• 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!

Are the republicans voting against syria for the right reasons?

Is it okay to vote against syria just to vote against something obama wants?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • Total voters
    26
tumblr_msmhl9JC6w1qinrtgo1_500.jpg
 
99percenter said:
I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I also don't understand why you would "fear" that if it is the outcome you desire...unless you think people should vote the way you would for the reasons you think are primary. I'm guessing your real questions is "would they vote for it if Obama wasn't the president requesting it" - and - "is that fair?" The answer to both is yes.
 
Fletch said:
I have heard a number of liberals say they might support an attack because they support Obama. How is that any different than opposing an attack because you oppose Obama?
Click to expand...

I think that would be few and far between. I don't know of many liberals who are supporting military action in Syria. But you are correct. If there were any, they would be just as big of a hypocrite as the Republicans.
 
Ockham said:
The entire WH including Kerry have been whipping up support all week. "Someone" even provided CNN with "exclusive" video (that's what CNN was calling it yesterday) of suffering Syrian's dying of what apparently was a Sarin gas as an overt appeal to emotion to sway American attitudes towards military action.

If I provide links - would it really matter since you also can Google... Denis McDonough will be on the Sunday talk shows today, Obama will be on all 6 major Cable and Broadcast news stations tomorrow arguing for Syrian strikes. Feinstein putting together those same 18 videos of suffering to support military action in support of it as well. I'm not saying all Democrats... but the entire WH, and more than a few in the Senate = many to me. My own Senator who votes 97% with the Democratic party is in favor as well.
Click to expand...

I reiterate what I said, I suspect that the only Democrats who will vote for this idiotic attack would be the same fools who voted for military action in Iraq. At last THAT would be consistent. However, I am hoping that most vote against military action.
 
disneydude said:
I think that would be few and far between. I don't know of many liberals who are supporting military action in Syria. But you are correct. If there were any, they would be just as big of a hypocrite as the Republicans.
Click to expand...
Congress should represent the views of each members constituents. If reports are true that calls to Washington are running 100 to 1 against military action, the vote should be against military action. Unanimously.
 
disneydude said:
I reiterate what I said, I suspect that the only Democrats who will vote for this idiotic attack would be the same fools who voted for military action in Iraq. At last THAT would be consistent. However, I am hoping that most vote against military action.
Click to expand...

Kerry in 2002 voted FOR Iraq, so that idiot is consistent and yes, I agree, I too am hoping that any Syria military action is voted down.
 
Ockham said:
Kerry in 2002 voted FOR Iraq, so that idiot is consistent and yes, I agree, I too am hoping that any Syria military action is voted down.
Click to expand...

When it comes to warmongering....when you are the top levels of government I think both parties are generally about the same.
 
disneydude said:
I reiterate what I said, I suspect that the only Democrats who will vote for this idiotic attack would be the same fools who voted for military action in Iraq. At last THAT would be consistent. However, I am hoping that most vote against military action.
Click to expand...

And you will be singing the praises of one of those "fools" in 2016.

Which makes you....
 
Fletch said:
Congress should represent the views of each members constituents. If reports are true that calls to Washington are running 100 to 1 against military action, the vote should be against military action. Unanimously.
Click to expand...

Maybe people supporting action aren't calling in, it might seem obscene for someone to urge their congressman to "bomb the motherf****r."

In any case, clearly more Americans are opposed than for intervention, and it should be a consideration for Congress. But they represent us through elections, not directly on issues as they appear, and are generally more informed than we are, although some seem like idiots.

It's a delicate balance between representative democracy and an oligarchy of 435 leaders.

I dunno. Guess I'm just glad I don't have their job right now.
 
jamesrage said:
IF the republicans are voting against Obama it is because he is trying to the pass something they do not want.Just like when the democrats opposed bush on things they didn't want. People do not elect one party over another because they want them siding together almost on every issue.

Iraq and Syria are two different situations. Saddam used chemical weapons not once,not twice but around 15-20 times.Saddam also killed a million of his own citizens. Saddam made everyone think he still had WMDs. Politicians on both sides of the isle way before Bush was even in office have said Saddam has WMDs. 9-11 happened shortly before the Iraq war and people did not want some other middle eastern country striking us.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap!
Who sold Saddam the chemical precursors to manufacture the gas? That would be the good old USA. If you want to assess blame, be precise and don't generalize. We were the scumbags behind the Iran/Iraq war and all those chemicals. No WMDs and the UN inspectors, remember Blix, stated that categorically, and also stated that they had unimpeded access. 9-11 had no link whatsoever to Iraq! Bush's war folly cost us over a Trillion dollars, thousands and thousands of dead and wounded wonderful GIs, and perhaps millions of dead, wounded, or instant refugee Iraqis to Syria. There is no justification for the Iraq War, just like Vietnam. Sometimes when you are recently out of the service, the truth begins to dawn.
 
disneydude said:
There is a reason they are known as the "party of NO". The reality is, if the President had an R behind his name they would be whooping up they way the always do. This is just another in the Party of No's oppose everything and anything that Obama wants, they are so predictable.

For the record...I don't support it any more than I would support it if the President were Republican. We don't belong in Syria any more than we belonged in Iraq. We are not the police of the world.
Click to expand...

In this case you should be cheering the party of No. I would say the party of No as you call them are right in saying No to an idiot president who is always wrong.
 
So much of Congressional voting comes down to, "do they NEED my vote for this, or can I vote against it to save face with *insert particular demographic here*." It's really nothing more than that.
 
VanceMack said:
And you will be singing the praises of one of those "fools" in 2016.

Which makes you....
Click to expand...

I understand. I don't think the Democrats are much better than the Republicans when it comes to warmongering. I getit......I don't expect much different although I hope for more....and I am always disappointed. But across the board....the Democrats are not quite as crazy as the Republicans on other stuff....which is why I support them.
 
Born Free said:
In this case you should be cheering the party of No. I would say the party of No as you call them are right in saying No to an idiot president who is always wrong.
Click to expand...

I do side with the opposition here....but for different reasons. The party of NO isn't siding on the right side of the issue for the right reasons. They are siding because they are the party of NO. I have no doubt that if the President were Republican they would be warmongering, cheering USA USA USA and waving flags. If you are honest.....you wont disagree.
 
disneydude said:
I understand. I don't think the Democrats are much better than the Republicans when it comes to warmongering. I getit......I don't expect much different although I hope for more....and I am always disappointed. But across the board....the Democrats are not quite as crazy as the Republicans on other stuff....which is why I support them.
Click to expand...

I'm more amazed at how readily people suffer 'fools'. And we wonder why we have the government we have.
 
99percenter said:
I oppose the syrian war and i hope it gets voted down, but i fear that that some republicans might be voting against it just because they don't want to give obama any sort of political victory. I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

A vote against the war is a good thing, no matter the reason. Besides, no one cares what the Democrat/liberal rank and file want, so it is probabaly only conservatives who can successfully prevent the war. We should welcome them into the current anti-war coalition.

And don't worry, whatever happens in Syria, Republicans will blame the Democrats, and vice versa.
 
Ockham said:
No more predictable than all the anti-war Bush impeachment crowd post 2003, who are now banging the war machine drum for (D) Obama 10 years later. The hypocrisy is so deep America needs hip waders.
Click to expand...

Name anyone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars who now suports the war with Syria. I don't know of any such person.
 
VanceMack said:
I'm more amazed at how readily people suffer 'fools'. And we wonder why we have the government we have.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain point. Neither party is my ideal. But I almost always find that the Democrats have a lot less poltical agenda that the Repubs have.
 
Usually I say intention is everything. However under these circumstances I'll take it how it's given.
 
99percenter said:
I believe some of republicans like ron paul truly do oppose the war, but there are quite a few republicans who supported iraq and will vote against syria. what do you guys think?
Click to expand...
The situations with Iraq in 2003 and Syria in 2013 are not even remotely analogous.

In 2003 Iraq, AQ had a mutual non-aggression agreement with the Iraqi regime and was helping to fight Saddam's enemies in Iraq. AQ even held terrirory in Iraq and was operating a WMD facility near Sargat. The situation in 2013 Syria is quite the opposite. AQ and Assad are bitter enemies. Assad is attacking AQ and vice-versa.

If Obama wants to drop bombs in Syria he should attack the Al Qaeda militants rather than the legitimate Syrian government they are trying to overthrow. He already has congressional approval to do that via the 2001 AUMF. But he seems hell bent on fighting for the wrong side like he did in Libya.

I hear Reps like McCain beating the war drums on Syria, calling Assad a "brutal dictator" and the like. But that's just ridiculous name-calling. Any country's leader will get brutal against bloodthirsty enemy troops wreaking havoc in their capitol. Like the Obama administration, McCain fails to adequately explain how the Assad regime's brutality is an imminent threat to the US. To me the insurgents seem to be just as brutal, if not morso, than the government troops. (I saw some pretty disturbing unedited FSA vids)

And I don't buy the Democrats' "international norms" argument either. The US has no moral high ground to tread when it comes to civilian casualties. Particularly when led by a Democrat president. (think Tokyo, Dresden, Mai Lai, Hiroshima, etc.)
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
I do side with the opposition here....but for different reasons. The party of NO isn't siding on the right side of the issue for the right reasons. They are siding because they are the party of NO. I have no doubt that if the President were Republican they would be warmongering, cheering USA USA USA and waving flags. If you are honest.....you wont disagree.
Click to expand...

I am honest and I don't agree with you, going into Libya was a mistake, that was all for Oil. Now this Syria thing is dead wrong and I don't care who the president is.

And do think for a second that if Obama had NOT set the RED LINE he would be doing what he is doing, wanting to go to war. To save his own idiot ass. Now who is saying 'Yes' to go to war for the wrong reason.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
Name anyone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars who now suports the war with Syria. I don't know of any such person.
Click to expand...

You're qualifier of "Afghan AND Iraq" seems overly restrictive. Only one person voted against the Afghanistan war that I can recall and I looked it up, it was Barbara Lee (D) California, who is I believe "undecided" on Syria at this time. If we just look at Iraq however, we see prominent Senators (I'm not going to go through the House membership as I just don't have the time).

Barbara Boxer
Feinstein, Boxer buck constituents on Syria strike - SFGate

Dick Durbin
Senator Durbin Weighs in on Syria Action - CIProud

Carl Levin
Video: Carl Levin backs Obama's call for action in Syria - POLITICO.com


That was just a 4 minute search so I'm very sure there are many more but I'm not going to list them all. Here's the vote from 2002 showing who was against the 2002 Iraq War vote:
Iraq War Vote in 2002: Honoring the 23 Senate and 133 House Members Who Voted NO
 
Hard Truth said:
Name anyone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars who now suports the war with Syria. I don't know of any such person.
Click to expand...

Clever indeed using opposed to BOTH wars when you know that makes passing your "test" impossible except for one person. I will, however, point out this: Barack Obama, in 2002 opposed U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Oct. 2. Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Click to expand...

Fact Checker - Clinton vs Obama on Iraq
 
Ockham said:
You're qualifier of "Afghan AND Iraq" seems overly restrictive. Only one person voted against the Afghanistan war that I can recall and I looked it up, it was Barbara Lee (D) California, who is I believe "undecided" on Syria at this time. .....
Click to expand...

Barbara Lee has come out against an attack on Syria. Perhaps my qualifier of "opposed the wars in Afghan AND Iraq" is too restrictive for federally elected officials, but for the grass roots war opponents during the Bush II years, most opposed both wars, and most now oppose war with Syria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom