• 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!

You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and why

You're the Congressman, and Your Vote on Syria


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

The invasion of Iraq was not predicated on the existence of CW alone. The existence and use of CW in Syria is not the only consideration, either. Yep, it's bad, but it can be much, much worse unless we are prepared to maintain our presence and pressure for an extended time. You might want to take a quick look at the disposition of our Navy right now. What ships are in port, and why, before you get too enthusiastic.

Actually I don't think we should be involved in Syria. You kind of entered a conversation mid stream. This is whether or not conservatives are "rational' for supporting Iraq and not supporting Syria.

Yes...Iraq was completely based on WMD's. The presentation to the UN was about Iraq WMD's. The sunday talk shows were filled with Administration members talking about Iraq WMD's.

If the use/ownership of WMD's is a cause for war...why wouldn't be a cause in this situation? How is it rational to call for an actual invasion yet not support strikes?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Ok, then where's the beef with Bush's actions in Iraq? Surely you're aware that government used chemical weapons against their population too, right?

Yeah...nearly 20 years before we invaded.

I'm not sure how that makes the conservative position rational. We'll invade you for using chemical weapons 20 years ago but against strikes for using them now?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Not if the stated goal is not to remove him from power, which it is. Saying achieving your stated goal is a failure is just silly.

wait and see.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

and people wonder why some call the US empiralistic....

We use Empirical evidence?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yeah...nearly 20 years before we invaded.
20 years? It was more like 15 but that's irrelevant.

I'm not sure how that makes the conservative position rational. We'll invade you for using chemical weapons 20 years ago but against strikes for using them now?
Wow. The left was absolutely dead set against going into Iraq, screaming like banshees the whole time that there were no WMDs to the extent that became the rallying cry for those opposed to the action in Iraq. But now you're using the very rationale you once decried and turning that on me to say I'm the one being irrational. :doh
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

20 years? It was more like 15 but that's irrelevant.

Wow. The left was absolutely dead set against going into Iraq, screaming like banshees the whole time that there were no WMDs to the extent that became the rallying cry for those opposed to the action in Iraq. But now you're using the very rationale you once decried and turning that on me to say I'm the one being irrational. :doh
...and here's a little bit of irony to throw into the mix; Saddam's top military advisor saying their WMDs were moved into Syria:

Israel Matzav: Video: Saddam's top military adviser says Iraqi WMD's were moved to Syria
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I voted no for the present, until the military-industrial complex offers me big bucks - and they will. At that time I will change my vote.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Your vote?

Yea.
Nay.
Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.

###

At the moment I'd vote no.
This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.












Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?

The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.

Where is the coalition?

Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?

Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.

There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.




Vote anyway that you want to vote.

It won't change the fact that Obama will be in the White House until another Democrat takes his place in 2017.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

20 years? It was more like 15 but that's irrelevant.

I said nearly...it is irrelevant. It was over a decade...rounded up 2 decades, being exact a decade and a half or 15 years. It was a long time.

Wow. The left was absolutely dead set against going into Iraq, screaming like banshees the whole time that there were no WMDs to the extent that became the rallying cry for those opposed to the action in Iraq. But now you're using the very rationale you once decried and turning that on me to say I'm the one being irrational.

Iraq was an actual invasion and occupation. Much higher stakes, much higher costs, should have a higher bar.

I'm not using the rational...I'm against the attacks, I'm just not sure how conservatives are "rational" if they supported/still support the Iraq invasion yet are against the idea of military strikes in Syria. If ownership and use of WMD's are justification for an actual invasion of a country...how on earth is it rational in this case to state military strikes aren't justification?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

...and here's a little bit of irony to throw into the mix; Saddam's top military advisor saying their WMDs were moved into Syria:

Israel Matzav: Video: Saddam's top military adviser says Iraqi WMD's were moved to Syria

Sure...and other proponent individuals that left the country were claiming that we'd be treated as heroes and the occupation would be short and sweet as a thankful populace welcomed our overthrow of their dictator.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yay.

1. It serves a pointed and clearly identified strategic objective namely the buttressing of US credibility and the retrenchment of our foreign policy posture.

2. The objective is well defined by the degrading of Syrian military infrastructure in a series of limited strikes to punish the government for its use of chemical weapons.

3. While I personally support a broader engagement and the potential of supporting palatable elements within the Free Syrian Army to counterbalance the Islamists in Syria and create a better possible end game I feel confident going to my constituents and telling them that this is not what is being discussed.

4. To turn back now risks catastrophic damage to the position of the United States abroad. We have come nose to nose with Syria, Iran, and Russia all of our allies and our enemies are watching us to see what we will do. Assad crows that this is the beginning of a major American retreat and it is how it will be perceived. This has consequences into the next administration and the next one.

5. The costs of action are in actuality rather low. Hysterics and talking points aside this is not an invasion, this is not Iraq.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

It's beginning to look like what the president has in mind might be a little more than just a few bombs. What Obama is presenting us with is a confrontation with Syria, Iran, and Russia. Either we confront it as that, i.e., the reality, or we leave it alone. The other side of this is that an attack on Assad may actually force him to use CW in the near future to hang on to power. Then there's the chance that our attack will detonate some CW's there....

Good afternoon, humbolt. :2wave:

BHO might want to take on Syria, Iran, and Russia? China has interests in the area, too, so why not be all-inclusive? :thumbdown: This is getting more absurd and unbelievable by the day! Where are the cooler heads that may not agree that this is in America's best interest? :eek:
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Good afternoon, humbolt. :2wave:

BHO might want to take on Syria, Iran, and Russia? China has interests in the area, too, so why not be all-inclusive? :thumbdown: This is getting more absurd and unbelievable by the day! Where are the cooler heads that may not agree that this is in America's best interest? :eek:

No one is talking about fighting Russia, Iran, or China. Where are you getting this from?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

no. it's someone else's turn to do a global police mission. i would choose Saudi Arabia. it has proven to be one of the least effective regional hegemons on earth, and it's time for them to step up. this would be like expecting SA to stop the Mexican government from gassing its own people. that would be our job. this isn't, and we need to let the world know we aren't going to solve every crisis pro bono.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Iraq was an actual invasion and occupation. Much higher stakes, much higher costs, should have a higher bar.
Hmmm. One could easily argue the stakes and potential costs are are astronomically higher in this situation than they were with Iraq, invasion or not.

I'm not using the rational...I'm against the attacks, I'm just not sure how conservatives are "rational" if they supported/still support the Iraq invasion yet are against the idea of military strikes in Syria. If ownership and use of WMD's are justification for an actual invasion of a country...how on earth is it rational in this case to state military strikes aren't justification?
As you noted, the stakes and potential costs are completely different, as is the context.

We'd just experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history by Al Quaida two years prior. The use of Iraq as a refuge/base of operations by them was an issue, as was their relationship to Saddam. Oil was an issue, their proximity to it. And of course Saddam's WMDs were an issue too - our enemies getting their hands on WMDs was a huge concern given what they'd just done to us and what their rhetoric constantly threatened.

There are no such issues in our attacking Syria now - save for the ostensible reason that Obama foolishly and ill-advisedly drew a red line in the sand.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I hope you're correct. We are not the only players in the area though, and some have far more to lose than we do.

Since BHO seems determined to assuage his battered ego...and that is what it looks like at this point, since he didn't act two years ago when he could have...our allies look like the only adults here. And how he intends to accomplish this without "no boots on the ground" will be interesting. Will he drone or bomb Russia, too? :wow: :eek:
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Actually....quit the opposite. I suspect that they aren't thinking at all....they are simply basing their feelings on which party in in charge.
Well then your assertion is wrong, though your projection may be spot on.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Since BHO seems determined to assuage his battered ego...and that is what it looks like at this point, since he didn't act two years ago when he could have...our allies look like the only adults here. And how he intends to accomplish this without "no boots on the ground" will be interesting. Will he drone or bomb Russia, too? :wow: :eek:

I'm emphatically not a fan of the President and I did not vote for him. That being said I think the way in which he's been so aggressively caricaturized is dangerous for precisely this post--it blinds people to reality. Seriously he's doing this for 'ego'? That is ludicrous. He doesn't even want to do it and that's half the problem. No, he's pursuing it because he put the credibility of the United States on the line and the pressure from within his administration to act has been overwhelming.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Yes for limited strikes, no on ground troops.

Why? Why is a limited strike a good idea? What does it accomplish? Someone has to convince me that it is more than a weak symbolic gesture. Or, "do we have to strike, before we find out the benefits?"
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Emphatically, nay.

Why? So many reasons that it's difficult if not impossible to list them all or prioritize them.

Let's start with the most simple and plain reason on that basis - $$$.

debtiv.gif


War is expensive and we are deadbeats in the poor house, in part because of stupid and needless wars like this one would be. Even if all we do is launch some cruise missiles, we're still talking about wasting a valuable resource that was quite expensive to buy in the first place, something that could be used to defend the country against attackers which is the purpose and justification of our military spending in the first place.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No one is talking about fighting Russia, Iran, or China. Where are you getting this from?

It sure sounds like we're preparing to fight someone in Syria... who it should be is a puzzle because there is disagreement on who used the chemical weapons because there is apparently no proof, other than the UN report... which will bring Russia very much into the picture, since they are allies. Please explain where I am wrong in my thinking that this is a bad idea!
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

It sure sounds like we're preparing to fight someone in Syria... who it should be is a puzzle because there is disagreement on who used the chemical weapons because there is apparently no proof, other than the UN report... which will bring Russia very much into the picture, since they are allies. Please explain where I am wrong in my thinking that this is a bad idea!

There is only disagreement amongst people who would prefer to believe that Assad is not responsible. Russia is also not in the picture, they are not militarily involved in this question in any way, shape, or form.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Not if the stated goal is not to remove him from power, which it is. Saying achieving your stated goal is a failure is just silly.

Wasn't Obama's "stated goal" last year regime change in Syria? Didn't he go on television and claim that he, on behalf of the United States, wanted Assad gone? When did that change?

And since you approve of bombing Syrian targets, shouldn't one of those targets be Assad? And what happens is Assad survives - again, with support from the Russian government and with, at last count, 12 Russian naval vessels of various types in the vacinity, what is the new "stated goal" of Obama and the administration? Teach them a lesson, is that it? Sounds to me like a pretty weak and insignificant goal compared to the ****storm of potential risks.
 
Back
Top Bottom