Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 240

Thread: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

  1. #11
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,966

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises
    How so?

    it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not)
    Not really, but even if so, how is that embarrassing?

    and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.
    If Congress votes to not support a strike on Syria, why would that be embarrassing for Obama?

  2. #12
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,647

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Way to go Obama. For a while there I thought he was having an intellectual breakdown.

    It didn't take 5 minutes before the right wing media, who we're criticizing him for NOT going through congress, started criticizing him for deciding TO go through congress.

    I just snickered. They are so predictable, huh?

    Anyways, kudos Obama.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  3. #13
    
    TheGirlNextDoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    09-24-14 @ 02:31 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,033
    Blog Entries
    21

    Re: Oba should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I didn't support our going into Iraq, or Afghanistan, and I don't support our intervention in Syria either.
    I was in support of Afghanistan, but against Iraq. I am NOT supporting military strikes in Syria.
    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice....shame on me.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    Obama: US should take military action against Syria - CNN.com



    Obama is now seeking Congressional approval for strikes against Syria.

    Thoughts? Comments? Another date, my love?
    Impeach him now before the peace prize president sparks world war.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I think he is making a mistake. The embarrassment from a Congressional defeat could be extraordinary. There is ample precedent in history for a limited military intervention without Congressional authorization going all the way back to Jefferson. If he thought it was necessary (and I agree that it is) he should have taken quick and decisive action.
    I disagree.

    The War Powers Act does give the President limited authority to use the military in situations where hostilities exist abroad but in particular when our national security interest are at stake. Of course, not all "hostilities" or situations where our "national security" is in question are clear cut. Nonetheless, the War Powers Act does give the President the authority to commit military forces for a limited time without a congressional declaration of war.

    For my take, I think he did the right thing by not taking unilateral action. Moreover, with all the clamoring by some members of Congress saying "he's weak" on the one hand and that "he's usurping the Constitution" on the other, but more importantly not having broad international support nor a U.N. resolution condemning Syria's use of chemical weapons, I think the President essentially put Congress, the international community and the Syrian regime on notice that if this happens again he will act on his own. But in the meantime, he's willing to give Congress time to review the evidence and deliberate, the UN inspectors time to complete their investigation and the world-at-large time to find their conscience, i.e., "If you don't want the U.S. acting like the police of the world, you'd better step up to the plate".
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  6. #16
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,269
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    My fear is that his uncertainty is getting the better of him. I think people in his administration (Kerry, Rice, etc) are far more enthusiastic about military involvement than he is and I wouldn't be surprised of the bellicose rhetoric we've seen the past week or so has mostly been independently leaked as opposed to White House policy in an effort to shape the narrative over Syria and back him into a corner. The plodding nature of our shift towards Syria has been odd and I worry that he is using Congressional authorization as a procedural crutch to either delay a decision, provide political shielding, or take his administration off the hook for US action. I just can't imagine there is a strong majority in the House for these and I fear embarrassment as Congressional Republicans reflexively vote no and choice liberal contingents rebel to combine for a humiliating Cameron-esque defeat. What that would do to our position in the wider region and in the face of a challenge from Russia I can't begin to imagine.

    Doing nothing was something I'd disagreed with for a long time but to come to the brink of intervention and to arouse all manner of opposition and to prove incapable of action is a terribly dangerous precedent to set.
    That does not really fit though. Obama made the threat. Syria apparently used chemical weapons. Investigations happened. We reached a point of confidence in the intelligence, we start to move to act. The timeline fits for this being a straightforward thing. Sure, it is possible all these other scenarios are true, but there is no real evidence to support them, and mostly they are just what people think could be true based on their own pre-concieved prejudices. In the long run we are just speculating on an absense of evidence, which is pretty worthless.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #17
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    How so?

    Not really, but even if so, how is that embarrassing?

    If Congress votes to not support a strike on Syria, why would that be embarrassing for Obama?
    I'm not really sure what to say I think I was pretty clear. I believe it reduces his authority to act, I believe it will set a precedent for future President's whether it binds them or not, and I think I was pretty clear in my explanation of how I believe it would embarrass the United States.

  8. #18
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,550

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises, it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not), and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.
    This situation in Syria has been going on for about 30 months, with Obama's "red line" having been crossed on multiple prior occasions, so will you please define, for us, exactly what constitutes a "crisis". Something that involved the death of four U.S. personnel in Libya was not a crisis, so why is the civil unrest (and associated deaths of foreigners) in Syria a "crisis" for the U.S.?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #19
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,948

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    I don't have much faith in Congress to vote this down. The nepotism in our government is so high right now that they can't be trusted to make the decision based on what is best for this country.

    Of course Obama wants war. The POTUS is a puppet at this point, he proved that when he signed the Monsanto Act. Anyone willing to give immunity to a corporation is not trustworthy. His decisions will be based on what his puppeteers want, same as with Bush.

  10. #20
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,269
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Because it undermines the credibility of the President (Obama and future Presidents) to respond to crises, it sets the precedent that limited military involvement must go to Congress before action (which since Jefferson it usually has not), and after coming to the brink of intervention it boosts Assad, Russia, and their regional allies who can be more confident that the US is a defanged power after Iraq. All of those things in my view are bad and embarrassing.
    It really doens't though. There is still enough precedent that a president can if he chooses not seek congressional approval. This does not signify the president has to seek approval, only that in this case he chose to.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •