• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

al Qaeda's Air Force

Kucinich and I disagree on, well, most things. I think that I can agree with him on this. I don't think we have anything to gain in Syria and if we eliminate the current government we side with al Qaeda.

I agree. What is going on in Syria really needs to be sorted out amongst the Arab League. OTOH, Obama is worried the problems in Syria could bleed over to Israel or could reach a USA military base in the region. That is why he is concerned and feeling we have to do something. From the Yahoo news wire this afternoon:

Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?

Interestingly, Obama himself made a similar argument while on the campaign trail six years ago. He told the Boston Globe in 2007 that no president can use military force absent an “actual or imminent threat to the nation” without first getting Congress' approval. (Vice President Joe Biden, for his part, vowed to impeach President George W. Bush in 2007 if he bombed Iran without first getting approval from Congress.)

White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Tuesday that the president still stands by his 2007 statement, but that Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons does pose an actual and imminent threat to U.S. national security. Obama said last week that if chemical weapons are used on a large scale, they could affect “core national interests,” such as America’s duty to protect its allies and bases in the Middle East.

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops. Presidents in the past have become engaged in conflicts without first checking with Congress and have stretched the definition of "national emergency."
 
Sigh, its not Qatar, it's a private organisation based from there. I asked for scientific polling, I get percentages with no basis for how they are reached and numbers varying by 15% at that.

Wtf, Zogby, Gallop, NewsPoll, Pew are all private organisations. Their polls vary by similar numbers all the time. YOU, just can't handle the fact that the Syrians don't want your kind of help. Dohadebates however is a member of the Qatar foundation, a semi-private Organization founded by DECREE of his Highness, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, SO, the results of their poll ran counter to the governments wishes but they had the fairness to post it on their website anyway.
 
Last edited:
No. Do you support Iran's Revolutionary Guard fighting, arming and helping Assad in Syria?

Whatever is happening in Syria's civil war is none of my business. It's none of your business. It has nothing to do with US National Security.

If Obama uses military force against Syria without congressional approval he should be impeached immediately and tried for war crimes.
 
Whatever is happening in Syria's civil war is none of my business. It's none of your business. It has nothing to do with US National Security.

If Obama uses military force against Syria without congressional approval he should be impeached immediately and tried for war crimes.

Thanks for not following the conversation. One is able to have a moral opinion on something without advocating Obama does or doesn't do something.
 
Thanks for not following the conversation. One is able to have a moral opinion on something without advocating Obama does or doesn't do something.

I'm just talking The Constitution here pal. Only Congress has the authority to declare war and authorize military force.

The US has no business being in Syria. The people were are arming and training are Al Qaeda terrorists. If Obama uses military force in Syria without getting congressional approval first he should impeached immediately and tried for war crimes.

Interesting how the times have changed. Instead of the warmongering neocons we now have the warmongering
 
I'm just talking The Constitution here pal. Only Congress has the authority to declare war and authorize military force.
Actually the Constitution defines the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, thus the President does not need Congress's authority to launch a military strike. Presidents have acted accordingly in the past,and will do so similarly so in the future.

The role for Congress is to declare war and appropriate money to pay for said war.

The US has no business being in Syria. The people were are arming and training are Al Qaeda terrorists. If Obama uses military force in Syria without getting congressional approval first he should impeached immediately and tried for war crimes.
The United States has yet to arm any forces in Syria at the moment; the United States even took steps to tell Saudi Arabia and Turkey to not arm the Syrian Free Army. Most money the United States has used has gone toward humanitarian aid.

If the United States did begin arming rebels I imagine it would not be too difficult to arm members of the Free Syrian Army. Depending how far one wants to go the United States could offer further assistance in attacking members of Al-Nusra if they wanted to.

By the way, what war crimes specifically would President Obama be committing if he launched an attack against President Assad's military?

Interesting how the times have changed. Instead of the warmongering neocons we now have the warmongering
Indeed. Now some formerly hawkish conservatives and libertarians have turned into a buch of spineless isolationists.
 
Actually the Constitution defines the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, thus the President does not need Congress's authority to launch a military strike. Presidents have acted accordingly in the past,and will do so similarly so in the future.

The role for Congress is to declare war and appropriate money to pay for said war.

The United States has yet to arm any forces in Syria at the moment; the United States even took steps to tell Saudi Arabia and Turkey to not arm the Syrian Free Army. Most money the United States has used has gone toward humanitarian aid.

If the United States did begin arming rebels I imagine it would not be too difficult to arm members of the Free Syrian Army. Depending how far one wants to go the United States could offer further assistance in attacking members of Al-Nusra if they wanted to.

By the way, what war crimes specifically would President Obama be committing if he launched an attack against President Assad's military?


Indeed. Now some formerly hawkish conservatives and libertarians have turned into a buch of spineless isolationists.

There's probably 20 threads and a thousand posts documenting the domestic and international illegality to Obama attacking Syria.
 
Back
Top Bottom