• 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!

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

You don't see how that would be a "police action" on our part? There's no guarantee that air strikes would remove chemical weapons. Nor could the US guarantee that such a strike wouldn't not inflict deaths on innocent civilians, including women and children.

It's certainly more than a warning ticket. Our intervention could instigate consequences that the US just don't need.
I also see consequences if we don't down the road. But as for the deaths from the chemicals, what do you think is happening now? :shrug:
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Well mac: first and foremost I personally believe that it can't get any worse than what the civilians are putting up with now regardless.

But here is an excerpt from Time magazine on how the military plans on dealing with that situation.

Command and control facilities are not necessary to deploy and use chemical weapons. Besides, he's had so much warning he'll simply hide mobile command and control among civilian targets before anyone gets a chance to strike.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Well, Obama isn't going to do anything, at all, so deploying troops isn't a reality.

Even if he does do something firing a, "shot across the bow", isn't going to do anything to stop the slaughter, nor stop the employment of chemical weapons.

If Syria, Iran, China and Iran make good on their threats, then you can count on American troops being deployed. Not even Obama is stupid enough to sit back and let Israel stand alone. If he does, he will officially go down in history as the biggest joke of a president the United States of America has ever had.

Obama should have just kept his dumbass mouth shut last year with his childish red line comment. I think the biggest problem, is that he actually believes that people take him seriously.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Well, Obama isn't going to do anything, at all, so deploying troops isn't a reality.

Even if he does do something firing a, "shot across the bow", isn't going to do anything to stop the slaughter, nor stop the employment of chemical weapons.

If Syria, Iran, China and Iran make good on their threats, then you can count on American troops being deployed. Not even Obama is stupid enough to sit back and let Israel stand alone. If he does, he will officially go down in history as the biggest joke of a president the United States of America has ever had.

Obama should have just kept his dumbass mouth shut last year with his childish red line comment. I think the biggest problem, is that he actually believes that people take him seriously.

Well, he's certainly improved relations with Muslim countries...
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Then of course there is the little matter of pissing off other nations who already have the opinion we are a bully, and scaring nations who used to be our freinds because we act like loose cannons.

Don't forget that enduring problem we have with all the mad terrorists who were created and are maintained by our continuous interference in their countries.

So unless an ally we have a mutual defense treaty with is involved or we are directly threatened, we do not have either the Right or the Duty to take military action ANYWHERE.
I really can't see us changing the minds of those who think we're bullies or the ones that are our friends. Why Bush himself said that he thought Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were great buddies while he was in office. And as for the mad terrorists, they're already on the move to start with. :shrug:
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Why won't Boehner call for a vote, as the British Parliament did? Would Boehner invite the President to "debate" as the Brits do?

More than likely due to this. ;)

Now, House Republicans lead the calls for President Barack Obama to convene a joint session of Congress to lay out his case to the lawmakers and the American people. Some in both parties demand a vote before any military strikes occur.

More than 90 members of Congress, most of them Republican, have signed a letter to the president urging him "to consult and receive authorization" before authorizing any such military action, according to the office of GOP Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia.

Meanwhile, 54 House Democrats mostly representing the party's progressive wing sent Obama a letter Thursday that said "we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis."

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner called on the president to "provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action -- which is a means, not a policy -- will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy" regarding Syria.

"I respectfully request that you, as our country's commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America's credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy," Boehner's letter said.

"In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority" of Congress to declare war under the Constitution, the Ohio Republican wrote.....snip~

Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Command and control facilities are not necessary to deploy and use chemical weapons. Besides, he's had so much warning he'll simply hide mobile command and control among civilian targets before anyone gets a chance to strike.

That's exactly right. Since Obama has been telling everyone exactly what he's going to do, the dynamics of events on the ground have turned intel that is only 24 hours old into stale information, because Assad has mobilized his C-n-C apparatus and it won't remain static long enough for our missile boats to get a fix on it and score a confirmed kill.

Something else we need to think about, is if Obama targets Assad directly, he will be in violation of the law and therefore could possibly face impeachment.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Command and control facilities are not necessary to deploy and use chemical weapons. Besides, he's had so much warning he'll simply hide mobile command and control among civilian targets before anyone gets a chance to strike.
I doubt that. We have a great military that has proven themselves time and time again. No one is going to get ahead of our military.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I doubt that. We have a great military that has proven themselves time and time again. No one is going to get ahead of our military.

I agree, we have a great military. Also a conscientious one. We won't strike anything sitting in the courtyard of a hospital or school...ask Saddam.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

In other words, no matter how many times reality refutes you, you will remain dogmatic and absolutist on the issue. Ok.

You have a tendency to make "cryptic statements." Do not assume everyone is on your wave length. Please make youself clear in your first response. Explain "reality refutes me."

Thank you.

As for dogmatic and absolutist? Hell yes when it comes to declaring war or attacking people in a "police action." Haven't been enough "police actions" in our lifetimes for you?

People seem to think the use of military force is some kind of chip in a game. Actions like this have consequences and repercussions well beyond stupidity of the act itself. Then people wonder why a 9/11? Why a Boston Marathon bomb attack? Why hijack planes or try to use biological weapons on us? Why all the threats to OUR national security that is evolving us into a near police state out of fear?

People act like just because we have the highest tech army, we are immune from reprisals. Clearly we are not! So before we go off and attack more people, hows about stepping back and facing a little REAL reality? We do not have a duty to save the rest of the world. We have a duty to preserve OUR liberty and defend OUR allies. That's IT!
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I really can't see us changing the minds of those who think we're bullies or the ones that are our friends. Why Bush himself said that he thought Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were great buddies while he was in office. And as for the mad terrorists, they're already on the move to start with. :shrug:

We don't need to change peoples minds. We need to mind our OWN business. Nice...I noticed you left out the two bits about collateral damage and act of war on a country we are not at war with.

As for terrorists? We may not change the minds of those already pissed off, but we can sure as hell stop encouraging more people to join them. As I said in another post, if someone sees a loved one killed by a bomb or a bullet in our constant acts of "collateral damage," they become ripe for recruitment in a little payback.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

It's a commonly used phrase in the military itself. Get a ****ing grip. Why don't you take up your quibble with Martin Dempsey while you're at it?

World News - martin-dempsey


Uh...get a ****ing grip? I don't have to get a ****ing grip. And I don't know who Martin Dempsey is. If you have no more respect for our troops than to refer to them as boot...then I suggest "give some ****ing respect".
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I doubt that. We have a great military that has proven themselves time and time again. No one is going to get ahead of our military.

The US has the greatest military in the world but not the greatest leadership, which is why Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are not considered victories. Plus they have lost four 4-star generals, if i recall correctly..

And despite what many of the American people would like, the USA is the 'Policeman of the World' and dictatorships everywhere will be watching for Obama's response. That is not to say they should attack Syria, however, unless it is entirely in American interests to do so. It is not even certain just who will replace the present regime or what their intentions might be..

Obama will fight a political war to satisfy his base and the Nobel committee, as usual, rather than a military war. Anyone who fights under Barrack Obama must love their country very much.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Uh...get a ****ing grip? I don't have to get a ****ing grip.

Probably should though.

And I don't know who Martin Dempsey is.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Top ranking General in the Army? Must not care about the troops either though, cause he used a phrase not to your liking.

If you have no more respect for our troops than to refer to them as boot...then I suggest "give some ****ing respect".

Because the phrase obviously refers to their feet only. Look, even the Navy hates the military! : Boots on Ground/Deck Program
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

The article has clear context. Clipping 3 paragraphs here and 3 paragraphs there to make a political point, not so much. I'll go with Congressman Mike Rogers. We do not have a functional Congress that can be trusted with state secrets.
More than likely due to this. ;)

Now, House Republicans lead the calls for President Barack Obama to convene a joint session of Congress to lay out his case to the lawmakers and the American people. Some in both parties demand a vote before any military strikes occur.

More than 90 members of Congress, most of them Republican, have signed a letter to the president urging him "to consult and receive authorization" before authorizing any such military action, according to the office of GOP Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia.

Meanwhile, 54 House Democrats mostly representing the party's progressive wing sent Obama a letter Thursday that said "we strongly urge you to seek an affirmative decision of Congress prior to committing any U.S. military engagement to this complex crisis."

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner called on the president to "provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action -- which is a means, not a policy -- will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy" regarding Syria.

"I respectfully request that you, as our country's commander-in-chief, personally make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America's credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy," Boehner's letter said.

"In addition, it is essential you address on what basis any use of force would be legally justified and how the justification comports with the exclusive authority" of Congress to declare war under the Constitution, the Ohio Republican wrote.....snip~

Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Probably should though.



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Top ranking General in the Army? Must not care about the troops either though, cause he used a phrase not to your liking.



Because the phrase obviously refers to their feet only. Look, even the Navy hates the military! : Boots on Ground/Deck Program

I've been in the military. And FYI...it's not boots that die in combat. And no...I shouldn't though....

I've heard the phrase many times...I didn't like it the first time I heard...and I won't like it the last time I hear it.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I doubt Obama can manage a ground attack.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com



Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Candidly? I think it's a mistake if we looked the other way for 100,000 murders and then at the very end when a few hundred die due to chemical weapons we suddenly seem all concerned. Did we not care about the first 100,000 because those were bullets or mortars? I don't fully understand what the White House is thinking on this. I just keep thinking "Why these 400?"
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

I made pea soup with potatoes and fried onions.

Theh potatoes and fried onions were in the soup or on the side? Pro tip for pea soup: slice up some nathan's hot dogs or hebrew national hot dogs and some baby carrots and put those in the soup too. IMHO that totally makes that soup epic. Assuming a soup can be epic.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner called on the president to "provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action -- which is a means, not a policy -- will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy" regarding Syria.

Did Obama write him back? That sounds like a reasonable request from Congress, and that letter strikes me as fairly polite. I think Obama should respond.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

The article has clear context. Clipping 3 paragraphs here and 3 paragraphs there to make a political point, not so much. I'll go with Congressman Mike Rogers. We do not have a functional Congress that can be trusted with state secrets.

Actually, and I understand you may not be aware of this, it is BHO who cannot keep quiet. That has been evident for a long while.

Gates to National Security Team on Osama Raid: 'Shut the F--- Up' | The Weekly Standard
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

When will you just accept that some things need to be done. How many repubs and dems will need to do the same thing before you think "hey, maybe I'm wrong".

You support attacking syria?
Why?
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

IF we act, I hope it's narrow and quick.

I also hope that the next time a Republican is in power and has to make such a decision we don't have a stream of democrats proclaiming that "if we break it we bought it and must fix it" as we heard out one side of the mouth from some people as out the other side they were condemning the "occupation" of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ultimately I wouldn't be surprised if we take military action. Despite both sides trying to act like they're so different, both sides readily will make use of the military. The Left, on average, likes to use it for "peace keeping" or "humanitarian" or "human rights' type of reasons where as The Right, on average, likes to use it for "national defense" or "american interest". Ones perhaps more altruistic in it's approach while the other more regarding our state-interest...but they both have a fair bit open to its use. The difference is the worth each side places on such actions, good or ill.
 
Back
Top Bottom