• 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

reinoe said:
Barack Obama and the Congress is about to prove that they've been in favor of al-Qaeda all along. Remove the legitimate ruling government and install a puppet government with Al-Qaeda in charge. I guess Obama really does want to destroy this country by bringing on WW3. The saddest thing is that he was still the better choice between the two major parties.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of blown away about us backing Al Qaeda too. I would have preferred the opposite - meaning that we backed Assad in this civil war and tried to get him to get away from his relationship with Iran and become friendlier to Israel and Turkey. Truth be known I would have preferred that we did what Russia did - sell small arms for fun and profit and just stay out of spending US dollars on the drama going on over there. If all we do is sell arms to both sides; there is a lot of money to be made in civil wars in the Middle East.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Slyfox696 said:
I don't understand why the President should be embarrassed because Congress votes against what he'd like to see them say. Why would that be embarrassing?

If anything, I think this is very much a move to AVOID embarrassment. If Obama strikes without Congressional approval, it will be viewed quite unfavorably. If Obama doesn't strike, then his "red line" comment, which has been blown way out of proportion in my opinion, then becomes the embarrassing moment.
Click to expand...

It would be embarrassing, because he's, "The Messiah". He believes it more than his minions. It's the reason we are where we are: because he thought that just by making a threat to zap Syria, they would be too afraid to use NBC weapons.

I think this move takes the burden off Obama and puts it onto Congress.
Click to expand...

What burden? He's the CIC. The responsibility is his, no matter what.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Redress said:
I would tend to suspect his vote counters tell him he will get approval or he would not have gone this route. To my mind it is almost a nobrainer. It is the right thing to do to make sure that the message goes out that if you use chemical weapons, the cost will outweigh the benefits. That can be done with simple limited military strikes.
Click to expand...

That's not going to scare anyone into not using gas, if they want to.
 
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 post proves what I've known all along: Americans lack street smarts, i. e. the kind of social intelligence that tells you how to quickly tell between a pol that's just BS'ing to look good and one that actually means what he says (which, FYI, is rarer than diamonds).

HINT: does Obama need Congress' permission to attack?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

apdst said:
That's not going to scare anyone into not using gas, if they want to.
Click to expand...

Good thing I did not say scare, isn't it?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Barack Obama is doing the right thing. (And I don't say that often).
I am opposed to the strike. I also see how intelligent, well-meaning people can be in favor.
In any case, it is, eh, refreshing, to see a Democratic president actually admitting (implicitly) that (1) a war is a war, and (2) the US Constitution does matter (sometimes).
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Cyrylek said:
Barack Obama is doing the right thing. (And I don't say that often).
I am opposed to the strike. I also see how intelligent, well-meaning people can be in favor.
In any case, it is, eh, refreshing, to see a Democratic president actually admitting (implicitly) that (1) a war is a war, and (2) the US Constitution does matter (sometimes).
Click to expand...

Pols like obama only do what their owners tell them to do. In a plutocracy, POTUSes are not generally permitted to authorize military strikes without permission from their sponsors.

As for o's faux saber-rattling, he just wants to protect his image. Americans (notably conservatives) are mostly brainwashed, jingoistic warmongers and believe anyone who doesn't bomb is a wimp.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

solletica said:
This post proves what I've known all along: Americans lack street smarts, i. e. the kind of social intelligence that tells you how to quickly tell between a pol that's just BS'ing to look good and one that actually means what he says (which, FYI, is rarer than diamonds).

HINT: does Obama need Congress' permission to attack?
Click to expand...

Obama said that the president DOES NOT have the authority to unilaterally launch an attack. Biden says it's an impeachable offense.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Slyfox696 said:
I don't understand why the President should be embarrassed because Congress votes against what he'd like to see them say. Why would that be embarrassing?

If anything, I think this is very much a move to AVOID embarrassment. If Obama strikes without Congressional approval, it will be viewed quite unfavorably. If Obama doesn't strike, then his "red line" comment, which has been blown way out of proportion in my opinion, then becomes the embarrassing moment.

I think this move takes the burden off Obama and puts it onto Congress.
Click to expand...

Congress will do whatever Boeing, Lockheed, and other offense contractors tell it to do--authorize the strike.

The aforementioned firms already have a 20% ownership stake in Congress.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Redress said:
Good thing I did not say scare, isn't it?
Click to expand...

A person would have to be afraid of the, "costs outweighing the benefits", for the costs to actually outweigh the benefits. It's called, "intimidation"; AKA fear; AKA "scared".
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

dilbert 8-9-2011 obama.jpg​
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

apdst said:
Obama said that the president DOES NOT have the authority to unilaterally launch an attack. Biden says it's an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

CORRECT. As stated, in plutocracies, all military strikes ordered by heads of state must be cleared w/their sponsors.

However, legally, the Constitution permits the POTUS to wage war for at least 90 days without approval. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant since no one will enforce it, but there's the complete answer.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

solletica said:
CORRECT. As stated, in plutocracies, all military strikes ordered by heads of state must be cleared w/their sponsors.

However, legally, the Constitution permits the POTUS to wage war for at least 90 days without approval. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant since no one will enforce it, but there's the complete answer.
Click to expand...

That's the War Powers Act. I believe that Obama has never heard of that, or least not before he was elected to his first term.

I can hear him now, "The War Powers Act? What's that?"
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

apdst said:
A person would have to be afraid of the, "costs outweighing the benefits", for the costs to actually outweigh the benefits. It's called, "intimidation"; AKA fear; AKA "scared".
Click to expand...

Wrong. Fear is not the intention, but to influence the cost/benefit ratio.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Kal'Stang said:
My only comment is that I'm surprised he's actually seeking congressional approval. Other than that....not surprised at anything else.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Kal'Stang. :2wave:

If BHO gets approval... he wins. If Congress says NO, he can say he tried, but his hands are tied..he wins. Don't you enjoy the game playing that goes on in DC, just to divert attention from an unwise comment? Meanwhile, nothing gets done on jobs or any of the other important issues facing this country! The infrastructure still keeps crumbling, and the debt clock keeps on ticking....:wow:
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

What are the chances that Obama can get the Congressional Approval ?? (just an estimation)
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

bubbabgone said:
Click to expand...

Good evening, bubba! :2wave:

You have illustrated an excellent point! Too much talking, and very little doing going on! Has everyone tuned out the blah blah blah? :wow:
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Higgins86 said:
I agree it will be struck down because of partisan issues/ political moves liek it was in the House of Commons. I think Obama is trying to back off from this issue and getting struck down in congress gives him an excuse.
Click to expand...

I think you are pretty close to the truth here, Higgy. I think he honestly believes the use of chemical weapons deserves a military response, but he also knows that the people are tired of never-ending conflicts, and they see this as another one. I think it unlikely that he will get Congressional approval, because its not just Generals that are always fighting the last war. Politicians do it, too.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Coin said:
What are the chances that Obama can get the Congressional Approval ?? (just an estimation)
Click to expand...

Slim to none.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

apdst said:
That's the War Powers Act. I believe that Obama has never heard of that, or least not before he was elected to his first term.

I can hear him now, "The War Powers Act? What's that?"
Click to expand...

The War Powers act permits the President to take military action. He said so himself in his speech today. It does not, however, mandate that he takes military action without Congressional approval. I think its a great idea to get the issue debated in Congress and then let's see a vote.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Redress said:
Wrong. Fear is not the intention, but to influence the cost/benefit ratio.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, fear, i.e. intimidation, is the intention...lol!!! For the costs to outweigh the benefits, one has to first be concerned--worried--about what those costs may be. Waging war is about the, "will to wage war". Fear will break down that will. The old saying, "where there's a will, there's a way", rings true in warfare more than any other scenario. If a person's will to wage war is strong enough, he will be willing to pay any price--accept any cost.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Wiggen said:
The War Powers act permits the President to take military action. He said so himself in his speech today. It does not, however, mandate that he takes military action without Congressional approval. I think its a great idea to get the issue debated in Congress and then let's see a vote.
Click to expand...

You need to read the text of the act, before carrying so much water for The Messiah.

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Now, The Messiah said that the president DOES NOT have the authority to use military force without congressional approval. Now, the only question that remains: is he a liar, a fraud, a hypocrite, or just an idiot?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

apdst said:
Obama said that the president DOES NOT have the authority to unilaterally launch an attack. Biden says it's an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...

Son of a gun! Congress is to be the culprit again if BHO doesn't get to do what he wants to do? Whodathunk? And what's with Biden's comment? Following the law suddenly seems to be a very serious matter! :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom