• 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!

Congress not rushing back for Syria vote

Where did Syria get these weapons? Maybe these are the ones Saddam moved out of Iraq before we gave him the big wupass?
 
Well, you said it yourself I think. It is about values/right and wrong and it is never too late to do right.. We should have intervened in a more helpful way two years ago, now it will be more difficult, but can still be done.. We cannot be seen by the world as weak..That will embolden our enemies to do whatever they want.. All we have done is to postpone the action, giving Syria time to remove their planes, move their chemical weapons, hide their launchers and coordinate with Iran and Hezbollah...

Going through the proper channels, following the rule of LAW will be admired by the world, not seen as weak. Other countries are backing off because the White house can't deliver the goods in terms of evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
 
The whole thing is sad/funny.

This is purely a hypothetical situation to illustrate a concept.
What if some nation..whoever...said that due to ongoing human rights abuses and possessing WMD, that they will soon fire some missles at us to "punish" us?
LMAO..what if they lobbed a few rockets at washington?
Would that be an unprovoked act of aggression and war? Would we just say' Oh my, you're right!..We'll now cease and desist our bad behavior now that you've shown us the error of our ways".


..Oh yeah...and let's not forget, this country is the only nation in the world to USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS...and we used them ON CIVILIANS..now tell me where we get the "moral authority" to run other people's business?
 
If we go to Syria we need to have a solid plan and get the job done right. We can't afford to intervene only to have some terrorist organization or Muslim extremist government taking control.


I assume by doing it right you mean toppling the Syrian government and putting in another government. The rebels have failed to cooperate effectively with one another and none of the factions would be satisfied with the other in control. The Syrian people prefer the status quo of their government over the uncertainties of the terrorist rebels, they've observed Iraq, Egypt and Libya.
 
We don't have to take over anyplace.. We may not be the worlds police, but we are a world leader--"The" world leader and thus we have responsibilities.. By using chemical weapons on civilians including women and over 400 children, Syria broke the rules..

It has not been established that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. And when it served US purposes, they have provided and encouraged the use of chemical weapons in the past, so your great world leader has no credibility!!
 
Mornin' INF. :2wave: Yeah and I wouldn't trust Corker on this one. He is in line with McCain and just came back recently from over there. But like you I am glad to see Obama.....DO THE RIGHT THING for Once!!!!!

Albeit.....a bit late. Still better late than sorry.

Unless a ton of questions get answered between now and the Congress vote, I dont see him getting authorization...this is his "out"...he can save face if Congress does not give him authorization. He wont look like a cowboy or a coward.

Good move on his part....politically speaking. He can spin it that the Republicans wouldnt give him permission so;
more people in Syria will die....Republicans gave the OK for use of chemical weapons by dictators....fill in your own blame the Republicans rant here.

If he does act against the vote in Congress and attacks anyway, I would hope that impeachment proceedings would start the second the first missile was launched.
 
Where did Syria get these weapons? Maybe these are the ones Saddam moved out of Iraq before we gave him the big wupass?

It's still not clear why people weren't terribly upset when Saddam gassed his own people but are now ready to drop bombs when Assad does the same.

These mixed messages only encourage dictators.
 
I assume by doing it right you mean toppling the Syrian government and putting in another government. The rebels have failed to cooperate effectively with one another and none of the factions would be satisfied with the other in control. The Syrian people prefer the status quo of their government over the uncertainties of the terrorist rebels, they've observed Iraq, Egypt and Libya.

Why dont we just stay out of another countries civil war?

If we were to put in place a puppet government of our choosing, they would blame the US for every bad thing that happens there for the next however long the puppet government stands.

We should just stay out of it and let them handle it themselves...good or bad outcome.
 
It's still not clear why people weren't terribly upset when Saddam gassed his own people but are now ready to drop bombs when Assad does the same.

These mixed messages only encourage dictators.

No one even knows if Assad's government did this yet.
 
I completely disagree. Bush was improving relations with Libya, and Obomba blew the country to hell. Just one example.

Obama obtained UN authorization for use of force in Libya, Russia and China supported it for its stated purpose, to protect the Libyan civilians. But Obama abused the resolution to overthrow the Libyan government, that is what pissed off China and Russia, that is why they have denied him a resolution at the UN for Syria and this is what you get when you betray your partners. The US has no credibility and needs to get out of the way.
 
The Constitution requires Congressional authorization for war because it is less likely to pull the trigger than an imperial president. This is the first time Obama has followed the constitutional mandate on a major policy decision. I don't think his reason was constitutional however. He wants to bomb Syria but that is so unpopular with the American people that he is hoping that Congress will take some of the heat from the electorate. Asking Congress to share the blame is a calculated political decision. This administration makes Bush look like a foreign policy genius.

I think you're mostly right, but I think this President is so weak of character that he cannot act alone unless others are prepared to lead and allow him to jump to the front of the line when the action starts. He opposed moving on Libya until the French pushed it in NATO and it became a NATO action and then Obama jumped to the front of the line. Obama now finds himself out on the ledge all by himself, claiming he's gonna do it, he's gonna jump, but he now wants congress to take the tough decision.

How stupid and feeble he looks - he claims he doesn't need congress's approval to act but he's going to hold up action, action he just last week claimed was absolutely needed and required, and wait a couple of weeks. If he loses the vote, is he still going to act? Leaders lead, they don't shoot their mouths off and then hide behind their friends.
 
You can always tell when a liberal has run out of excuses for Obamas failures: they circle back to blame Bush. Seriously dude, Obama is in his second term as president. In Hilary Clinton, he had the (supposed) greatest Secretary of State in the history of Secretary of Statedom. Yet in the face of mass slaughter and WMD use, Obama cant cobble together a single ally to take action. And you blame Bush? Blind partisanship only serves to make you look, well, blind. Open your eyes. Obama botched this all by himself.

Russia and China vetoed any use of force, sanctions or no fly zone at the UN. That's what shuts things down.
 
Going through the proper channels, following the rule of LAW will be admired by the world, not seen as weak. Other countries are backing off because the White house can't deliver the goods in terms of evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.
 
Russia and China vetoed any use of force, sanctions or no fly zone at the UN. That's what shuts things down.

Obama is way out of his depth here. He should go back to the golf course and the American people can just wait him out and hopefully start fresh with someone who has had some experience.
 
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.

I'm not sure about that. He did capture the dolt vote. They even gave him a Nobel Prize!!
 
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.


Well not to disagree with that, but US presidents haven't followed proper channels for a long time. In this case you look at the will of the people, military action in Syria is widely unpopular. But the second step is congress, if you don't secure congressional approval, the UN is a moot point. Yet the US has been at the UN for nearly three years. Bassakwards.
 
The Constitution requires Congressional authorization for war because it is less likely to pull the trigger than an imperial president. This is the first time Obama has followed the constitutional mandate on a major policy decision. I don't think his reason was constitutional however. He wants to bomb Syria but that is so unpopular with the American people that he is hoping that Congress will take some of the heat from the electorate. Asking Congress to share the blame is a calculated political decision. This administration makes Bush look like a foreign policy genius.

Some of the calls for a vote was calculated too. There was a lot of assumption from the GOP that there wouldn't be a vote and they wouldn't have to go on record one way or the other. There's a lot of pants-****ting going on from Congressmen who will have to go on record. There are those who are happy because they can go on record for or against on both sides, but there's a large group on both sides who are scared to do so.

Every Congressman who voted to go war in Iraq because they had WMDs (which they did) are going to have to say why we don't do it to Assad, who has WMDs and supports terrorist groups. I don't think it's a good idea to get involved because it's just a bad idea to get involved in a civil war, especially one where there's no "good guys." Same reason I didn't support the war in Iraq because it resulted in a civil war.
 
True enough - but if they could vote to take it back, don't you think they would?

Maybe the Nobel Peace Prize people would, but the people I run into who voted for Obama are still convinced he's the most wonderful, fair-minded President we've had in decades--"and of course, there's the terrible mess he inherited from Bush, and look how beautifully he's coped; no one could have done better."
 
I think you're mostly right, but I think this President is so weak of character that he cannot act alone unless others are prepared to lead and allow him to jump to the front of the line when the action starts. He opposed moving on Libya until the French pushed it in NATO and it became a NATO action and then Obama jumped to the front of the line. Obama now finds himself out on the ledge all by himself, claiming he's gonna do it, he's gonna jump, but he now wants congress to take the tough decision.

How stupid and feeble he looks - he claims he doesn't need congress's approval to act but he's going to hold up action, action he just last week claimed was absolutely needed and required, and wait a couple of weeks. If he loses the vote, is he still going to act? Leaders lead, they don't shoot their mouths off and then hide behind their friends.

Mornin CJ. :2wave: Well truthfully it wasn't Obama on the Libyan issue. It was Susan Rice. She got outplayed in the UN. France had filed resolution and in a meeting without the US. The French and Brits officially recogonized the Libyan Rebels at that time. From that time Obama and Clinton had to play catch. Which Rice had caused Hillary to have to reeaddress the statement she had released at the time. Then Obama jumped and took the lead.

Assad even released a statement on what he felt about Obama and this issue. Also Iran. So now the smack talkin' really begins.
 
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Some of our allies seem to be having second thoughts, don't they? And it sounds like a lot of people here in the US agree with them! And wouldn't bombing chemical weapons caches release those chemicals into the atmosphere, to be carried by the winds all over the planet? I sure hope someone has thought about a better way to handle that! :shock:
 
So it goes to congress, congress votes down military action in Syria, Obama saves face and the world gets a lesson on how to back the US down. It's a win win situation.
 
Well not to disagree with that, but US presidents haven't followed proper channels for a long time. In this case you look at the will of the people, military action in Syria is widely unpopular. But the second step is congress, if you don't secure congressional approval, the UN is a moot point. Yet the US has been at the UN for nearly three years. Bassakwards.

Really? Seems to me that GWB went to congress for approval for both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as to the UN - he got UN approval for the former but not for the latter, but still got congressional approval before he had his entire defense and foreign relations cabinet out discussing targets.

You're right about Obama though - he has a history of ignoring both congress and the constitution. Do you remember Obama addressing congress before engaging with NATO in Libya? I don't. Obama is so arrogant, on a regular basis he gloats about not bothering with those guys at the other end of the street and ignores the legislative process in favor of ignoring the enforcement of laws he doesn't like and creating new law through executive order. If the Clinton impeachment hadn't happened, I'm 100% certain that Obama would be impeached - but that's impossible now, due to Clinton.
 
Back
Top Bottom