King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
Why Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Because Bashar al-Assad is an dictatorWhy Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
Because he is following the rules:Why Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
Short of a coup.The same reason Xi still rules China with an iron fist - there's no way to get rid of him that will work.
Why Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
As a US citizen I believe our constitution forbids going to war if its not for defense of our own country.Why Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
Of course they do not support using Chlorine on innocent people, but if they stand up against Assad they will be killed them self too. So they keep silent, and try to run away from a living hellSo all his supporters accept using chlorine on the innocent?
Am I living in reality?
So all his supporters accept using chlorine on the innocent?
Am I living in reality?
Yeah killed by people who support it no?Of course they do not support using Chlorine on innocent people, but if they stand up against Assad they will be killed them self too. So they keep silent, and try to run away from a living hell
How does one not know?They may not know about it or believe that it's happening. The Syrian government denied the use of gas, so if people develop a mindset where "our government can do no wrong," then it's easy to see.
A friend of mine in Syria say that those who are in th army there do not have anything they can say, Assad deside everything. So even if they do not support him, they have to do as he say.Yeah killed by people who support it no?
Okee dokeeA friend of mine in Syria say that those who are in th army there do not have anything they can say, Assad deside everything. So even if they do not support him, they have to do as he say.
Really? I know Germany has such a clause in it's constitution (§26) and politicians have found ways around it. But the US, being in constant war all over the planet, has such a law? Can you elaborate?As a US citizen I believe our constitution forbids going to war if its not for defense of our own country.
War PowersReally? I know Germany has such a clause in it's constitution (§26) and politicians have found ways around it. But the US, being in constant war all over the planet, has such a law? Can you elaborate?
America and Israel use white phosphorus munitions in civilians. America dropped nukes on civilians. We have no room to talk.Why Is the president of Syria still president after using chlorine attacks on his people
How does one not know?
That needs some serious mental gymnastics to construct an "only defensive wars" interpretation from that. Though I concur that it would be on the people to declare an attack war.War Powers
Congress approves wars that the president then directs. "...Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent...When passed, Congress intended the War Powers Resolution to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions. This resolution, however, has not been as effective as Congress likely intended..." from the cornell.edu article.
The preamble to the Constitution (which is itself not an addition to the constitution but part of it) says Congress has power to "Provide for the common defense" and all powers not specifically stated in the Constitution are reserved for the people, not for Congress. Therefore the US should only be involved in defensive wars.
To prevent future wars all USA needs to do is reign in our international economic influence temporarily -- for say 30 years. A 70 year burst of international trade has been good, but it should ebb and flow. Walking is falling from one foot to the next. We're trying to hop along on one foot, keeping things the same the same the same.That needs some serious mental gymnastics to construct an "only defensive wars" interpretation from that. Though I concur that it would be on the people to declare an attack war.
§26 says: "„Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen.“
Actions which are useful and under the intend to disturb the peaceful co-existence of the people, especially preparing an attack war, are unconstitutional.
Much more concise.
Though these article/preamble are both pretty worthless when they don't lead to actions. The German Bundesverfassungsgericht has declared the aid Germany has given to the US in preparation of the 2. Iraq war as unconstitutional but no politician is in prison for it.
Bush wasn't even impeached, instead he was re-elected.
If we really want to prevent future wars, we have to get serious about it.