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

Sietske22 said:

Congressional Republican leaders ALL support this move by Obama.

Click to expand...

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...

Perotista said:

Why didn't President Obama seek congressional approval for his Libyan operations. Libya involved a whole lot more than a little Sryian attack will. It is stuff like this that leaves me scratching my head.

Click to expand...

Monserrat said:

I think the rest of the world should take some ****ing responsibility too. Saddam murdered innocent human beings, he should have been taken down over two decades ago and it should have been with the support of the rest of the world and with the blessing of the UN if they actually gave a **** about human rights violations over their own political motivations. If Syria is using chemical weapons on civilians then their fate should be sealed as well and the US being an ocean away shouldn't be the only one responsible for acting on that.

We get bitched at for getting involved and bitched at if we don't.

(frustration directed against the situation and not you)

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Yes because the "trial balloon" of action minus Congressional approval didn't go over to well.

It's too close to the 2014 midterms for Democrats to make ANOTHER Foreign Policy mistake.

At least this way he has someone to blame

Click to expand...

Sherman123 said:

It is extremely silly. Russia has no reason and never would have become militarily involved over Syria. Which while obvious to everyone was underlined by Sergei Lavrov just a few days ago... Egypt remains unrelated to Syria by the way.

Click to expand...

TheGirlNextDoor said:

Then why, are we not being supported by our strongest of allies, hmm?[/QUOTE



Because of Bush's lies about Iraq having WMDs...

Click to expand...

Juanita said:

Because of Bush's lies about Iraq having WMDs...

Click to expand...

Wiggen said:

Yes, you right wing folks just get silly sometimes. Had he acted without Congressional approval, you'd have been all over him. So he seeks congressional approval, and guess what - the right wing zealots are all over him. Nice one. You never disappoint.

Click to expand...

Snappo said:

Warning: some of this excerpt may be a bit graphic and disturbing to some and describes how Iraq wiped out about a half dozen towns. The below is a response to the poster who denied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


On 15 March 1988 PUK and Iranian forces captured the town of Halabja, strategically situated above Lake Darbandikan to the east, inflicting heavy casualties on Iraqi forces. They seemed likely to advance to the Darbandikan dam. The following day Iraqi forces retaliated, shelling the town for several hours. During the afternoon those in air-raid shelters began to smell apple and garlic. Unable to prevent the entry of the gas, they stumbled out into the streets:
Dead bodies -- human and animal -- littered the streets, huddled in doorways, slumped over the steering wheels of their cars. Survivors stumbled around, laughing hysterically, before collapsing... Those who had been directly exposed to the gas found that their symptoms worsened as the night wore on. Many children died along the way and were abandoned where they fell. Approximately 5,000 civilians died.

Baghdad's savagery at Halabja had a shattering effect on Kurdish morale. It was well known how lethal chemical weapons could be, but it was now internationally clear that Saddam Hussein would resort to killing on a scale previously unimaginable in order to destroy those who threatened him.

A week later al Majid initiated Anfal II, to destroy all Kurdish presence in Qara Dagh, south of Sulaymaniya, a mountain range already surrounded by Iraqi forces. Once again chemical attacks on one village after another preceded ground action. Soon the hills were thronged with fleeing people. The majority, moving north towards Sulaymaniya, were rounded up and taken to assembly areas where their names were recorded and their valuables and IDs removed. Male and female were segregated. The males were driven off to undisclosed locations and exterminated. On the southern side of Qara Dagh a more comprehensive policy prevailed: hundreds of women and children also disappeared without trace.

With Anfal III in mid-April the scene shifted to Garmiyan, the area south of Kirkuk and adjacent to the west side of Qara Dagh which had also been a stronghold of the PUK. Once again all adult or teenage males captured began their nightmare journey to the execution grounds. In southern Garmiyan, where PUK resistance was fiercest, thousands of women and children were also taken for execution.
In many cases the civilian population was rounded up by the jash (pro-government Kurdish forces). In some cases the jash allowed women or children to escape under cover of darkness. They had carte blanche to loot whatever they wished according to Quranic prescription: ''Give the men to us and you can have the property,'' as one Baathi put it. On the whole the jash were dutiful servants of the Anfal, probably unaware that their round-ups were not a prelude to confinement in mujama'at (settlements) but rather to mass execution.

At the beginning of May the Anfal (IV) operation swung northwards to deal with the area between Kirkuk, Arbil and Koi-Sanjaq. Hundreds more died from chemical attack on the bank of the Lesser Zab. Out of sight, possibly 30,000 Kurds were taken away. In the areas of greatest resistance women and children too were taken to the execution grounds. During the summer months three more Anfal operations (V, VI and VII) were carried out to remove PUK forces in Balisan and the mountain recesses east of Shaqlawa. In certain cases the population was persuaded to turn themselves in on the spurious promise of pardon. It made no difference to their fate.

Click to expand...

Wiggen said:

Yes, you right wing folks just get silly sometimes. Had he acted without Congressional approval, you'd have been all over him. So he seeks congressional approval, and guess what - the right wing zealots are all over him. Nice one. You never disappoint.

Click to expand...

reinoe said:

Who cares about Iraq?

Click to expand...

Snappo said:

People that think gassing women and children is a crime against humanity?

Click to expand...

Snappo said:

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.

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

BmanMcfly said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Sherman123 said:

I think this is extremely unlikely.

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

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.

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

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.

Click to expand...

Snappo said:

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.

Click to expand...

BmanMcfly said:

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.

Click to expand...