• 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

No, I prefer not to attack Syria.

I'm on the fence I guess. My first instinct is to say it's not our fight and we have no skin in the game. Most folks say you should always go with your first instinct. But OTOH, someone asked if we did the right thing stopping Hitler from gassing more Jews. Of course I would agree that we did the right thing, since I am a Jew and have skin in the game. So who am I to say stopping Assad from gassing more people is wrong.
 
:prof The lesson here Mr. President, is never threaten someone and then pull out a butter-knife.
 
I'm on the fence I guess. My first instinct is to say it's not our fight and we have no skin in the game. Most folks say you should always go with your first instinct. But OTOH, someone asked if we did the right thing stopping Hitler from gassing more Jews. Of course I would agree that we did the right thing, since I am a Jew and have skin in the game. So who am I to say stopping Assad from gassing more people is wrong.

I am sensitive to the argument that the use of chemical weapons shouldn't go unpunished. But the Obama Administration hasn't really thought this through.
Either the response is indeed a very limited strike of the sort they propose. If that is the case Assad will most likely survive and remain in place and keep the upper hand. The net result being exeactly the opposite of what is intended, i.e. the message will be given that if you use chemical weapons you can easily survive that.
Otherwise the US would have to launch a campaign designed to really cripple Assad, but that would mean direct and protracted involvement in the civil war and bringing to power some very unsavoury characters who would massacre people too and who are at least as anti-American as Assad.
Given this range of options, the best thing is to do nothing right now. The only thing that would be meaningful would be if the US could, in a series of strikes, take out all of Assad's chemical weapons. But that doesn't really sound feasable (unlikely we would get them all and not sure the collateral damage could be contained).
 
Personally, I disagree with that being a limit. The constitution specifically grants congress two executive rights. To wage war, and grant letters of marque. In doing so, it does not say it removes these common law rights from the president. Don't bother arguing this point with me, been there several times already with several people over the years. I just wanted to point this out.

However...

Any president would be foolish to wage a war that congress will not support financially! To force congress to pass any bill granting such action then makes it a moral requirement for them to support the finances of it.

The Constitution doesnt say the President has the right to wage war, period. He must have Congressional approval.

The War Powers act allows a President to act without Congress on an imminent threat, Syria has not posed an imminent threat to the US.
 
Last edited:
Very true. I will include our allies in that however. I do believe we should carry some obligations of the would that do not directly threaten us. Probably the only think I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on. If I were to agree with taking action, it would be against the rebels who are trying to overthrow otherwise, somewhat stable governments.

Its their civil war, its their business. We should not be getting involved.

We already lost an ambassador & a few others over running guns to Syria....hasnt our involvement cost too much already? and for what? So we can help Al-Quida (sp?) get control of another country?

We as a country...well at least our politicians...need to realize we are not the worlds police and we need to stop acting as such.
 
It takes a big man to step in and threaten to kick the crap out of somebody. It takes a bigger man to back out of the threat when he realizes that the lone act would not accomplish anything.
 
Well, we already have a war on terror and if we do go in perhaps we should broadcast that as well...We seem to know where they are located...

Yes.....we do know where the Rebels are located. Plus we wont even be able to hit their command center. As that is in Turkey where most of the FSA Leadership hides out while all the fighting is going on.

So it all should be Joy Joy for those Like France and us who says something has to be done to show the rest of the world that using Chems is not tolerated.

Course those that are our enemies and those who are about Power acquired thru whatever means. Will surely listen to us and think we best never eva do that. :roll:
 
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.

The CIA has training camps in Jordan where these extremists are receiving the necessary training and then being sent into Syria to work at toppling the Syrian government.
 
The use of chemical weapons is a win win for the terrorist rebels and loose loose for the Syrian government. Russia and Chinas support of the Syrian government is tied to them not using chemical weapons or any targeting of civilians. Assad desperately needs to maintain the support of his people China and Russia. Assad using chemical weapons defies ALL logic, he didn't do it, the US can't prove he did, nor could UN inspectors with boots on the ground. This was the work of the extremists with help.
 
The use of chemical weapons is a win win for the terrorist rebels and loose loose for the Syrian government. Russia and Chinas support of the Syrian government is tied to them not using chemical weapons or any targeting of civilians. Assad desperately needs to maintain the support of his people China and Russia. Assad using chemical weapons defies ALL logic, he didn't do it, the US can't prove he did, nor could UN inspectors with boots on the ground. This was the work of the extremists with help.

Reference:

"Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

"We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”



» Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

//
 
Libya = Gadaffi = Pan Am Flight 103 = Operation El Dorado Canyon = dirtbag needed to die. I'm glad Obama went into Libya to take care of business. It was a long time coming. Shame we lost four American patriots while they were trying to get our weapons back after they were done using them. That part really bothers me.

So you advocate murder.

Gaddafi never claimed responsibility for the actions taken.

I remember that operation along with actions taken in the Gulf of Sidra. We went into a high state of alert when I was in the military.

Thing is, if we were to take Gaddafi out for those reasons, we should have done it then. Not 25 years later. That is a very, very poor excuse.

Since that time had passed, Gaddafi had mellowed. He actually became a great leader. Dislike him all you want, but Libya prospered under his rule. Libya has a literacy rate of 89.2% (2010 stats.) Gaddafi had the 8th Wonder built, and it was bombed by us... Libya had the highest HDI rate of all African nations, and higher than nations like Mexico. It has since slipped about 10 places among other nations.

Libya was moving in a positive direction. We should have never aided the overthrow by the rebels.

now...

In the name of peace, we want to help more rebels? I can't believe this BS is happening.
 
The Constitution doesnt say the President has the right to wage war, period. He must have Congressional approval.

The War Powers act allows a President to act without Congress on an imminent threat, Syria has not posed an imminent threat to the US.
Common law isn't duplicated by the constitution. Common law was recognized as remaining the same, unless a change was made to it. It was common law of the time that the head of state could wage war.
 
I was so angry when I heard the news...President Obama better have a dam good reason for doing this--like pushing for more extensive action than a limited and narrow strike... Right now the FSA feels betrayed, The Syrian Regime feels emboldened, and the USA feels embarrassed, or should...

A man who almost became president said the U.S. should bomb Syria, and called Obama's reluctance to intervene shameful.
What's your opinion of McCain?
 
The original plan was to go in immediately to take out the launchers and air fields so it would be more difficult to launch chemical weapons and to punish them for launching these gas attacks on their own people, and to discourage others from doing so...It is not necessary to foam at the mouth and attack me...


It is FAR from confirmed that the Syrian government committed the very illogical, self defeating act of targeting their own civilian population, that support them btw, with chemical weapons. And, it would frustrate China and Russia's credibility in supporting the Syrian government. There simply is no logic to Assad having done this!!
 
Agreed. This attack is all wrong. I can't remember a president ever openly attacking another nation to "send a message". Talk about considering the US the world's police or baby sitter! If he wanted to send that message he should have acted and then explained why he hit Syria with 25 missiles etc. This is being handled all backwards.


Reagan, did that in Tripoli.
 


A man who almost became president said the U.S. should bomb Syria, and called Obama's reluctance to intervene shameful.
What's your opinion of McCain?



I call McCain's insistence that the president should oppose the overwhelming view of the people, congress and UN/International law, Shameful.
 
I'm on the fence I guess. My first instinct is to say it's not our fight and we have no skin in the game. Most folks say you should always go with your first instinct. But OTOH, someone asked if we did the right thing stopping Hitler from gassing more Jews. Of course I would agree that we did the right thing, since I am a Jew and have skin in the game. So who am I to say stopping Assad from gassing more people is wrong.


Who are you to say Assad has gassed his own people when this hasn't been confirmed and is a very illogical proposition to begin with.
 
Libya = Gadaffi = Pan Am Flight 103 = Operation El Dorado Canyon = dirtbag needed to die. I'm glad Obama went into Libya to take care of business. It was a long time coming. Shame we lost four American patriots while they were trying to get our weapons back after they were done using them. That part really bothers me.

What about the parts you are leaving out? The world finally had a nut case leader that saw the light and changed his ways completely, was working with the west, swore off terror, swore off weapons of mass destruction and was not causing trouble for his neighbors.
For years the west tried to get him to do just that. He finally does what the civilized world wants and Obama had him killed.

What do you think that tells the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other country led by similar types?

The entire Libya operation was brain dead stupid. And not just for what went on in Libya itself.
 
Common law isn't duplicated by the constitution. Common law was recognized as remaining the same, unless a change was made to it. It was common law of the time that the head of state could wage war.

An unwritten assumed law? really? Thats a weak argument even for an obedient Obamaite.

We dont live by unwritten laws, we are supposed to be governed by the Constitution and as such no President ever has been given the ultimate authority to wage war all on his orders without Congressional approval.

Even Obama & Biden have said such. Thats what makes this all the more stupid.
 
What about the parts you are leaving out? The world finally had a nut case leader that saw the light and changed his ways completely, was working with the west, swore off terror, swore off weapons of mass destruction and was not causing trouble for his neighbors.
For years the west tried to get him to do just that. He finally does what the civilized world wants and Obama had him killed.

What do you think that tells the leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other country led by similar types?

The entire Libya operation was brain dead stupid. And not just for what went on in Libya itself.

A leopard never changes it's spots. Gadaffi got exactly what he deserved, whether or not he had a come-to-jesus moment along the way. I'm not in the forgiveness business. That's between him and his god. He killed people on that Pan Am flight and he had to die.
 
Who are you to say Assad has gassed his own people when this hasn't been confirmed and is a very illogical proposition to begin with.

Obama says he did it. If you think some stupid media station like FOX has more information than the CIA, NSA, M7, etc. then I think you are backing the wrong horse. Assad has to die. I say take the bad guy out and move on.
 
If Obama SAYS he did it and that's all you need, we haven't anything to debate. Btw, all the same (and some more) intell sources that you cite we're wrong on Iraq.
 
A leopard never changes it's spots. Gadaffi got exactly what he deserved, whether or not he had a come-to-jesus moment along the way. I'm not in the forgiveness business. That's between him and his god. He killed people on that Pan Am flight and he had to die.

I'm not in the forgiveness business either. Nor am I in the stupid business. Creating additional problems, especially with current enemies, to settle old scores is stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom