• 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!

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action'

Mornin CJ :2wave: .....it would appear Obama is going thru the formality. I think sending the Nimitz and it's Entire Strike Group to the Red Sea. May put things into perspective.


OBAMA'S DILEMMA

This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN, saying he had confidence lawmakers "will do what is right because they understand the stakes."

In a round of television appearances, Kerry declined to say whether Obama would proceed with military action if Congress rejects his request, as Britain's parliament did last week.

He echoed Obama's comments in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, insisting the president had the right to act on his own if he chooses that course.

Obama is taking a gamble by putting the brakes on the military assault he considers essential to maintain U.S. credibility after he had said the use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line" for the United States.

U.S. military officials are using the delay to reassess which ships will be used for a strike, and which sites in Syria to target. One change was a decision to send the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its entire strike group toward the Red Sea to help support the Syria strike, if needed.

Underscoring a sense of wariness even from Obama's traditional allies, many Democrats joined Republicans in saying the use-of-force resolution offered by the White House is too broad and that new language will be written for consideration.

Several said they wanted it to include strict time limits, guarantee that no U.S. troops would be sent into Syria, and tie authorization for any further military action to additional chemical weapons use by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"The president said this is going to be limited. Yet that's an open-ended authorization to just about do anything he wants," said Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.

"The resolution as it is right now is so open-ended that it gives a blanket authority with no time limits. You can't accept it just on its face," said Republican Representative Dennis Ross. "Now we have to look at what is the exit strategy if we do a strike, and I don't know if we're going to do that.".....snip~

Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike

I think some of Obamas Democrats and what they are saying with Republicans about not giving Obama an Open Commitment would be the Smart way to go. Also I would echo those that have stated.....why should we go when there really is no International Support.

Myself.....I say since the French are all skippy and fresh to jump. Then let them Jump alone. Let them pay for things on their own. Just like the rest of the Big Boys, when they feelin' their Wheaties.

Good afternoon MMC,

I think Obama's only dilema is trying to figure out how he can convince the world he has a backbone as he slithers about. It's remarkable he can stand up long enough to play a round of golf.
 
"The World" will be delighted to see a US president follow both his own countries laws and international law.
 
"At this point, what difference does it make". Well the difference is that the damage hasn't yet been done, there's still time to avoid folly!

What folly? There is only one thing that is acceptable. Which is giving the Sunni another Country to run and help prop it up. That's what the West has decided. Seems it was decided some time ago. I don't agree with it.....but nothing is going to change that outcome. Time is the Shia's enemy and the loss of population. Having the Sunni and the Rest of the planet against them. There is only one outcome. Extinction!
 
China and Russia.
 
Good afternoon MMC,

I think Obama's only dilema is trying to figure out how he can convince the world he has a backbone as he slithers about. It's remarkable he can stand up long enough to play a round of golf.

He called for back up today CJ. ;)

132877_600.jpg


th
 
By any technicality. ;)

Good afternoon, MMC! :2wave:

They might consider the use of a technicality in a situation where many non-combatant women and children are likely to die? What "technicality" might cover that horror? Don't you have to have a logical reason to invade or bomb another sovereign country these days, other than that your leader misspoke, or was misunderstood, or was baited into acting irresponsibly? If Syria was that important to BHO, why didn't he act two years ago, when thousands upon thousands were dying in Syria? That ought to go over well! :thumbdown:
 
The declaration might have simply been Obama hoping that the threat of retaliation would be enough to prevent Syria from using CW, allowing him to act tough but send a signal that we wouldn't respond unless you did something really stupid.

Are rebels noted for acting responsibility? They are the ones who used chemical weapons, according to the UN investigation, not the government! Having accomplished what they intended to do, they'll slither back into their hidey-holes now, while others die. Cowards!

Good afternoon, aberrant85. :2wave:
 
60 years of extra-constitutional precedent doesn't make it right. And the 1973 War Powers Act is designed to allow a president to act immediately if the US is under attack or threatened with imminent attack. And then he has 60 days to bring it before congress. Using it to attack a country that is not threatening us is an abuse, and for a president to attack a country when such strong opposition exists amongst the American people, and without congressional approval and in defiance of the UN is belligerent, at least.

Sadly, both belligerence and overblown ego are on display for the entire world to see! The rebels decided to up the stakes by using chemical weapons, so we're going to bomb the country and kill everyone that gets in the way? Yeah, that makes sense! The UN had proof that the rebels were responsible, or they would not have issued their report stating same, so why not let the Syrian Government handle their own rebel problem? I'm sure they'll be eager to do so!. :thumbs: And it gets BHO off the hook!

Greetings, Montecresto. :2wave:
 
It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.

Yes, that would be interesting. So after Syria, do we next target Russia? They have lots of them, I understand.
 
Are rebels noted for acting responsibility? They are the ones who used chemical weapons, according to the UN investigation, not the government! Having accomplished what they intended to do, they'll slither back into their hidey-holes now, while others die. Cowards!


The UN investigation was intended only to confirm if chemical weapons were used, not who used them. Where did you get your information?
 
Good afternoon, MMC! :2wave:

They might consider the use of a technicality in a situation where many non-combatant women and children are likely to die? What "technicality" might cover that horror? Don't you have to have a logical reason to invade or bomb another sovereign country these days, other than that your leader misspoke, or was misunderstood, or was baited into acting irresponsibly? If Syria was that important to BHO, why didn't he act two years ago, when thousands upon thousands were dying in Syria? That ought to go over well! :thumbdown:

Evening Polgara
hat.gif
.....well the French said they don't need a technicality. They just need to go and punish Assad and according to them, everything is Sauve-wa-faire. Kinda like.....we don't need no stickin badges. :lol:
 
The UN investigation was intended only to confirm if chemical weapons were used, not who used them. Where did you get your information?

There have been several posters who have listed links in the past several days, which indicated the UN stated that rebels were responsible. I didn't bookmark them, but they were posted. The administration did ask that we wait for the UN report.
 
Mornin CJ :2wave: .....it would appear Obama is going thru the formality. I think sending the Nimitz and it's Entire Strike Group to the Red Sea. May put things into perspective.


OBAMA'S DILEMMA

This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN, saying he had confidence lawmakers "will do what is right because they understand the stakes."

In a round of television appearances, Kerry declined to say whether Obama would proceed with military action if Congress rejects his request, as Britain's parliament did last week.

He echoed Obama's comments in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, insisting the president had the right to act on his own if he chooses that course.

Obama is taking a gamble by putting the brakes on the military assault he considers essential to maintain U.S. credibility after he had said the use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line" for the United States.

U.S. military officials are using the delay to reassess which ships will be used for a strike, and which sites in Syria to target. One change was a decision to send the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its entire strike group toward the Red Sea to help support the Syria strike, if needed.

Underscoring a sense of wariness even from Obama's traditional allies, many Democrats joined Republicans in saying the use-of-force resolution offered by the White House is too broad and that new language will be written for consideration.

Several said they wanted it to include strict time limits, guarantee that no U.S. troops would be sent into Syria, and tie authorization for any further military action to additional chemical weapons use by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"The president said this is going to be limited. Yet that's an open-ended authorization to just about do anything he wants," said Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.

"The resolution as it is right now is so open-ended that it gives a blanket authority with no time limits. You can't accept it just on its face," said Republican Representative Dennis Ross. "Now we have to look at what is the exit strategy if we do a strike, and I don't know if we're going to do that.".....snip~

Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike

I think some of Obamas Democrats and what they are saying with Republicans about not giving Obama an Open Commitment would be the Smart way to go. Also I would echo those that have stated.....why should we go when there really is no International Support.

Myself.....I say since the French are all skippy and fresh to jump. Then let them Jump alone. Let them pay for things on their own. Just like the rest of the Big Boys, when they feelin' their Wheaties.

Once you allow Obama to proceed, it will be extremely difficult to stop him. Maybe even impossible.
 
Evening Polgara
hat.gif
.....well the French said they don't need a technicality. They just need to go and punish Assad and according to them, everything is Sauve-wa-faire. Kinda like.....we don't need no stickin badges. :lol:

Are the French sending their aircraft carrier?
 
Are the French sending their aircraft carrier?

No but they did send their Destroyer the Paul Chevalier from Toulon to Syria. Plus they moved their largest transport ship to Toulon.


French warship leaves Toulon for Syria

A military ship left the port of Toulon on the morning of 29th August, dispatched in the direction of Syria as Western countries appear to prepare for action against Bachar Al Assad’s regime. The ship will reportedly support allies aircrafts in case they decide to launch air strikes in coming weeks.

2908%20Chevalier%20Paul-2e748827.jpg


The Chevalier Paul is one of the most modern warships in the French Navy. The ship is set to join an international fleet already settled off the coast of Syria, which includes four American missile launcher frigates as well as several nuclear submarines sent out both by the American and British forces.....snip~

French warship leaves Toulon for Syria - The Riviera Times Online
 
Are the French sending their aircraft carrier?

They really should. It's great for them that they have such great government services like healthcare, but it seems to me that by being the sole remaining superpower we are subsidizing their standard of living, along with other European allies, by fronting the military, allowing them to keep their military small and spending the money instead on social services. Isn't that why we had to take over in Libya? Our allies ran out of missiles?

I really hope that our allies can bear a bit more of the burden in the next century so that we can scale down our forces and use some of that money for the American people.
 
No but they did send their Destroyer the Paul Chevalier from Toulon to Syria. Plus they moved their largest transport ship to Toulon.


French warship leaves Toulon for Syria

A military ship left the port of Toulon on the morning of 29th August, dispatched in the direction of Syria as Western countries appear to prepare for action against Bachar Al Assad’s regime. The ship will reportedly support allies aircrafts in case they decide to launch air strikes in coming weeks.

2908%20Chevalier%20Paul-2e748827.jpg


The Chevalier Paul is one of the most modern warships in the French Navy. The ship is set to join an international fleet already settled off the coast of Syria, which includes four American missile launcher frigates as well as several nuclear submarines sent out both by the American and British forces.....snip~

French warship leaves Toulon for Syria - The Riviera Times Online

We'll see if they're willing to pull the trigger.
 
I got a question!

What would be the point of bombing Syria now? With all of this discussion they would have certainly moved all of their ammo, intelligence, soldiers, etc.

Exactly what would we be achieving?

And don't get me wrong. I really don't have a problem with bombing them but now that we've "showed our hand" what is to be gained?
 
I got a question!

What would be the point of bombing Syria now? With all of this discussion they would have certainly moved all of their ammo, intelligence, soldiers, etc.

Exactly what would we be achieving?

And don't get me wrong. I really don't have a problem with bombing them but now that we've "showed our hand" what is to be gained?

The generals are saying the time delay doesn't matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/syria.html?hp

I have no idea what targets they will choose, but if you were Assad wouldn't you be freaking out for the next week over whether Congress will line up behind Obama and give him the go-ahead to bomb whatever he wants?
 
I got a question!

What would be the point of bombing Syria now? With all of this discussion they would have certainly moved all of their ammo, intelligence, soldiers, etc.

Exactly what would we be achieving?

And don't get me wrong. I really don't have a problem with bombing them but now that we've "showed our hand" what is to be gained?



It will be so the French can say they punished Assad.....the French have filed 5 Actionable Action Resolutions in the UN. Started with Ivory Coast, then Libya, then Syria, Then Mali and Now the Central Republic/ Congo. Notice how they always need someone else to give them a helping a hand. Either moving their troops or giving them supplies and or our tech. Always involved into other business and always filing non stop resolutions in the UN.
 
images


Remember that pic the lefties always throw out of Rumsfeld and Hussein?
 
I have no idea what targets they will choose, but if you were Assad wouldn't you be freaking out for the next week over whether Congress will line up behind Obama and give him the go-ahead to bomb whatever he wants?

Yeah - I don't get that part, AB. How come the international media aren't reporting that Assad is sh*tting little blue-gray putty balls? It's like he doesn't even care.

I don't know if this is relevant, but have you ever heard of a group called "The Twelvers"? The ex president of Iran was one of those guys. This group has this belief that if they can somehow start World War III, that it will force some sort of messiah to appear (called the Mahdi) that has secretly been hiding in the background and walking the earth for 1,200 years. So when this horrible war goes down, this Mahdi will also somehow find the earlier messiahs like Jesus and Moses; and together they will all create a new planet earth where Islam is the only religion and the whole planet gets ruled by this Mahdi and Sharia Law for all of eternity.

The reason these Twelvers are crazy is because they don't mind starting WW III and they think that anyone that dies along the way was merely "a martyr for the greater good". That Iranian lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have been happy to let every single Iranian die as long as it triggers the appearance of this Mahdi. Maybe Assad is a fruitloop like Mahmoud?
 
Yeah - I don't get that part, AB. How come the international media aren't reporting that Assad is sh*tting little blue-gray putty balls? It's like he doesn't even care.

I don't know if this is relevant, but have you ever heard of a group called "The Twelvers"? The ex president of Iran was one of those guys. This group has this belief that if they can somehow start World War III, that it will force some sort of messiah to appear (called the Mahdi) that has secretly been hiding in the background and walking the earth for 1,200 years. So when this horrible war goes down, this Mahdi will also somehow find the earlier messiahs like Jesus and Moses; and together they will all create a new planet earth where Islam is the only religion and the whole planet gets ruled by this Mahdi and Sharia Law for all of eternity.

The reason these Twelvers are crazy is because they don't mind starting WW III and they think that anyone that dies along the way was merely "a martyr for the greater good". That Iranian lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have been happy to let every single Iranian die as long as it triggers the appearance of this Mahdi. Maybe Assad is a fruitloop like Mahmoud?

or maybe he is a ex-dentist who is trying to hold onto his position as dictator, and does not care how many of his countries people have to die as a consequence.
 
The reason these Twelvers are crazy is because they don't mind starting WW III and they think that anyone that dies along the way was merely "a martyr for the greater good". That Iranian lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have been happy to let every single Iranian die as long as it triggers the appearance of this Mahdi. Maybe Assad is a fruitloop like Mahmoud?

If that's the case, couldn't they just start the war whenever they wanted? They could start by bombing India and Pakistan and letting them destroy each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom