Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 240

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

  1. #191
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

    Quote Originally Posted by Snappo View Post
    What's your assertion - that 80,000+ Kurds died from anal sex without lubricants? <rolls eyes>

    Heck yes Saddam had WMD's. But if USA is stupid enough to wait a decade between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure Saddam may have send the chemicals to his buddy Assad rather than get caught with them. During Desert Storm he sent planes to Syria too in order to keep them from being destroyed. We caught most of them; but not all of them.


    WMD were not found and the world was told that we had proof that they were there... Britain joined with the U.S. and other allies, but no weapons were found...This was brought up in Parliament and the main reason that they voted NO on any involvement in Syria...

  2. #192
    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 VanceMack View Post
    You are of course correct. The GOP will go after him no matter what. It will probably be fairly similar to what the democrats did with Bush.

    Obama wants to hang the decision on congress. No matter what, he will then blame congress. If Congress is smart they will authorize the President to act as commander in chief based on what he believes to be the right course of action and put the **** sandwich right back in his hand.
    Are you kidding??

    No, at bare minimum this will destabilize the entire middle east, and depending on how much russia defends Assad, could quite literally spiral into a world war.

    Meanwhile, the stupid rebels released te video of them launching the weapons, and talking about loadin up the sarin gas. Then the supposed "proof" is actually of the generals and all greaking out about who had launched the attack, who had authorized it and just generally freaking out; the exact opposite reaction you would expect if they had done it. BUT for the benefit of doubt let's say there is no real evidence, but the mere fact that chemical weapons have been used is justification enough.

    This literally is aiding Alquaida and their allies, or have we forgotten that already?

    I say Congress should vote no, and Obama should go it alone. Let him show his true colors.

  3. #193
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Are you kidding??

    No, at bare minimum this will destabilize the entire middle east, and depending on how much russia defends Assad, could quite literally spiral into a world war.

    Meanwhile, the stupid rebels released te video of them launching the weapons, and talking about loadin up the sarin gas. Then the supposed "proof" is actually of the generals and all greaking out about who had launched the attack, who had authorized it and just generally freaking out; the exact opposite reaction you would expect if they had done it. BUT for the benefit of doubt let's say there is no real evidence, but the mere fact that chemical weapons have been used is justification enough.

    This literally is aiding Alquaida and their allies, or have we forgotten that already?

    I say Congress should vote no, and Obama should go it alone. Let him show his true colors.
    Obama wont go it alone. He is looking for someone to get him out of the corner he painted himself into.

    I agree there should action. The quesion is...against who? Why didnt the administration demand action after the attacks in May? I suspect the biggest problem is that it is the O-buddies that are the ones using the chemical weapons and thats why he didnt demand action last time.

  4. #194
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sietske22 View Post
    This limited action could lead to a larger regional war in a matter of days.

    that being the case, the Federal govt. should be united behind such an action.

    Obama did the right thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    I think this is extremely unlikely.
    I could understand your position if all the US would do was armed the opposing Syrian factions. But I doubt that's what we'll end up doing. You see, currently all sides outside of Syria with a somewhat vested interest in the outcome of their civil war are just fine letting things play out as long as the fight remains internal. But the moment another nation, i.e., the U.S., gets involved especially in a unilateral fashion, the conditions and attitudes of those outsiders may very well change.

    I admit, what I've outlined to you privately may well seem rather farfetched, but if you would read the linked articles in view of my concerns maybe you'd see the possibility of things getting out of hand in somewhat the same way as I do.

    U.N. weapons inspectors return from Syria as clock ticks

    How Revolution in Syria could act as NKorea tipping point

    Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime

    The President is saying the right things concerning having a small footprint in Syria's civil striff, i.e., limit involvement, no boots on the ground, no regime change, but if this thing should escalate and other nation's get involved who aren't part of a U.N.-sponsored coalition, I think things could turn out really bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Obama wont go it alone. He is looking for someone to get him out of the corner he painted himself into.

    I agree there should action. The quesion is...against who? Why didnt the administration demand action after the attacks in May? I suspect the biggest problem is that it is the O-buddies that are the ones using the chemical weapons and thats why he didnt demand action last time.
    This is why I don't like the idea of: 1) a unilateral attack; 2) an aerial response; and 3) U.S./coalition boots on the ground.

    The U.N. inspectors have all but confirmed that chemical weapons were used; they just haven't (or can't) confirm who used them - the Syria Army, the rebel forces or the "third head of the snack" that is Islamic insurgents. So, IMO, it would be foolish to launch an aerial attack when you really don't know who launched the chemical weapons. From a purely "limited" involvement standpoint, I firmly believe it would be better to arm the opposition force against Assad who U.S./U.N. believes is best equipped to defeat Assad but would not cause further destabilization of the area should he be removed from power. Otherwise, you stand to leave another part of the Middle-East in a leaderless vacuum.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-01-13 at 03:39 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #195
    Educator snilloctjc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    El Paso, TX USA
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    648

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

    How do we choose where we intervene militarily?

    I know Syria is all the rage right now because of the use of chemical weapons, but why not anywhere else atrocities are being committed by regimes against their own people?

    Why not Mogadishu in Somalia?

    Why not any number of African nations where religious and or tribal atrocities are occurring everyday?

    We speak of the US filling the role of "world policeman" is that really the role? Police solve crimes, we are not and have never done that. More accurately for the last nearly 70 years we have been the worlds military - a role much different than that of police.

    I remember in the 1960's a commercial that said "what if there was a war and no one showed up?

    Call me isolationist, but it is time we stopped showing up.
    Silent sobs
    Invisible tears
    Life enveloped
    in unspoken fears.

  6. #196
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I could understand your position if all the US would do was armed the opposing Syrian factions. But I doubt that's what we'll end up doing. You see, currently all sides outside of Syria with a somewhat vested interest in the outcome of their civil war are just fine letting things play out as long as the fight remains internal. But the moment another nation, i.e., the U.S., gets involved especially in a unilateral fashion, the conditions and attitudes of those outsiders may very well change.

    I admit, what I've outlined to you privately may well seem rather farfetched, but if you would read the linked articles in view of my concerns maybe you'd see the possibility of things getting out of hand in somewhat the same way as I do.

    U.N. weapons inspectors return from Syria as clock ticks

    How Revolution in Syria could act as NKorea tipping point

    Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime

    The President is saying the right things concerning having a small footprint in Syria's civil striff, i.e., limit involvement, no boots on the ground, no regime change, but if this thing should escalate and other nation's get involved who aren't part of a U.N.-sponsored coalition, I think things could turn out really bad.



    This is why I don't like the idea of: 1) a unilateral attack; 2) an aerial response; and 3) U.S./coalition boots on the ground.

    The U.N. inspectors have all but confirmed that chemical weapons were used; they just haven't (or can't) confirm who used them - the Syria Army, the rebel forces or the "third head of the snack" that is Islamic insurgents. So, IMO, it would be foolish to launch an aerial attack when you really don't know who launched the chemical weapons. From a purely "limited" involvement standpoint, I firmly believe it would be better to arm the opposition force against Assad who U.S./U.N. believes is best equipped to defeat Assad but would not cause further destabilization of the area should he be removed from power. Otherwise, you stand to leave another part of the Middle-East in a leaderless vacuum.
    Obama has so badly mishandled this. He looks like what he is...a clueless out of his league bonehead. He has given anyone that might be our enemy cause to rejoice.
    Where he really missed the boat is turning to congress. He SHOULD have turn back to the UN. He ought to be banging the drum LOUDLY, daily, and calling for UN involvement due to the use of the chemical weapons and shaming them for their inaction.

  7. #197
    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 Appo

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I could understand your position if all the US would do was armed the opposing Syrian factions. But I doubt that's what we'll end up doing. You see, currently all sides outside of Syria with a somewhat vested interest in the outcome of their civil war are just fine letting things play out as long as the fight remains internal. But the moment another nation, i.e., the U.S., gets involved especially in a unilateral fashion, the conditions and attitudes of those outsiders may very well change.

    I admit, what I've outlined to you privately may well seem rather farfetched, but if you would read the linked articles in view of my concerns maybe you'd see the possibility of things getting out of hand in somewhat the same way as I do.

    U.N. weapons inspectors return from Syria as clock ticks

    How Revolution in Syria could act as NKorea tipping point

    Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime

    The President is saying the right things concerning having a small footprint in Syria's civil striff, i.e., limit involvement, no boots on the ground, no regime change, but if this thing should escalate and other nation's get involved who aren't part of a U.N.-sponsored coalition, I think things could turn out really bad.



    This is why I don't like the idea of: 1) a unilateral attack; 2) an aerial response; and 3) U.S./coalition boots on the ground.

    The U.N. inspectors have all but confirmed that chemical weapons were used; they just haven't (or can't) confirm who used them - the Syria Army, the rebel forces or the "third head of the snack" that is Islamic insurgents. So, IMO, it would be foolish to launch an aerial attack when you really don't know who launched the chemical weapons. From a purely "limited" involvement standpoint, I firmly believe it would be better to arm the opposition force against Assad who U.S./U.N. believes is best equipped to defeat Assad but would not cause further destabilization of the area should he be removed from power. Otherwise, you stand to leave another part of the Middle-East in a leaderless vacuum.
    There is a vast, vast, vast to the 99th power difference between granting political or material support to a country and going to war on their behalf. There is no reason (absolutely, positively none) to suspect that any of the aforementioned countries whether it be Russia, China, or bizarrely enough North Korea will become involved militarily. It would be one of the most bizarre and unanticipated actions in history with literally no reason or forewarning behind it. It can be safely relegated to the realm of fiction.

    The plausibility of Syrian attacks beyond its borders is also very low but it is the only possible option that you mentioned which passes the most basic plausibility test.

  8. #198
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,945
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Snappo View Post
    My suspicion is that perhaps now that UK has walked away from this, that he hopes Congress will do the same. I am glad this is going in front of Congress; to be honest.
    Ditto my friend, I agree
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #199
    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 Appo

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Are you kidding??

    No, at bare minimum this will destabilize the entire middle east, and depending on how much russia defends Assad, could quite literally spiral into a world war.

    Meanwhile, the stupid rebels released te video of them launching the weapons, and talking about loadin up the sarin gas. Then the supposed "proof" is actually of the generals and all greaking out about who had launched the attack, who had authorized it and just generally freaking out; the exact opposite reaction you would expect if they had done it. BUT for the benefit of doubt let's say there is no real evidence, but the mere fact that chemical weapons have been used is justification enough.

    This literally is aiding Alquaida and their allies, or have we forgotten that already?

    I say Congress should vote no, and Obama should go it alone. Let him show his true colors.
    That is a slew of fictional nonsense.

    1. It will almost certainly not destabilize the Middle East. The goal of Assad is to win the Civil War and keep his regime in power. Lashing out at his neighbors will *possible* is a sure fire way to provoke a devastating response that would lead to the crumpling of his regime and possibly his death. He has thus far not responded to Israeli air strikes, not responded to Gulf sponsorship of rebel battalions, not responded to Turkish sheltering of the FSA or its own counter-barrages, and not responded to Kurdish infiltration of north-western Syria. Why? Because he wants to stay in power. The Syrian government has been extremely careful not to provoke any of its neighbors or give an excuse for intervention. This chemical attack was either an attempt to test the limits of Western commitment in Syria or the activity of a rogue brigade commander.

    2. There is no chance that Russia will launch military action on behalf of Syria. None. Zilch. Nada. Not only because such an action would be ludicrous from a political perspective, but ludicrous from a military perspective. Oh and everyone from Lavrov to Putin has pretty much outlined the limits of Russian involvement. This is a fiction.

    The world is not a Tom Clancy book and too many DP'ers don't seem to realize that.

  10. #200
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

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

    Why? I see no benefit in going to war. The reality here is that going to war helps China and Russia. Why? China and Russia are more active in selling arms to the Mid East, and we come out looking like bad guys for stopping the guys they sell the guns too.

    Maybe we ought to stay the hell out and let the Russians and Chinese take the heat for intervention?
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... 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
  •