• 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

Unitedwestand13 said:
I wonder what the Syrians used to deploy their chemical weapons? If it is deployed by a missile then why not deploy anti middle cruisers to shoot down any more missiles?
Click to expand...

Because the missiles that are used to employ chemical weapons are too short ranged to intercept. By the time out anti-missile assets got a fix on the rockets--IF they got a fix on the rockets--they would be impacting on their targets.
 
Menard_K said:
Just my bit on the subject
EVERYBODY PLEASE
contact your congresscritters & KVETCH a LOT!
tell them to dig in their heels and do NOT allow the warmongers
to launch yet another war of aggression!
Click to expand...

As much as I think we should stay out of this one and that Obama has already made us all look like assholes, a no vote would do great damage to American credibility. Obama has already advertised to the world that he can't walk the walk. Congressional disapproval would only make things worse.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I wonder what the Syrians used to deploy their chemical weapons? If it is deployed by a missile then why not deploy anti middle cruisers to shoot down any more missiles?
Click to expand...


Short distances, no time to target. This was also only a one time thing so far.

I don't think Syria used chemical weapons, and even if they did, it is their county. They might have sent the message that any village harboring the rebels will be treated like the rebels. Why I think happened though, is they targeted a rebel ammunition and it contained the chemicals.

Don't know any as fact, just my gut feeling. Until there is absolute proof Syria used the chemical weapons, we should not act like they did.

Now if chemical weapons were intentionally employed, I think it was by the rebels, to cause this response by Obomba. I think they were hoping for the US to help wipe out Syria's defenses against them like Obomba fell pray to in Libya.
 
apdst said:
As much as I think we should stay out of this one and that Obama has already made us all look like assholes, a no vote would do great damage to American credibility. Obama has already advertised to the world that he can't walk the walk. Congressional disapproval would only make things worse.
Click to expand...

As it should.

Congress needs to stand up to this president.
 
Lord of Planar said:
As it should.

Congress needs to stand up to this president.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this one, my friend. It's America's credibility that's at stake here. Everyone already knows that Obama is a puss.
 
Hopefully they vote against it.Were going broke,we bailed out on Iraq and it seems to later bite us in the ass when we interfere. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. So I would rather be damned and not spend a dime than to be damned and spend trillions of dollars.
 
apdst said:
You're wrong on this one, my friend. It's America's credibility that's at stake here. Everyone already knows that Obama is a puss.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Americans should worry too much about what the rest of the world thinks because many don't like Americans anyway. Being the only country that has mattered for the last 70 years has created a lot of friends and enemies, but America serving American interests has had more positive effects in its history than negative. As other posters have mentioned, it doesn't much matter either way if credibility is the issue.
 
Grant said:
They should consider how many Syrians they will have to kill in order to prevent Syrians from killing Syrians.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the end, we cannot win. A win would only be a stable government. That is not going to happen with those Obomba wants to help.
 
apdst said:
You're wrong on this one, my friend. It's America's credibility that's at stake here. Everyone already knows that Obama is a puss.
Click to expand...

That's why congress voting for no action is the only right answer.
 
Grant said:
I don't think the Americans should worry too much about what the rest of the world thinks because many don't like Americans anyway. Being the only country that has mattered for the last 70 years has created a lot of friends and enemies, but America serving American interests has had more positive effects in its history than negative. As other posters have mentioned, it doesn't much matter either way if credibility is the issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about popularity. I'm talking about credibility of action.
 
apdst said:
As much as I think we should stay out of this one and that Obama has already made us all look like assholes, a no vote would do great damage to American credibility. Obama has already advertised to the world that he can't walk the walk. Congressional disapproval would only make things worse.
Click to expand...

Good evening, apdst. :2wave:

I don't understand your post. BHO speaks for BHO. Disapproval would make things worse for who? Are you stating that Congress should vote Yes, otherwise we look like we're not united? Other countries follow what's happening in DC more than most US citizens do. :?:
 
Sietske22 said:
The Congressional GOP leadership supports this move by Obama.

so do I.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily - Boehner has been quoted as saying he won't be twisting any arms or rounding up votes - it will be up to Obama and the administration to convince people and whip the vote. That tells me that at least on the House side there's not sufficient support on the Republican side to get this passed and Democrats will have to swing the vote.
 
apdst said:
I'm not talking about popularity. I'm talking about credibility of action.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here, Apst. Will America lose credibility if it doesn't act or is it that the military must finish the job completely in order to be credible?
 
I wonder if Obomba can get anywhere close to the 68.6% yes in The House and 77% yes in The Senate, that Bush got? Bush may have only got a 38.9% yes from the house Democrats, but he did get 58% of the senate democrats.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder if Obomba can get anywhere close to the 68.6% yes in The House and 77% yes in The Senate, that Bush got? Bush may have only got a 38.9% yes from the house Democrats, but he did get 58% of the senate democrats.
Click to expand...

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say.
 
There's going to be some interesting alliances for when Congress inevitably approves Obama's Syrian quagmire.

The people who hate Obama and oppose him no matter what will ally with the war weary Dems and vote no. Then there's the people on the other end of the fence. The folks who support Obama no matter what will ally with the warmongers. There's some overlap too. Plenty of people who hate Obama will cross the fence and support war profiteering. And then there's the one or two people in Congress who just don't see why we should be there.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not necessarily - Boehner has been quoted as saying he won't be twisting any arms or rounding up votes - it will be up to Obama and the administration to convince people and whip the vote. That tells me that at least on the House side there's not sufficient support on the Republican side to get this passed and Democrats will have to swing the vote.
Click to expand...

Chancey, IMO, because not all Democrats agree on what should be done about Syria. Plus, a lot still remember the heat that Dems took on the Iraq vote. We still don't know definitively who used the chemical weapons, but the UN report stated it was the rebels!
 
polgara said:
Chancey, IMO, because not all Democrats agree on what should be done about Syria. Plus, a lot still remember the heat that Dems took on the Iraq vote. We still don't know definitively who used the chemical weapons, but the UN report stated it was the rebels!
Click to expand...

Yes, and I find it odd that this administration is going to disagree with the UN.
 
Lord of Planar said:
As it should.

Congress needs to stand up to this president.
Click to expand...

That's a joke. The senate will be in lock step with Barry and there are enough progressive republicans in the house to give him anything he wants. Just what exactly does Obama want to bomb for two days anyway?
 
Lord of Planar said:
So why does the UN say what it does?
Click to expand...

i don't know, but no one on here besides myself care enough to be asking such details.

i don't think the rebels could have been the ones behind the attacks, mainly because it is my belief that chemical weapons require specialist training in order to handle them. i don't think the rebel forces have any one with the knowledge to handle chemical weapons, and the only way we would know if they did use chemical weapons is if the chemical weapons blew up in their faces or backfired on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom