Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 240 of 240

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

  1. #231
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

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

    For those who are interested, Reuters published an article concerning the perceptions related to the tactical pursuit of Congressional authorization after the U.S. had all but decided on an imminent military response. The article can be found at:

    In Mideast, view of U.S. as hesitant superpower sharpens | Reuters

  2. #232
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Bad bad bad bad move.
    Enough is enough.
    Enough lives, enough billions, enough losing respect around the globe and enough dragging or trying to drag in to the fray other nations.
    I know first hand what its like to bring home war dead and what effect it has on their families.
    Sending "shots across the bow" very well lead to other actions by the Syrian govnernment and give them more resolve to keep fighting the rebels.
    As well as aligning with al queada and striking us here at home.

  3. #233
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,977

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

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My point is not that the President should be "embarrassed" about going to Congress. I happen to believe that going to Congress gives the President the kind of legitimacy that no alternative course could.
    Ahh, I see. I thought you were pushing the "embarrassed" narrative. My mistake.

    Instead, I believe the way he went about it was clumsy to say the least. It created perceptions that were avoidable. It created the impression that he is being whipsawed by events (e.g., the outcome of the Parliamentary vote in the UK) rather than shaping them. He could have gone to Congress first before all but committing to a military response. Had he stated from the onset something along the lines that the U.S. must respond to the crime against humanity that took place in Syria and therefore he is asking Congress for military authorization to maximize his flexibility, things would be different. Instead, he all but declared that the U.S. would be responding militarily and imminently then, in a follow-up address (after the UK Parliamentary vote) stated that he would ask Congress for authorization (taking away the imminence of the response and creating questions as to whether there would be a military response).

    In short, the strategy is right. No body can confer the kind of legitimacy the Congress could. However, the tactics were anything but optimal. They led to perceptions that were largely self-inflicted and entirely avoidable.
    I can see why you would see it that way, but I simply do not. The reason I do not is because I have no problem with the idea of being part of the world, rather than the father figure we've been playing for years (and still play in many cases). I don't have a problem with us moving as world events move because I think it's good for us not to always have to lead on everything.

    With that said, we still may strike. But at least if we strike now, it will be at the will of the American people through the voice of their representatives and not just at the directive of one person making a decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    I think you and I are at an impasse. If you don't think what has been happening isn't embarrassing, then you either have an extremely high threshold for embarrassment or Obama can do no wrong in your eyes. You can have the last word, but I don't think we can come to an agreement.
    I actually think it could be a third option, which is you have a very low threshold for perceived embarrassment. This isn't a case of an ex best friend pushing you in the 7th grade lunch line. Inflated ego should have nothing to do with this. This is a situation where lives are at stake, and possibly (thought doubtfully) a war on a scale unseen since the 1940s. I see absolutely no reason why the President should be embarrassed by the actions of other countries, nor the idea of consulting with Congress on a military action.

    Here's a question for you. Right now we have a Congress who has done historically little over the last couple of years due to extreme partisanship. If Congress does authorize a strike on Syria, would you say it would be a positive reflection on Obama and his administration for moving Congress to do what Obama wants?
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 09-05-13 at 09:34 AM.

  4. #234
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Here's a question for you. Right now we have a Congress who has done historically little over the last couple of years due to extreme partisanship. If Congress does authorize a strike on Syria, would you say it would be a positive reflection on Obama and his administration for moving Congress to do what Obama wants?
    Agree to disagree then on the previous point. As for this question...I'm not sure that it would be a positive reflection. When is the last time Congress was realistically on the verge of not authorizing military spending when it came to the president requesting it? Even during the worst times in Iraq, Congress never realistically threatened to turn it down. Afghanistan still gets the funding that war needs with relative ease, no issues that I can remember for Iraq #1, can't remember if there was a battle over Bosnia.

    I think the answer to your question really depends on how close the votes will be. If it barely slides by, I think it shows that Congress is very reluctant and that shows they are more worried about the office of President looking bad rather than the strength of the argument. If it passes overwhelmingly, then it could look good on Obama. I mean, it's not like Obama has even made his case to a session or committee of Congress directly, so I think more credit would go to Kerry personally.

  5. #235
    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 SBu View Post
    Agree to disagree then on the previous point. As for this question...I'm not sure that it would be a positive reflection. When is the last time Congress was realistically on the verge of not authorizing military spending when it came to the president requesting it? Even during the worst times in Iraq, Congress never realistically threatened to turn it down. Afghanistan still gets the funding that war needs with relative ease, no issues that I can remember for Iraq #1, can't remember if there was a battle over Bosnia.

    I think the answer to your question really depends on how close the votes will be. If it barely slides by, I think it shows that Congress is very reluctant and that shows they are more worried about the office of President looking bad rather than the strength of the argument. If it passes overwhelmingly, then it could look good on Obama. I mean, it's not like Obama has even made his case to a session or committee of Congress directly, so I think more credit would go to Kerry personally.
    Not to target you here; but how pathetic
    Has this country become where we are now at a point of potentially going to war to make Obama look good... Not because we have been attacked, not because we might potentially be attacked at some future point, not even because the leader used chemical weapons (remember; the fact the chemicals were deployed is enough regardless of who was responsible), but just to make the president "look good"...

    It's at the point where it's like children are running the show for a bunch of morons that will buy into any BS line that gets shoveled in front of them.

  6. #236
    Professor
    distraff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    02-25-16 @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,300

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    Bad bad bad bad move.
    Enough is enough.
    Enough lives, enough billions, enough losing respect around the globe and enough dragging or trying to drag in to the fray other nations.
    I know first hand what its like to bring home war dead and what effect it has on their families.
    Sending "shots across the bow" very well lead to other actions by the Syrian govnernment and give them more resolve to keep fighting the rebels.
    As well as aligning with al queada and striking us here at home.
    Look every revolution in the mid-east has Al Qaeda elements including the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. However it has been shown that more moderate people take over. If we really want to stop the bloodshed, then either Assad systematically slaughters all of the rebels and rules Syria, or we destroy his military capability and let the Syrians decide their future.

    What is happening in Syria is like what happened in Libya. Just attack the regime with air strikes and let the rebels take over.

  7. #237
    Professor
    distraff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    02-25-16 @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,300

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I agree. And two world leaders came out swinging a week ago and in both cases calmer heads backed them down. And..........while the odds are highly against Putin getting involved militarily, only fools would dismiss the idea out of hand. That risk does exist however slight it may be. And we should act against the will of the American people, probably against the will of congress, certainly against the will of the UN and with a certain amount of risk that we could have conflict with Russia and all so that we can attack a country that HAS NOT ATTACKED US, and there's people on this board that call Ahmadinejad a lunatic, HA!!
    We are not attacking the Syrians. We are attacking their dictator who is systematically killing them with chemical weapons. We have the military capability to stop him. Therefore we must.

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

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

    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    Look every revolution in the mid-east has Al Qaeda elements including the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. However it has been shown that more moderate people take over. If we really want to stop the bloodshed, then either Assad systematically slaughters all of the rebels and rules Syria, or we destroy his military capability and let the Syrians decide their future.

    What is happening in Syria is like what happened in Libya. Just attack the regime with air strikes and let the rebels take over.
    Another horrible idea.

  9. #239
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by distraff View Post
    We are not attacking the Syrians. We are attacking their dictator who is systematically killing them with chemical weapons. We have the military capability to stop him. Therefore we must.
    Oh no, another one repeating the lie, you need to go to sensitivity training.

  10. #240
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Not to target you here; but how pathetic
    Has this country become where we are now at a point of potentially going to war to make Obama look good... Not because we have been attacked, not because we might potentially be attacked at some future point, not even because the leader used chemical weapons (remember; the fact the chemicals were deployed is enough regardless of who was responsible), but just to make the president "look good"...

    It's at the point where it's like children are running the show for a bunch of morons that will buy into any BS line that gets shoveled in front of them.
    Actually, I'm guessing you and I agree. I was responding to Slyfox696 who seems to think the president shouldn't be embarrassed by his recent indecisiveness.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Posting Permissions

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