• 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

Grant said:
No, i'm not advocating that. I'm saying he could because of the precedent he created in Libya, and Obama said as much during his visit to Sweden.
Click to expand...

You mean he said he wiped his ass with the WPA in Libya so why not do it in Syria too?
 
Montecresto said:
I think it's fair to say that presidents particularly of late have been increasingly violating the constitution. That old republican Nixon said, "........if the President does it, it's not illegal." Which is to say that the president, by virtue of being president, can do anything. And then faithful little partisans, ignore, cover up or excuse it when their president does it and bitch the whole time the president from the other party is doing it. Obama supporters, the same ones that were raising hell over Bush (rightly so I might add) are largely silent now that their boy is in office. You who are raising hell, right now over Obama (rightly so I might add) I'm sure were silent when Bush was president. So..........it's the partisans that are destroying our democracy!
Click to expand...

Yes, it's absolutely shameful that so many that were with me in spiting bush for his crimes, only to be told that I was some left wing commie hippie.

Now those democrats have completely abandoned their principles when Obama stepped up, now I'm just some right wing fascist nut.

So, if we, collectively could stick to principles instead of parties platform, we would find that on most accounts people will generally agree on right vs wrong and focus on actually improving this society instead of letting it degrade until America will look like Detroit.

Instead, we are sitting on the verge of dropping humanitarian bombs on syria (obamas gotta earn his peace prize afterall), and once that starts and the bodies start piling up all the crimes will be forgiven just because it's "their guy" commuting the crimes.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes there is. I hope you would agree however that precedent in violating law doesn't make it ok.
Click to expand...

Our country was founded on precedent law. Presidents have conducted military action and made unilateral decisions to war without congressional approval going all the way back to George Washington.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

mac said:
I agree with one thing Kerry said today: The use of chemical weapons by anyone anywhere is a threat to the US and to the world.


Yes, I said I agreed with Kerry....I'm going to go have a drink.
Click to expand...

It is a potential threat but not a direct threat.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

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

Boehner is in the House and has no say in this it is the Senate that has the say. All Boehner can do is pass some Resolution, that is, an opinion and he would not do so if he will not get a good supermajority.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

Bob N said:
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:
Click to expand...

The issue is we do not have a stake in this conflict at this time. We should do nothing now but latter we can address if an issue comes up.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

NIMBY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given in times past the Obama administration has leaked information even state "secrets" when it was in his interest, then he can do so now in his interest on this.
 
Re: "No boots on the ground in Syria," Says Obama

APACHERAT said:
Clinton's cruise missiles blew up the Chinese Embassy. I don't think Obama will get away with blowing up the Russian Embassy.
Click to expand...

Well, Clinton was bff with China. (bff = best friends forever highlight if you need to see it)
 
disneydude said:
We weren't, which is exactly why Obama would need to get the approval of Congress, if he is going to follow the War Powers Act. Understand now?
Click to expand...

But he said he didn't need Congress before. What's different, he get a conscience? :lol:
 
American said:
But he said he didn't need Congress before. What's different, he get a conscience? :lol:
Click to expand...

He's wrong if he thinks that he can go without the approval of Congress, that much is true.
 
Moot said:
Our country was founded on precedent law. Presidents have conducted military action and made unilateral decisions to war without congressional approval going all the way back to George Washington.
Click to expand...

That does not answer my question. And precedent law as set by the courts, not by belligerent actors.
 
American said:
But he said he didn't need Congress before. What's different, he get a conscience? :lol:
Click to expand...
I contend he never intended to go anywhere in the first place, this is just a means to distract. So how will this play out? He asks for Congressional approval gets denied and the news cycle resets to another non-issue that keeps the focus off what is really important? Barack is not responsible for the safety of Syrian citizens. Most would agree he's not responsible For Anything! ;)
 
Moot said:
Our country was founded on precedent law. Presidents have conducted military action and made unilateral decisions to war without congressional approval going all the way back to George Washington.
Click to expand...

It's true that America has gone to war or sent American troops into armed conflicts without the approval of Congress. But that was before the War Powers Act of 1973.

In fact America has fought around 200 wars. Only five were declared wars by Congress. -> < Reference File: CRS Report: “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2013″ | LJ INFOdocket >

Before the Democrats passed the War Powers Act of 1973 the President only needed the approval of Congress to send the Army into an armed conflict but not the Navy or U.S. Marines.

The Republicans in Congress always argued that the War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional and so has every President since Nixon. But every President since 1973 always obeyed the law until Obama who ignored the War Powers Act when he went to war against Libya. We all see how that turned out.

So we must assume that since the Democrats in Congress never wrote up Articles of Impeachment when Obama ignored the Constitution and committed a high crime, we must assume that the Democrats have evolved and today look at the War Powers Act of 1973 as being unconstitutional.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
I contend he never intended to go anywhere in the first place, this is just a means to distract. So how will this play out? He asks for Congressional approval gets denied and the news cycle resets to another non-issue that keeps the focus off what is really important? Barack is not responsible for the safety of Syrian citizens. Most would agree he's not responsible For Anything! ;)
Click to expand...

You make a truly valid point. It was telling when Kerry was asked why the administration should be trusted when they have been deceitful with Fast and Furious, NSA and Benghazi, and he bowed up and said I'm not going to take this. He was sent by the president to secure congressional approval for another bull**** war but yet he's going to pull a punks tone. He said he wants to talk about civilians being killed in Syria and here you want to talk about Americans being killed. Another US politician with zero credibility, I don't care what his party affiliation is.
 
Hmm well there we go, as long as we are focused on Syria all that talk about those 'phony' scandals is long forgotten.
I contend there's only issue that all Americans regardless of party affiliation or political bent should be concerned with and
that is, "Mr President, where are the jobs" Just that over and over and over again: It's the economy stupid.

When you awake tomorrow morning will what went on in Syria have any effect on your day?
 
APACHERAT said:
It's true that America has gone to war or sent American troops into armed conflicts without the approval of Congress. But that was before the War Powers Act of 1973.

In fact America has fought around 200 wars. Only five were declared wars by Congress. -> < Reference File: CRS Report: “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2013″ | LJ INFOdocket >

Before the Democrats passed the War Powers Act of 1973 the President only needed the approval of Congress to send the Army into an armed conflict but not the Navy or U.S. Marines.

The Republicans in Congress always argued that the War Powers Act of 1973 was unconstitutional and so has every President since Nixon. But every President since 1973 always obeyed the law until Obama who ignored the War Powers Act when he went to war against Libya. We all see how that turned out.

So we must assume that since the Democrats in Congress never wrote up Articles of Impeachment when Obama ignored the Constitution and committed a high crime, we must assume that the Democrats have evolved and today look at the War Powers Act of 1973 as being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Nicaragua, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia....not one got congressional approval prior to using military action.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
Hmm well there we go, as long as we are focused on Syria all that talk about those 'phony' scandals is long forgotten.
I contend there's only issue that all Americans regardless of party affiliation or political bent should be concerned with and
that is, "Mr President, where are the jobs" Just that over and over and over again: It's the economy stupid.

When you awake tomorrow morning will what went on in Syria have any effect on your day?
Click to expand...

And everyone knows that Iran is the real problem, not a distraction like Syria.

It's like going after the monkey rather than the organ grinder.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
'War-weary' Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response - CNN.com

Thoughts? Questions? Invitations to dinner?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

..."I assure you nobody ends up being more war-weary than me...
Click to expand...

Once again. It's all about him.

Oh, I don't know, Mr President. I rather imagine that some of the guys who have deployed multiple times in the last few years, or haven't had more than 3 hours of sleep in a row for the last 6 months might be rather tuckered.
 
Moot said:
Nicaragua, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia....not one got congressional approval prior to using military action.
Click to expand...

Which year are you referring to in reference to Nicaragua ? The "Banana Wars" ? As long the U.S. Army wasn't involved, no Congressional approval needed back during the day. If you are referring to the 1980's, no American combat troops were involved.

Kosovo and Iraq both had approval of Congress.

What year are you referring to with Libya ? When Reagan attacked Libya ? The War Powers Act says the President can only wage war for sixty days without Congressional approval and only when our national interest or security is an issue.

Obama broke the law, committed a high crime when he went beyond waging war against Libya without Congressional approval. But for some really strange reason, those who wrote and supported the War Powers Act of 1973 refused to write up Articls of Impeachement. All of a sudden, liberals evolved and claimed the same thing Republicans have been saying for forty years, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Don't we still have troops in the Balkins ? That was Clinton's little war. Damn, we sure blew up a lot of plywood tanks. No other military will ever match that record.


The War Powers Act of 1973
50 USC S.1541-1548, 1973

The War Powers Resolution, generally known as the War Powers Act, was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval.
The key Section 1541(c) reads:


(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Statutes At Large, Public Law 93-148, 1973, p. 555-559
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Short Title

Section 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the " War Powers Resolution".

Purpose and Policy

Sec. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war , (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Consultation

Sec. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

Reporting

Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war , in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced --

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth --

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situations as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once very six months.

Congressional Action

Sec. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces. (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Congressional Priority Procedures for Joint Resolution of Bill

Keep on reading -> http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm
 
APACHERAT said:
Which year are you referring to in reference to Nicaragua ? The "Banana Wars" ? As long the U.S. Army wasn't involved, no Congressional approval needed back during the day. If you are referring to the 1980's, no American combat troops were involved.
Click to expand...
The US military was involved in oh so many military actions without congressional approval........

1983–89 – Honduras. In July 1983, the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed U.S. military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1980.E2.80.931989

Too many to list.

Kosovo and Iraq both had approval of Congress.
Click to expand...
Milatary action started in Iraq sometime between April to June of 2002 and Bush didn't get congressional authorization until October 2002....thats five months after military action had already started. So Bush broke the law but hey, you voted for him so that makes it okay, eh?

Congress didn't approve Kosovo at all....
Washingtonpost.com: Clinton's War Powers Upheld

What year are you referring to with Libya ? When Reagan attacked Libya ? The War Powers Act says the President can only wage war for sixty days without Congressional approval and only when our national interest or security is an issue.
Click to expand...
Oh so now you're saying it is legal to use military action without congressional approval? Back peddle much?

Regan did not have congressional authority to attack Libya....

Operation El Dorado Canyon

The attack was condemned by many countries. By a vote of 79 in favor to 28 against with 33 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 41/38 which "condemns the military attack perpetrated against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on 15 April 1986, which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law."[41]

A meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement said that it condemned the "dastardly, blatant and unprovoked act of aggression". The League of Arab States expressed that it was outraged at the United States aggression and that it reinforced an element of anarchy in international relations. The Assembly of Heads of State of the African Union in its declaration said that the deliberate attempt to kill Libyans violated the principles of international law. The Government of Iran asserted that the attack constituted a policy of aggression, gunboat diplomacy, an act of war, and called for an extensive political and economic boycott of the United States. Others saw the United States motive as an attempt to eliminate Libya's revolution.[32] China stated that the US attack violated norms of international relations and had aggravated tension in the region. The Soviet Union said that there was a clear link between the attack and U.S. policy aimed at stirring up existing hotbeds of tension and creating new ones, and at destabilizing the international situation. West Germany stated that international disputes required diplomatic and not military solutions, and France also criticized the bombing. Italy, Spain, and France all denied the US use of their airspace en route to Libya. This forced the USAF's F-111s, stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Great Britain, to circumnavigate continental Europe and approach Libya via the Strait of Gibraltar.[42]

Some observers held the opinion that Article 51 of the UN Charter set limitations on the use of force in exercising the legitimate right of self-defense in the absence of an act of aggression, and affirmed that there was no such act by Libya. It was charged that the United States did not bother to exhaust the Charter provisions for settling disputes under Article 33. Others asserted that Libya was innocent in the bombing of the West Berlin discothèque.[43]...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya


Obama broke the law, committed a high crime when he went beyond waging war against Libya without Congressional approval. But for some really strange reason, those who wrote and supported the War Powers Act of 1973 refused to write up Articls of Impeachement. All of a sudden, liberals evolved and claimed the same thing Republicans have been saying for forty years, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's only illegal when a democrat president does it, eh? Or is it just black presidents?



The War Powers Act of 1973
50 USC S.1541-1548, 1973 ....<snip> ....
Keep on reading -> http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/warpower.htm
Click to expand...
Nice cut and paste. Too bad you didn't read it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
The US military was involved in oh so many military actions without congressional approval........

1983–89 – Honduras. In July 1983, the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed U.S. military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1980.E2.80.931989

Too many to list.

Milatary action started in Iraq sometime between April to June of 2002 and Bush didn't get congressional authorization until October 2002....thats five months after military action had already started. So Bush broke the law but hey, you voted for him so that makes it okay, eh?

Congress didn't approve Kosovo at all....
Washingtonpost.com: Clinton's War Powers Upheld

Oh so now you're saying it is legal to use military action without congressional approval? Back peddle much?

Regan did not have congressional authority to attack Libya....

Operation El Dorado Canyon

.
Click to expand...

How about we stop this stupid childish justification of "he did it first" and just quit accepting this type of criminality from either party?!

Btw, I'm pretty sure there's no statute of limitations on war crimes, and bush has all but admitted to them.

I gotta stop here or I'll start swearing... I'd expect this type of logic from a 6 year old, not grown adults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom