I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).
However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.
Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?
I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).
However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.
Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?
Congress hasn't declared war since we were fighting the Japs. Now we call them the Japanese and love their electronics and porn.Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Congress should debate a declaration of war in the full view of the People as it is the People's business and as the People will suffer and sacrifice as a result.
You are not the only one.I'd like to vote on sending Congress to Syria.
I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).
However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.
Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?
I think most people would agree that, to the extent possible, it would be sensible for the President to always get congressional approval before engaging in military force against a foreign country (except in self defense).
However, in some situations, the time it takes to get approval from Congress can give the other country time to make a military strike far less effective.
Would it make sense to have some procedure where the president could get a vote from Congress, or perhaps a congressional committee, without the public, the media, and (most importantly) the target knowing about it?
Obama needs to ignore the American people and do what's best in the Syria situation ....that is to Strike at Assad....and arm the rebels to finish the job.
The polls mean nothing in my view ...because most Americans and congress DID support the Iraq war. And today we all see how RIGHT.... they were back then.
In addition much of the opposition has no merit simply because it's coming from people who oppose the president on everything.
When those opposing the war want to believe Assad and Putin's version of the Syria situation over the President....I say it's time Obama tune them out and do what his better judgment tells him.
Really? Let me ask you something. Are you currently serving as an active duty member of our armed forces? I ask for a couple of reasons. First, I am aware that there are always some guys on active duty who are looking for a fight and want to go "kick ass and take names." Usually they are younger troops who haven't seen combat and are raring to go and get some to show they got the "right stuff." Of course there are also always some senior officer types who want to get a medal or two before they retire. Or maybe you are veteran, and thinking of the glory days of service?
The other reason I ask is because if you are not in military service, why do you act like war is some kind of video game? Do you think there is a "reset button" or you "level up" and get a new life if your player dies? Do you think service members are pawns in some geopolitical game and their lives have no intrinsic value? It never ceases to amaze me how people who haven't a clue are so willing to risk OTHER peoples lives for some passing opinion about how things "ought to be done over there."
War is not a game, it is serious business. Service men are trained to do their duty, and they do it well. They are sworn to obey the lawful orders of their superiors, and to engage in combat in defense of this nation. They will go where they are ordered and fight to accomplish the mission to the best of their ability. However, they have a right to expect that their sacrifice is not for some vain purpose or to prove some foolish political point. They are not chips in some high stakes poker game, they are Americans ready and able to lay their lives on the line for this country.
I just wish people would remember that when they sit back and spout crap about "we need to do this or that" when it is not "we" but "they" who are doing the fighting and risking their all for God and Country. So THINK about what you are REALLY saying when you expect others to fight and die for your "ideals." Do "we" really NEED to be involved in Syria? Really? Enough so that YOU are going to go down to your local recruiter and enlist for the privilege of sharing the risks? Otherwise....
Do you realize the rebels aren't any better than Assad? They're happy to kill innocents too. An intervention in Syria would do nothing in the long term. That region will remain unstable. Ignoring the american people in this situation would be unwise.Obama needs to ignore the American people and do what's best in the Syria situation ....that is to Strike at Assad....and arm the rebels to finish the job.
The polls mean nothing in my view ...because most Americans and congress DID support the Iraq war. And today we all see how RIGHT.... they were back then.
In addition much of the opposition has no merit simply because it's coming from people who oppose the president on everything.
When those opposing the war want to believe Assad and Putin's version of the Syria situation over the President....I say it's time Obama tune them out and do what his better judgment tells him.
War is not a game ...really? You need to take that lecture to right wing members on this board. Because that's exactly the feeling I got a few years ago when thousands of troops were sent off to invade Iraq.
Fight them over there ...so we don't have to fight them here??? Remember those quotes ....from the right? How sick was that when 100.000 Iraqis were butchered because we invaded a relatively stable country and turned into a hell hole?
let me give you another example ....your right wing pal are unashamed in proclaiming ....ONLY 6000 GI's died ...that's not so bad! I find that argument so repulsive ...so horrifying for any fallen GI family member to hear. Yet the right wing keep repeating that line.
Oh...how about the SURGE...remember that gem?
So take your dam lecture and shove it ...there were no better juvenile display than what we've seen by the NEOCONS and the arm-chair warriors on the right during the Iraq war.
How about Rush Limbaugh Shawn Hannity Dick cheney ARI Fleicher and Bush ....what do they all have in common ....never been in battle..... and had the arrogance to question a warrior like John Kerry!!
Those are the very same mouth piece talking today.
But again the facts shows that Obama has being more thoughtful and deliberate than the emotional right wing.
Obama was right on Iraq ...he got Bin laden ...why on earth would any rationale person listen to the very people who've been so wrong on Iraq?
You people can't hit the RESET button ....IRAQ...IRAQ ...IRAQ ...will always be front and center making your judgment suspect!!
Let me repeat... those people should be ignored by the President ...and he should STRIKE Assad!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?