• 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!

Congress not rushing back for Syria vote

Lukas105

Active member
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
368
Reaction score
134
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Congress not rushing back for Syria vote

President Obama heeded the call of members of Congress who were demanding a vote on military action on Syria, but Congress will not rush back to Washington to take that vote.

Obama and congressional leaders may well need the time to make the case to Congress to get enough members to support military action in Syria. Members of both parties have expressed skepticism about whether it's justified.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced the House will hold a vote the week of Sept. 9, when Congress is scheduled to return from its summer break. The White House is already conducting briefings with lawmakers throughout the weekend, however.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a statement Saturday saying that the Senate will hold public hearings and briefings on the issue next week. He said the Senate will vote on the resolution no later than the week of Sept. 9.

"The decision to take military action is not one to be taken lightly, and this decision will receive the full and open debate it deserves," Reid said in the statement.

"I believe the use of military force against Syria is both justified and necessary," Reid said. "I believe the United States has a moral obligation as well as a national security interest in defending innocent lives against such atrocities, and in enforcing international norms such as the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons."

Good, more than likely Congress will vote down his authorization for force in Syria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I will support my congressman if he votes for airstrikes only if an amendment changing the word "Syria" to "Detroit" passes. I really see this as a "Of course they won't pass it, Mr. President, then you do it anyway and blame the republicans for their obstructionism. That is what "bold" leadership is."
 

Juanita

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
863
Location
now? COLORADO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I was so angry when I heard the news...President Obama better have a dam good reason for doing this--like pushing for more extensive action than a limited and narrow strike... Right now the FSA feels betrayed, The Syrian Regime feels emboldened, and the USA feels embarrassed, or should...
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
While I don't support intervention in Syria, I am glad that President Obama is sending this to Congress to be dealt with. This is the way that war and similar acts should be. By no means does this mean that Obama is a great leader, all this means is that in this instance he is doing the right thing. Now we just need him to stop the drone strikes around the globe and I will be able to sleep easy tonight.
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,673
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What's the purpose of an announced attack? According to Obama its a "shot over the bow." What happens when that doesn't work? The Syrians have had time to move their chemical stockpile around; probably back to parts unknown in Iraq.

More fireworks at $1.4 million per cruise missile fired. Let it come out of his and congress's retirement fund.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I was so angry when I heard the news...President Obama better have a dam good reason for doing this--like pushing for more extensive action than a limited and narrow strike... Right now the FSA feels betrayed, The Syrian Regime feels emboldened, and the USA feels embarrassed, or should...

Really? What is the point of all of this? We dio not act as the world police as we let many huge human rights abuses happen without even a statement admonishing it. As the US we have allowed and even encouraged chemical weapons use in the past so we do not have a hard line on this. We have no interest in syria from a national standpoint. Action there is just pissing away money for a people who will not support us and for something that gives us no gain or loss. That is not to mention the US proclivity for collateral damage and harming innocents in these sorts of attacks. We are supposed to go hurt people because it might be considered weak to not live up to a red line Obama drew? People are supposed to die over a bunch of words we really did not care about? How progressive is it to be wrong and follow through on it because that is what needs to be done? Why bother giving blacks, women, gays, and minorities rights when we clearly said it was wrong in the past? Why bother changing any wrong policy we stood for? You can just call yourself a conservative because that is the mindset that clings onto past values and dislikes change.

Obama may not always do the right thing, but putting it up to the legislature to decide in this case is what should happen. There is no UN resolution to back as per our treaties, so since this is solely up to the decision orf the US and not a priority for the world then the US legislature should make the decision and the president should enforce it as per the way the government was established.
 

Juanita

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
863
Location
now? COLORADO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Really? What is the point of all of this? We dio not act as the world police as we let many huge human rights abuses happen without even a statement admonishing it. As the US we have allowed and even encouraged chemical weapons use in the past so we do not have a hard line on this. We have no interest in syria from a national standpoint. Action there is just pissing away money for a people who will not support us and for something that gives us no gain or loss. That is not to mention the US proclivity for collateral damage and harming innocents in these sorts of attacks. We are supposed to go hurt people because it might be considered weak to not live up to a red line Obama drew? People are supposed to die over a bunch of words we really did not care about? How progressive is it to be wrong and follow through on it because that is what needs to be done? Why bother giving blacks, women, gays, and minorities rights when we clearly said it was wrong in the past? Why bother changing any wrong policy we stood for? You can just call yourself a conservative because that is the mindset that clings onto past values and dislikes change.

Obama may not always do the right thing, but putting it up to the legislature to decide in this case is what should happen. There is no UN resolution to back as per our treaties, so since this is solely up to the decision orf the US and not a priority for the world then the US legislature should make the decision and the president should enforce it as per the way the government was established.



