• 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 Appo

Do you understand the difference between bush and Obama??

Bush did not seek approval to go to war with an enemy...

Obama is seeking approval to give support to our enemies.

Obama is asking for justification for what should be called treason... Obama supporters has no low to far to stoop in their support for corruption.

Just as bad as bush supporters were with his crimes.

I'm sure this made sense to you but frankly I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

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...

Sorry, but that it not correct.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

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. [/quoute]
Hence, the reason I'm hopeful the President (and Congress) will chose to arm the rebel forces rather than fight their war for them via an aerial assault (which would include a strike by launching cruise missiles).

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.

Of course there would be reason behind it...the same "reason" many people belief would be the primary reason our nation's President would go forward with a military strike with or without Congressional approval or multi-lateral support - to save face, to bolster his position of power, to demonstrate a show of force. World leaders have big egos. Why do you think Hitler and Stalin did what they did!? Not that I'm equating President Obama to either dictator. I'm just saying when push comes to shove some world leaders will resort to face saving as rationale to do what they do. China, Iran, NKor and Russia's leaders would be no different under the circumstances. If it increases their position of power on the world stage, they'll do it!

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.

Well, it's good to know something I said made sense to you. (sarcasm)
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

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. [/quoute]
Hence, the reason I'm hopeful the President (and Congress) will chose to arm the rebel forces rather than fight their war for them via an aerial assault (which would include a strike by launching cruise missiles).



Of course there would be reason behind it...the same "reason" many people belief would be the primary reason our nation's President would go forward with a military strike with or without Congressional approval or multi-lateral support - to save face, to bolster his position of power, to demonstrate a show of force. World leaders have big egos. Why do you think Hitler and Stalin did what they did!? Not that I'm equating President Obama to either dictator. I'm just saying when push comes to shove some world leaders will resort to face saving as rationale to do what they do. China, Iran, NKor and Russia's leaders would be no different under the circumstances. If it increases their position of power on the world stage, they'll do it!



Well, it's good to know something I said made sense to you. (sarcasm)

There is no reason. It is a completely implausible scenario which is why no one serious is considering it. There is zero chance that China or North Korea of all countries are going to start a war over Syria. It's audibly ludicrous.
 
Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

Is there anything wrong with feeling that we should just let them kill each other and not get involved?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

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.

It think it's embarrassing because there was a lot of show boating and rhetorical build up beforehand. Kerry's speech all but said that we were going to strike. Then, what? Change of heart? It makes him look extremely indecisive as a leader.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

It think it's embarrassing because there was a lot of show boating and rhetorical build up beforehand. Kerry's speech all but said that we were going to strike. Then, what? Change of heart? It makes him look extremely indecisive as a leader.
But he CHOSE to go to Congress. He wasn't told he had to, certainly there's precedent for not doing so. He chose to go to Congress, so why would there be any embarrassment?
 
Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

I'm sure this made sense to you but frankly I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll use an analogy; if bush took us to war with country A with scant evidence, he at least sought approval, and got it to attack enemies.

Then country A goes to war with country B; we are still at war with A, now Obama is seeking approval to go to war with B to help A, neglecting that we are still at war with A.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

But he CHOSE to go to Congress. He wasn't told he had to, certainly there's precedent for not doing so. He chose to go to Congress, so why would there be any embarrassment?

Something he could have done a week earlier if he was decisive and had conviction. Doing so now makes him look confused and unsure of his decisions. He should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for him. Some believe this is just a way for the president to pass the ball to Congress to make a decision only to claim the moral high ground for political gain.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

But he CHOSE to go to Congress. He wasn't told he had to, certainly there's precedent for not doing so. He chose to go to Congress, so why would there be any embarrassment?


There is both precedent and law, what could you mean?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

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?

This sounds a lot like Libya. We have a tyrant who has slaughtered thousands of his people. We have a moral responsibility to take down his military capability and give the rebels a chance to take over.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

This sounds a lot like Libya. We have a tyrant who has slaughtered thousands of his people. We have a moral responsibility to take down his military capability and give the rebels a chance to take over.

Wtf. Have you been paying attention to the debate, cause it sounds like you just woke up and joined the discussion!?!?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

This sounds a lot like Libya. We have a tyrant who has slaughtered thousands of his people. We have a moral responsibility to take down his military capability and give the rebels a chance to take over.
I take it you never saw a war you didn't like huh?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

There is no reason. It is a completely implausible scenario which is why no one serious is considering it. There is zero chance that China or North Korea of all countries are going to start a war over Syria. It's audibly ludicrous.

But that's exactly my point. It's wouldn't be a fight over control of Syria by another country, i.e., German's invasion of Poland during WWII to broaden its territorial control and gain access to raw materials. So, no one is advocating that fighting would escalate over one country encroaching upon another's sovereignty. The issues here is "influence", image and trade capabilities. When viewed from these dynamics it is very conceivable that a unilateral missile strike against Syria without provocation - because that's exactly how Syria and its closest allies would view such a strike by the U.S. - could be the spark that throws the world into chaos.

Again, my hope and prayer is that you're right and that cooler heads do prevail. But if the U.S. goes this alone and does anything more than arm the rebels, I fear things could go terribly wrong.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

But that's exactly my point. It's wouldn't be a fight over control of Syria by another country, i.e., German's invasion of Poland during WWII to broaden its territorial control and gain access to raw materials. So, no one is advocating that fighting would escalate over one country encroaching upon another's sovereignty. The issues here is "influence", image and trade capabilities. When viewed from these dynamics it is very conceivable that a unilateral missile strike against Syria without provocation - because that's exactly how Syria and its closest allies would view such a strike by the U.S. - could be the spark that throws the world into chaos.

Again, my hope and prayer is that you're right and that cooler heads do prevail. But if the U.S. goes this alone and does anything more than arm the rebels, I fear things could go terribly wrong.

It's not even about cooler heads, this just wouldn't happen. It is like saying China would attack Taiwan if the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. It's just not even worth discussing.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

Is there anything wrong with feeling that we should just let them kill each other and not get involved?

Nobody has touched this post but I think it merits some notice. It seems cruel but then I also wish I could double our cities' police force to protect our innocents but I don't have the money to pay for that.

I just don't see where we have the money to cover another war nor the heart to send our young into fight in another foreign country. Where is the outrage from Muslims of watching Muslims kill Muslims?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

I just realized I made a spelling error in the title.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

You really cant miss the Hypocracy here with Obama & his supporters endlessly critisizing Bush for his misadventure in Iraq telling us that was a bad war while supporting there messiah Obomber who wants to get involved into something that could start WW3. We have a few hundred people gassed and they want to go to war while in countries like Sudan millions are slaughtered by the Religion of peace and you see no such level of outrage. Thats because the real reason for involvement here isnt people being gassed its of course Obombers war for oil or pipelines as his pals in Qatar, Turkey & Saudi want to build a gas pipeline to Europe thru Syria and Assads in the way. Obower & the people who run him could care less about gassed civilians, they waited for an excuse to get involved and this was it. What the heck the WMD line of bull worked just fine for Bush and the Neostatists. You Liberals should be proud you can now put Obama in the catagory with Warmongers Mcain, Graham & Peter King who never saw a war they didnt like or think we shouldnt get involved in.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

It's not even about cooler heads, this just wouldn't happen. It is like saying China would attack Taiwan if the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. It's just not even worth discussing.

And yet here you are attempting to dissuade myself and others from a call for caution, smart governance and a need for my fellow Americans to pay closer attention to world events as opposed to keeping their attention fixed exclusively on domestic events.

Far be it from me to be an alarmist or a conspiracy nut, but I can envision a very real possibility of a worse case scenario event taking place for this nation simply because its citizens turned a collective blind eye to world events instead of seeing how things that play out abroad can have a direct and profound impact on what happens here at home.

But again I say I hope you're right and I'm very much wrong.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

You really cant miss the Hypocracy here with Obama & his supporters endlessly critisizing Bush for his misadventure in Iraq telling us that was a bad war while supporting there messiah Obomber who wants to get involved into something that could start WW3. We have a few hundred people gassed and they want to go to war while in countries like Sudan millions are slaughtered by the Religion of peace and you see no such level of outrage. Thats because the real reason for involvement here isnt people being gassed its of course Obombers war for oil or pipelines as his pals in Qatar, Turkey & Saudi want to build a gas pipeline to Europe thru Syria and Assads in the way. Obower & the people who run him could care less about gassed civilians, they waited for an excuse to get involved and this was it. What the heck the WMD line of bull worked just fine for Bush and the Neostatists. You Liberals should be proud you can now put Obama in the catagory with Warmongers Mcain, Graham & Peter King who never saw a war they didnt like or think we shouldnt get involved in.

I'm almost inclined to agree with you except that there are two flaws in your rationale:

1) There is (at least) visual evidence confirmed by several eye witnesses that chemical weapons were used.

2) This time the people are speaking out against unilateral involvement including cautioning against a missile strike.

While I will agree that it does seem as though this country tends to get involved in military conflicts everywhere else around the world except in African where so many humanitarian atrocities take place on continuous bases, the reason it appears that way, however, is because the media rarely covers such issues on a regular basis that is until it affects America's interest (i.e., Black Hawk Down). Nevertheless, I will admit that the rationale given to strike against Syria does mirror the excuses given for invading Iraq. This is why I'm very much against America's involvement beyond "leveling the playing field" - arm the rebels as Russia is arming the Syrian Army - only in this case it has to be done in multilaterally not unilaterally.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Wtf. Have you been paying attention to the debate, cause it sounds like you just woke up and joined the discussion!?!?

Actually I have been paying very close attention to what has been happening.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Something he could have done a week earlier if he was decisive and had conviction.
A week earlier and they probably didn't have all the intelligence in yet.

Doing so now makes him look confused and unsure of his decisions.
I disagree completely, I think it makes him very aware of the minefield which is the Middle East and it's him getting his ducks in a row before engaging in an attack which could have many different outcomes as a result.

He should be embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for him. Some believe this is just a way for the president to pass the ball to Congress to make a decision only to claim the moral high ground for political gain.
It very well could be. It doesn't change the fact I think it's the right thing to do, as president of the country.

He should not be embarrassed for consulting Congress for approval of a strike in a country which used chemical agents to murder over 1,000 people in the middle of a brutal civil war which has escalated into a regional war. That very sentence alone should suggest to you how difficult of a situation this is. I see no reason why he should be embarrassed for consulting Congress. Like I said, it's not like Obama was told he had to, he chose to.
There is both precedent and law, what could you mean?
I mean why should he be embarrassed over something his chose to do when he didn't really have to?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

Is there anything wrong with feeling that we should just let them kill each other and not get involved?
Sadly, I agree that we shouldn't get involved at all.

I see this conflict as I do the Civil War. What would we think as Americans if another country launched a full attack on the Union for killing too many Confederate soldiers in a way they didn't themselves sanction for us?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Ap...

He should not be embarrassed for consulting Congress for approval of a strike in a country which used chemical agents to murder over 1,000 people in the middle of a brutal civil war which has escalated into a regional war. That very sentence alone should suggest to you how difficult of a situation this is. I see no reason why he should be embarrassed for consulting Congress. Like I said, it's not like Obama was told he had to, he chose to.
I mean why should he be embarrassed over something his chose to do when he didn't really have to?

That Congressional authorization would give the President the kind of legitimacy that is only possible through such authorization is not up for question. The tactical approach was awkward, to say the least. The President had two major approaches that were possible with respect to the timing of his request for Congressional authorization and three major options overall if he wanted to pursue a military response:

1. All but decide a course of action and then seek authorization (that's the approach that was chosen): The problem is that such a tactical approach would be seen as hesitation. In the wake of very real hesitation on Egypt, the risk was especially high that such a course would create unfavorable perceptions. It did. The Assad dictatorship has already portrayed the action as an "historic retreat" by the U.S. The anti-Assad movement, eager for the U.S. to take on the kind of risks it won't take on its own with respect to strategic Syrian military targets, has minimized the support the U.S. has been providing. Domestic ideological opponents have exploited the situation as yet another opportunity to try to score ideological points. There is real risk that the President's ability to argue that a military response is legitimate would be badly undercut if the Congress fails to approve the authorization (probably not the most likely scenario) or a strong minority of either House rejects authorization.

2. Ask for authorization before deciding the final course: That would have required discipline to avoid the temptation "to do something" in the face of the chemical weapons attack. However, were the Congress to authorize a military response, one would not be dealing with the criticism currently being applied to the approach that was taken, much less the damaging perceptions that it created. Were Congress to refuse to authorize a military response, the President would not suffer the kind of PR setback as would happen were Congress to refuse his current request for authorization.

3. Undertake military action as is the President's authority under the War Powers Act and then inform Congress: Some in Congress would make the perennial argument that the President overstepped his "constitutional authority." As has been the case with past limited military responses, such arguments would not carry the day.

During a crisis, one needs a strong response. Commitments made are commitments that need to be acted upon. Ambiguity or uncertainy is not helpful.

Given that the President all but decided on a military response--and walking back what was said does not change the reality--the second and third options were most viable. The approach that was taken has introduced a large sense of uncertainty and that uncertainty was swiftly exploited by all participants to the sectarian conflict, not to mention the President's domestic ideological foes. To outsiders, it has created perceptions of hesitation and weakness. Those perceptions were avoidable had the President pursued the second or third courses of action.

Needless to say, I still believe the best course for the U.S. is to limit its commitments to those that are firmly anchored in its critical interests. That was not the case with Syria's sectarian conflict nor the "red line" that had been drawn (a narrower "red line" against large-scale use of chemical weapons, use against civilians, or large-scale use against civilians would likely have been more effective for purposes of deterrence, as the gap between the U.S. commitment and U.S. interests would have been narrower).

Looking ahead, there is risk that a U.S. effort to "degrade" Syria's strategic military capabilities (an implicit commitment to facilitate regime change) will be met by greater assistance to Assad by Russia, Iran, and/or Hezbollah. If that happens, what will the next U.S. step be? Moreover, are Congress and the President willing to embrace a growing commitment and the costs it would entail? Would such an effort be worth it as no matter who wins the sectarian conflict does not appear to offer any meaningful prospect of adopting policies that would be more consistent with U.S. interests?

Finally, Senator McCain's enthusiastic backing of the Free Syrian Army notwithstanding, the reality is that the opposition has never provided any concrete commitments to adopt policies more conducive to U.S. interests. At the same time, it has never committed to pursuing peace with Israel (a strategic U.S. ally). Domestically, it has never set forth a "constitution-in-waiting" or similar document that would entail inclusive, representative government. It has had more than two years to do so. In contrast, its actions in territory it has gained suggests an illiberal regime with a high probability of persecuting Syria's ethnic and religious minorities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom