• 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 ready to move on Syria without allies

Why, whats the up side to the US firing on a nation involved in its own civil war?
The only upside I can see is that since Obama put his credibility and, thus, the credibility of the United States on the line when he made his ill-considered statement about a "red line," bombing Syria would keep his and our credibility in tact. Aside from that, I don't see any real benefit.
 
The only upside I can see is that since Obama put his credibility and, thus, the credibility of the United States on the line when he made his ill-considered statement about a "red line," bombing Syria would keep his and our credibility in tact. Aside from that, I don't see any real benefit.

His credibilty is worth peoples lives? Millions of dollars for hardware?
He is looking like a bully that ran off at the mouth and the other guy ignored him.
Now he has to go farther and take a swing and start the fight that he really didnt want to.
I will put cold hard cash down that this will not end well.
 
The only upside I can see is that since Obama put his credibility and, thus, the credibility of the United States on the line when he made his ill-considered statement about a "red line," bombing Syria would keep his and our credibility in tact. Aside from that, I don't see any real benefit.


Bombing a country that HAS NOT ATTACKED US does nothing to shore up our credibility.
 
Bombing a country that HAS NOT ATTACKED US does nothing to shore up our credibility.
Pretty much sums it up.
I still feel like Obama wants HIS war. Bush's hand me down wars just dont solidify his name in the books as a leader.
This is pure narcissism.
If he pushes this and there is ANY retaliaton, the blood will be on his hands.
 
Pretty much sums it up.
I still feel like Obama wants HIS war. Bush's hand me down wars just dont solidify his name in the books as a leader.
This is pure narcissism.
If he pushes this and there is ANY retaliaton, the blood will be on his hands.

I don't know, I suppose its possible that its all Obama by himself. But considering he has delayed and delayed any unauthorised action for nearly three years, that seems unlikely. John McCains and Lindsey Graham's lust for action as well as lots of other neocons shows there are plenty besides Obama pushing for this. But most importantly of all, regime change has been a stated goal of Washington for years now, this transcends presidencies, and despite Washington's assurances yesterday that this was not about regime change, Obama stated multiple times at the beginning of the Syrian conflict, that Assad has got to go!
 
I don't know, I suppose its possible that its all Obama by himself. But considering he has delayed and delayed any unauthorised action for nearly three years, that seems unlikely. John McCains and Lindsey Graham's lust for action as well as lots of other neocons shows there are plenty besides Obama pushing for this. But most importantly of all, regime change has been a stated goal of Washington for years now, this transcends presidencies, and despite Washington's assurances yesterday that this was not about regime change, Obama stated multiple times at the beginning of the Syrian conflict, that Assad has got to go!

I used to like McCain but lately he is worrying me. Kinda same with Graham.
These are guys that need to worry about things like jobs in their state, not a civil war in Syria.
I wonder why they are pushing for it, after years of tearing down Obama at every chance.
I see a quandry, so we may have to shoot all three. LOL
 
Well, here's another chance for Obama to do the wrong thing.
 
See: "Wars Power Resolution"

The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, is only a piece of paper. It was violated by Reagan, in his support of the Contras, and again by Clinton, in his war in Serbia and Kosovo.
 
And Obama in Libya. Just a piece of paper huh, sounds a lot like our constitution.
 
And Obama in Libya. Just a piece of paper huh, sounds a lot like our constitution.

Obama didn't stay in Libya for more than 60 days, which is what the limit is under the War Powers Act.
 
Obama didn't stay in Libya for more than 60 days, which is what the limit is under the War Powers Act.

No, but he used the resolution to use force to protect civilians, to overthrow the Libyan government. That's what pissed off Russia and China and has been cited by some as an impeachable offense. But also, the war powers act gave a president 60 days so that he could immediately respond to a threat or attack, and then bring it to congress after the fact. We were neither threatened or attacked. But this is the way the US rolls anymore. **** the constitution, **** the rule of law, **** international law. We've got to feed the MIC.
 
I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq. Obama cant even get the Brits. Surveillance, drones, Gitmo, gunboat diplomacy, WMD, move over Bush, looks like there is a new Cowboy in town.
Actually, they do love us. Where else are they guaranteed a belly-wrenching, knee-slapping laugh on a daily basis?
 
Back
Top Bottom