• 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

These are the people we are supporting in Syria. We have no business supporting these animals.

 
hah once you've lost the support of the turncoat rino's you best try another means to keep the populace distracted
starting another war didn't work hmmm what imaginary crisis or scandal can I stir up to keep folk's attention diverted from the real issue?

2u4nc6q.jpg
 
When did Afghanistan, Syria or Iran? What's your point?

My point is clear. The War powers act does not authorize a President to use military force without approval of congress except in cases where the the military force is in direct response to an attack on the United States. Obama is doing the right thing.
 
My point is clear. The War powers act does not authorize a President to use military force without approval of congress except in cases where the the military force is in direct response to an attack on the United States. Obama is doing the right thing.

Almost. Since Syria hasn't attacked us, hasn't presented any imminent threat to attack us, there's no point in asking congress for approval.
 
Almost. Since Syria hasn't attacked us, hasn't presented any imminent threat to attack us, there's no point in asking congress for approval.
Personally, I don't think that we SHOULD attack Syria. However, under the war powers act, The United States can attack a country with approval from congress. A President just cannot make the unilaterally decision to do so.
 
Personally, I don't think that we SHOULD attack Syria. However, under the war powers act, The United States can attack a country with approval from congress. A President just cannot make the unilaterally decision to do so.

However, as we have seen with Libya and Obamacare, BHO will follow only those laws which suit him and ignore those which don't.
 
The "emergency" MUST be us getting attacked, or imminent threat of us being attacked. When has that criteria been met?
Really? when did Bosnia (Clinton) and Iraq (Bush attack us? Did I :miss that?:confused:
 
Carter handed Iran to the mullahs
Clinton bombed the wrong side
Obammer is siding with the wrong side
I mean folks c'mon these guys can't get it wrong 100% of the time by accident!
 
My point is clear. The War powers act does not authorize a President to use military force without approval of congress except in cases where the the military force is in direct response to an attack on the United States. Obama is doing the right thing.

Did your hero Clinton do the right thing in Bosnia?
 
Personally, I don't think that we SHOULD attack Syria. However, under the war powers act, The United States can attack a country with approval from congress. A President just cannot make the unilaterally decision to do so.

#@*@@@*!!!!
 
Carter handed Iran to the mullahs
Clinton bombed the wrong side
Obammer is siding with the wrong side
I mean folks c'mon these guys can't get it wrong 100% of the time by accident!
Remember, we'll have to write the [revisionist] history books before we can know what will be in them.
 
yes and erase and reprogram the collective memories of the proletariat
 
When did Bosnia Clinton) attack the U.S.? You are trying to have it both ways.

No I'm not. I already said that both Bush and Clinton violated the War Powers Act. I guess you missed that.
 
Remember, we'll have to write the [revisionist] history books before we can know what will be in them.

Perhaps a vote can be taken on the truth of historical events but only if it's just a general sense of what they might cover. That should satisfy 51% of the people.
 
No I'm not. I already said that both Bush and Clinton violated the War Powers Act. I guess you missed that.

So why can't Obama do the same? I think we both know the answer..........If he gets congressional approval and things go wrong he can blame the Congress, is things go well he will take credit........He pulls that **** all the time. Clinton and Bush were willing to accept the responsibility.....Obama is not....He is a coward.
 
Perhaps a vote can be taken on the truth of historical events but only if it's just a general sense of what they might cover. That should satisfy 51% of the people.
Hmmm... and whoever wins the vote would have the requisite 51% mandate to write the events as they see fit; ideally before they even happen. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom