• 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

Montecresto said:
Russia and China vetoed any use of force, sanctions or no fly zone at the UN. That's what shuts things down.
Click to expand...
If our national security or interests were at stake, what happens in the UN woudnt matter.
 
Pstreet1 said:
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."
Click to expand...

You have to try harder to break out of that mental hospital you're trapped in - you clearly are spending too much time with the delusional. :lol:
 
polgara said:
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:
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P.

I don't know about the chemical weapons in Syria, but a lot of chemical weapons consist of chemicals that are not volatile now but would be when mixed and then released. A lot of these have a very short shelf-life if they are "active" and so they are held in a dormant state until the holder wants to release them.
 
Fletch said:
If our national security or interests were at stake, what happens in the UN woudnt matter.
Click to expand...

If our national security was at stake we would have secured a UN resolution, the whole reason it was denied is because we FAILED to demonstrate to the security council that the Assad government is a threat to our national security!
 
CanadaJohn said:
Does anyone have confidence that Obama and his gang have a clue what they're doing?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Of course it's deliberate idiocy at it's finest but it is what it is.
 
CanadaJohn said:
True enough - but if they could vote to take it back, don't you think they would?
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. They must cringe every time they think of that. At least I hope they do.

But their credibility had waned a great deal anyway and their selections have become more like the Oscars. Does anyone really care anymore?
 
Montecresto said:
If our national security was at stake we would have secured a UN resolution, the whole reason it was denied is because we FAILED to demonstrate to the security council that the Assad government is a threat to our national security!
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that is just false. The UN isn't the arbiter of US national interest. That job falls primarily with the POTUS, not our enemies, tyrants and thugs at the UN.
 
Montecresto said:
If our national security was at stake we would have secured a UN resolution, the whole reason it was denied is because we FAILED to demonstrate to the security council that the Assad government is a threat to our national security!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the UN Security Council doesn't care one bit about what's in the national security interests of the United States. They reacted in the Afghanistan instance, because they all, particularly Russia, had experience with terrorists on their own soil and taking on the terrorists after 9/11 was in the security interests of the world, not just the US. The UN Security Council, on a regular basis, ignores the interests of the US and the west in general. The Chinese and Russians have their veto card in their hands ready to wave all the time.

GWB made it clear that the national interests of the United States were not dependent upon the good will of the UN - he would act, whether the UN approved it or not. America's true friends acted with America in Iraq.

As I've said on many occasions, I'd love to see Canada tell the UN to go **** themselves, take our dues and other supports for that useless, corrupt body, and join the US and other like minded democratic nations in a similar, more useful, more morally justifiable body.
 
Fletch said:
Sorry, but that is just false. The UN isn't the arbiter of US national interest. That job falls primarily with the POTUS, not our enemies, tyrants and thugs at the UN.
Click to expand...


Well that's quite the belligerent attitude. Syria is not a threat to our national security.
 
Montecresto said:
Well that's quite the belligerent attitude. Syria is not a threat to our national security.
Click to expand...
I am not actually making the case for or against Syrian action being in our interest. I am simply pointing out that it is WE who determine the answer to that question, not the UN.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, I think the UN Security Council doesn't care one bit about what's in the national security interests of the United States. They reacted in the Afghanistan instance, because they all, particularly Russia, had experience with terrorists on their own soil and taking on the terrorists after 9/11 was in the security interests of the world, not just the US. The UN Security Council, on a regular basis, ignores the interests of the US and the west in general. The Chinese and Russians have their veto card in their hands ready to wave all the time.

GWB made it clear that the national interests of the United States were not dependent upon the good will of the UN - he would act, whether the UN approved it or not. America's true friends acted with America in Iraq.

As I've said on many occasions, I'd love to see Canada tell the UN to go **** themselves, take our dues and other supports for that useless, corrupt body, and join the US and other like minded democratic nations in a similar, more useful, more morally justifiable body.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. The US hasn't ever used the veto card? And if you tell the the UN that their only relevant when they agree with you, your a belligerent, you may as well not be a member.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Give me a break. The US hasn't ever used the veto card. And if you tell the the UN that their only relevant when they agree with you, your a belligerent, you may as well not be a member.
Click to expand...
If the UN is going to be in charge of deciding what the US national interest is, I don't want to be a member. They need us more than we need them. Nato, on the other hand is a bit of a different story. We share a great deal of common interests with those members. But still, NATO doesn't determine our US national interest either.
 
Fletch said:
I am not actually making the case for or against Syrian action being in our interest. I am simply pointing out that it is WE who determine the answer to that question, not the UN.
Click to expand...


Why do you suppose the US has been to the UN asking permission for the use of military force in Syria?
 
Montecresto said:
Give me a break. The US hasn't ever used the veto card. And if you tell the the UN that their only relevant when they agree with you, your a belligerent, you may as well not be a member.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just demonstrably false - the US uses its veto power in the UN Security Council on a regular basis, particularly as it relates to sanctions against Israel. And secondly, if the UN is always on the side of tyrants, despots, human rights abusers, murderers etc., then damn right I'm belligerent and damn right I don't want to be a member and it embarrasses me as a person and as a Canadian that my country still belongs.
 
Fletch said:
If the UN is going to be in charge of deciding what the US national interest is, I don't want to be a member. They need us more than we need them. Nato, on the other hand is a bit of a different story. We share a great deal of common interests with those members. But still, NATO doesn't determine our US national interest either.
Click to expand...

We've had a president tell us that a particular country was a threat to our national security, you know, a mushroom cloud over a US city.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, but that's just demonstrably false - the US uses its veto power in the UN Security Council on a regular basis, particularly as it relates to sanctions against Israel. And secondly, if the UN is always on the side of tyrants, despots, human rights abusers, murderers etc., then damn right I'm belligerent and damn right I don't want to be a member and it embarrasses me as a person and as a Canadian that my country still belongs.
Click to expand...

My apologies, it was to be a rhetorical QUESTION, I left out the question mark.
 
Montecresto said:
Why do you suppose the US has been to the UN asking permission for the use of military force in Syria?
Click to expand...
Because we want other members to join us. But do we really need any other nations help to launch Cruise Missals? No. Not sure why you want to give Russia and China a say in what OUR interest are. Do you want criminals to help write our laws too?
 
Obama has turned his red line into a farce for the whole world to see. If he was serious then he would have called back the congress as they did in Britain and gotten the vote quickly. Then he could go home or pursue action.

Now we are left with the option of going home with our tail between out legs or blow up a bunch of empty buildings and recently vacated weapons sites.

People here who long to go back to the 19th century when two oceans protected us so we thought isolationism was the best policy will find out what it means to have no world leadership. What it truly means to mankind when no one cares unless it happens to "us".
 
Montecresto said:
We've had a president tell us that a particular country was a threat to our national security, you know, a mushroom cloud over a US city.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that US presidents opinions on the matter are infallible. I am just saying that the decision falls to our political leadership. If they are in error, they might be out of job. The point is, WE control and determine our interests, not other nations.
 
Montecresto said:
Well that's quite the belligerent attitude. Syria is not a threat to our national security.
Click to expand...

Quite right. And we can see that the 'reformer' Assad is not all bad.

“There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

--Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on “Face the Nation,” March 27, 2011
 
Fletch said:
Because we want other members to join us. But do we really need any other nations help to launch Cruise Missals? No. Not sure why you want to give Russia and China a say in what OUR interest are. Do you want criminals to help write our laws too?
Click to expand...

Well we've had criminals writing our laws for sometime already.
 
Fletch said:
I am not saying that US presidents opinions on the matter are infallible. I am just saying that the decision falls to our political leadership. If they are in error, they might be out of job. The point is, WE control and determine our interests, not other nations.
Click to expand...


You must have missed Jeff Sessions grilling Leon Panetta about this when Sessions was trying to get Panetta to agree that the White House needs to secure authorization for war from congress, not the UN. only Panetta wouldn't concede. He said they would secure authorization from the UN and then inform congress of their intentions.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Sorry, but that's just demonstrably false - the US uses its veto power in the UN Security Council on a regular basis, particularly as it relates to sanctions against Israel. And secondly, if the UN is always on the side of tyrants, despots, human rights abusers, murderers etc., then damn right I'm belligerent and damn right I don't want to be a member and it embarrasses me as a person and as a Canadian that my country still belongs.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they get it right. Canada stands tall at UN - Ezra Levant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom