• 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!

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

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

Sherman123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. I firmly believe there are wider implications here - more for America to lose had the President taken a unilateral approach - implications that go much farther than a President's face-saving efforts or maintaining popularity at home or abroad.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
I'm not claiming that this is an iron writ that will bind all future President's. It isn't. But it will be used as a precedent for those who seek to prevent such a military action and may be used as pressure to halt such activities before they start. Clinton did not seek authorization for Kosovo, but I wonder if a future President would be able to get away with doing the same. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Either way the precedent is unnecessary. Moreover if he is defeated it will be almost unprecedented.
Click to expand...

Those who oppose an action don't need this to do so. They will still claim just as they have this time.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

The UN inspectors had just finished their investigation.

I still do not see how this poses a threat to U.S. national security?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
We didn't need the investigations they were a pretext for building a coalition. Our intelligence report for the use of chemical weapons was completed well before UN investigators entered the country. The timeline was elongated because the President was not willing to engage in an immediate strike in the days following the attack, instead favoring a stronger pretext and coalition. That is something people can disagree on as far as the right course is concerned (I think it was a mistake) but the real issue is now that we've come to a head and so much expectation has been generated around a US attack to do anything but launch some sort of action risks seriously damaging our credibility. I'm convinced that whether or not we act is being closely watched in the Kremlin, in Beijing, and across the wider region. I think a Congressional defeat is eminently possible and so it was a mistake to purse it, especially since it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

We absolutely needed the investigations, and in fact need the UN investigation to be complete. The need may be mostly political, but it does not make the need less real.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Captain America said:
So, in short, you are saying Obama should thumb his nose to congress, the majority will of Americans, seceral super powers across the globe and go ahead and just go ahead and bomb the **** out of Syria for some kind of John Wayne type bravado, ego, thing?

Do you oppose Obama going to congress? Do you support Obama's desire to get into it with Syria?
Click to expand...

Yes. I do oppose Obama going to Congress. Sometimes the President has to act in the manner he thinks is best regardless of popular opinion. But no I do not think he is going to bomb Syria because of a 'John Wayne type bravado' thing. He has precedent on his side, he should act decisively if he is going to act at all.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist for America to be perceived as the "bully who is always right and doesn't stand objection"? :roll:
What do you want to prove?
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

TheGirlNextDoor said:
The UN inspectors had just finished their investigation.

I still do not see how this poses a threat to U.S. national security?
Click to expand...

Directly it does not threaten US security in the short run. A country in the Middle East that has shown a willingness to use chemical weapons however does directly threaten the security of our allies in the region, which can and does threaten our security indirectly.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Redress said:
We absolutely needed the investigations, and in fact need the UN investigation to be complete. The need may be mostly political, but it does not make the need less real.
Click to expand...

It's debatable I think. My favored outcome would have been a strike within 24-72 hours after the bombardment even if it was wholly limited in nature.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Captain America said:
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.
Click to expand...

My neighbor warned me that would happen. Immediately after the President stated he'd seek congressional approval, he said, "Don't watch Fox News. They'll start condemning him for going to Congress knowing just yesterday they were bitching about him not going to Congress." Predictable....and laughable.:lamo
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Whether its to pass the buck, to share blame when the operation leads to WW3, I don't care.

Obama did the right thing.

If we are going to do such an operation, we need the approval of the American people through its representatives!!
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
It's debatable I think. My favored outcome would have been a strike within 24-72 hours after the bombardment even if it was wholly limited in nature.
Click to expand...

I prefer a longer timetable, if for no other reason than to be more sure we are right. Besides, it takes time to properly coordinate effective strikes(and some backbreaking labor...I could tell you stories...).
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ttwtt78640 said:
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.?
Click to expand...

The previous chemical attacks were so small-scale in nature that they did not seriously threaten the political credibility of the United States. What makes this an issue is that the President made it an issue. By challenging Assad openly, by confronting Russia, by calling for military action, by sending thousands of sailors to the brink of action, and by decisively claiming that atrocities had taken place and needed to be answered for. After organizing a military taskforce, calling for international allies, molding the global media narrative to indicate such action will take place, forcing Russia and Iran to vociferously defend their ally, and by putting an air of inevitability behind action the President I believe has created a situation where action must take place to avoid an extraordinarily dangerous loss of face. If we pull back from the brink I think it will influence foreign decision making dramatically.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sietske22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is extremely unlikely.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Redress said:
I prefer a longer timetable, if for no other reason than to be more sure we are right. Besides, it takes time to properly coordinate effective strikes(and some backbreaking labor...I could tell you stories...).
Click to expand...

My only strong preference for rapid strikes is that it instantly changes the media and political narrative. You'd have almost instantaneous approval from Turkey, France, the UK and a whole bevy of US allies who otherwise would be fearful of becoming involved (as we have seen) and the simple fact that it is easier to justify action already taken than to seek permission for said action. It also has the effect of being perceived more quickly as a reprimand rather than a prepared action which makes it easier to disengage if that isn't the plan.

Again just my preference.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sietske22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

While it could, I find that extremely unlikely to happen. Too much to lose by those who are making the threats.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
Why do you insist for America to be perceived as the "bully who is always right and doesn't stand objection"? :roll:
What do you want to prove?
Click to expand...

I do not think that is what is at stake. The credibility is the credibility of American to intervene and utilize force which has the effect of limiting the behavior of not just regional actors but global ones as well.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Objective Voice said:
Again, I disagree. I firmly believe there are wider implications here - more for America to lose had the President taken a unilateral approach - implications that go much farther than a President's face-saving efforts or maintaining popularity at home or abroad.
Click to expand...

What would we have lost with a Franco-American-Turkish punitive bombardment?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
I do not think that is what is at stake. The credibility is the credibility of American to intervene and utilize force which has the effect of limiting the behavior of not just regional actors but global ones as well.
Click to expand...

Being strong and being right are two different things. They may coincide or they may not.
Btw, since Obama is no emperor and America is a democracy, I salute him for asking Congressional approval, i.e. respecting the Constitution.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
Being strong and being right are two different things.
Btw, since Obama is no emperor and America is a democracy, I salute him for asking Congressional approval, i.e. respecting the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I do not believe he requires Congressional approval for limited military action. President's have never needed it before him. Why now?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
The previous chemical attacks were so small-scale in nature that they did not seriously threaten the political credibility of the United States. What makes this an issue is that the President made it an issue. By challenging Assad openly, by confronting Russia, by calling for military action, by sending thousands of sailors to the brink of action, and by decisively claiming that atrocities had taken place and needed to be answered for. After organizing a military taskforce, calling for international allies, molding the global media narrative to indicate such action will take place, forcing Russia and Iran to vociferously defend their ally, and by putting an air of inevitability behind action the President I believe has created a situation where action must take place to avoid an extraordinarily dangerous loss of face. If we pull back from the brink I think it will influence foreign decision making dramatically.
Click to expand...

In short, what it seems you're saying is it's better for the US to go it alone and save face than to posture by taking the country if not the region to the bring of war and do nothing but put up a front.

I'll say it again but in a much bolder tone: A unilateral attack on Syria sets the U.S. up for a very hard and bloody fall.

Yes, ultimately this is Syria's problem and yes, President Obama's "redline" has been passed, but I think the American people deserve to know concretely if the use of chemical weapons was sanctions by the Syrian government and, if so, we WILL need international support to take military action. Without both, we could be in way over our heads especially if Russia, China, Iran and NKorea all get involved.

Trust me when I say you don't want the U.S. to go this alone.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

DDD said:
We could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

You both are. This is going to get wide support now.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Objective Voice said:
In short, what it seems you're saying is it's better for the US to go it alone and save face than to posture by taking the country if not the region to the bring of war and do nothing but put up a front.

I'll say it again but in a much bolder tone: A unilateral attack on Syria sets the U.S. up for a very hard and bloody fall.

Yes, ultimately this is Syria's problem and yes, President Obama's "redline" has been passed, but I think the American people deserve to know concretely if the use of chemical weapons was sanctions by the Syrian government and, if so, we WILL need international support to take military action. Without both, we could be in way over our heads especially if Russia, China, Iran and NKorea all get involved.

Trust me when I say you don't want the U.S. to go this alone.
Click to expand...

We aren't going it alone though. Moreover even if we were I still fail to see the implication. This is a call for a series of cruise missile and air strikes, not a mandate for invasion. This is Desert Fox or Kosovo, not Iraq or Afghanistan. What bloody fall do you anticipate?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Jredbaron96 said:
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?
Click to expand...

This sounds very much like Obama simply wants an excuse to back down from his unilateral "red line" nonsense and thus to gain political points in a few ways.

If congress says no:

1) Obama can still assert that after many months of dragging his own feet (leading from behind?) that he "always" wished to "do something" about Syria even though he never sought the advice of congress before.

2) Congress (emphasis will be naturally limitted to the GOP members) is to now to blame if anything "bad" happens in Syria since he wanted to act and congress "stood in his way" by denyinig Obama's wish to attack.

3) If, by some miracle, things calm down in Syria Obama can assert that was due to his "stern resolve" to use U.S. military force if necessary.

If congress says yes:

4) If the Syria attack works out OK then Obama can say that he initiated the bold miltary action resulting in "peace".

5) If Syria goes badly then Obama can still say it was either due to (GOP) congressional resistance to his having taken quicker action - or simply not bringing up the fact that it was basically his idea at all.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
I do not believe he requires Congressional approval for limited military action. President's have never needed it before him. Why now?
Click to expand...

Why not? You whine when the President finally does the right thing? :lol:

I hear Congress is gathering on the 09-th of September. Thank goodness, we'll have a brake from war-mongering and war drums. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom