with no rule of law or accountability won't (or at least SHOULDN'T) be tolerated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

So, what would you suggest for just as good actions to show the major powers unilateral attacks on sovereign nations they're not at war with under no burden of proof, with no rule of law or accountability won't (or at least SHOULDN'T) be tolerated?

measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

measures.

Are you willing to vote against every politician who has supported, ordered, or been affiliated with such "cowboy military actions," and encourage everyone you speak to to also vote against said politicians? There's a starting measure for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×