Well, you said it yourself I think. It is about values/right and wrong and it is never too late to do right.. We should have intervened in a more helpful way two years ago, now it will be more difficult, but can still be done.. We cannot be seen by the world as weak..That will embolden our enemies to do whatever they want.. All we have done is to postpone the action, giving Syria time to remove their planes, move their chemical weapons, hide their launchers and coordinate with Iran and Hezbollah...
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Well, you said it yourself I think. It is about values/right and wrong and it is never too late to do right.. We should have intervened in a more helpful way two years ago, now it will be more difficult, but can still be done.. We cannot be seen by the world as weak..That will embolden our enemies to do whatever they want.. All we have done is to postpone the action, giving Syria time to remove their planes, move their chemical weapons, hide their launchers and coordinate with Iran and Hezbollah...

Under that plan why don't we just take over the middle east, africa, most of asia, russia, and south america while we are at it. We are not the world police, and we are not the force of the moral right in the world. that is a conservative view and no we are not the world's nanny. We cannot even run our own country morally and without corruption, we have no business telling others they have to do better than we can.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,438
Reaction score
14,561
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If we go to Syria we need to have a solid plan and get the job done right. We can't afford to intervene only to have some terrorist organization or Muslim extremist government taking control.
 

Juanita

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
863
Location
now? COLORADO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Under that plan why don't we just take over the middle east, africa, most of asia, russia, and south america while we are at it. We are not the world police, and we are not the force of the moral right in the world. that is a conservative view and no we are not the world's nanny. We cannot even run our own country morally and without corruption, we have no business telling others they have to do better than we can.



We don't have to take over anyplace.. We may not be the worlds police, but we are a world leader--"The" world leader and thus we have responsibilities.. By using chemical weapons on civilians including women and over 400 children, Syria broke the rules..
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress to Vote on Syria

I was so angry when I heard the news...President Obama better have a dam good reason for doing this--like pushing for more extensive action than a limited and narrow strike... Right now the FSA feels betrayed, The Syrian Regime feels emboldened, and the USA feels embarrassed, or should...

Oh but it's so perfect; the rebels and Alquaida use chemical weapons to justify the us joining in the fray. Assad then retaliates against some of those assets, then they show the video of dying us soldiers, or talk about a ship being sunk and then there will be the support needed for a full invasion or whatever is deemed necessary.

The big risk depends on how attached Russia is to defending Assad....
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
57,190
Reaction score
18,966
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I was so angry when I heard the news...President Obama better have a dam good reason for doing this--like pushing for more extensive action than a limited and narrow strike... Right now the FSA feels betrayed, The Syrian Regime feels emboldened, and the USA feels embarrassed, or should...

It's their trademark. Democrats start senseless wars.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress to Vote on Syria

If we go to Syria we need to have a solid plan and get the job done right. We can't afford to intervene only to have some terrorist organization or Muslim extremist government taking control.

Yes, what's the point of setting up another Egypt situation??

That IS a best case scenario afterall.
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress to Vote on Syria

It's their trademark. Democrats start senseless wars.

No no... Presidents start senseless wars. Whatever party they claim is a side-issue.

Theres not one thing that Obama has done that would not have been done by bush had bush been allowed to carry on.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
57,190
Reaction score
18,966
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No no... Presidents start senseless wars. Whatever party they claim is a side-issue.

Theres not one thing that Obama has done that would not have been done by bush had bush been allowed to carry on.
I completely disagree. Bush was improving relations with Libya, and Obomba blew the country to hell. Just one example.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If we go to Syria we need to have a solid plan and get the job done right. We can't afford to intervene only to have some terrorist organization or Muslim extremist government taking control.

Right. This is what I thought also.

So first kick Assad and his backup such as Russia, Iran, and his own military. This is a challenge of its own with possibilities of escalation into a 3rd world war by for instance blowing a Russian ship or so.

Then and if Assad goes away, with so much stress and risk involved as mentioned, terrorist and religious extremists would have to be dealt with. Should a religious extremist whom is against democracy and pro Sharia law be elected democratically (irony!) then the Syrian type Morsi also needs to fall just like it did in Egypt.

That is the involvement necessary to free Syria and "get the job done right." Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
 

Juanita

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
863
Location
now? COLORADO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh but it's so perfect; the rebels and Alquaida use chemical weapons to justify the us joining in the fray. Assad then retaliates against some of those assets, then they show the video of dying us soldiers, or talk about a ship being sunk and then there will be the support needed for a full invasion or whatever is deemed necessary.

The big risk depends on how attached Russia is to defending Assad....



I've read the released unclassified info on why the President feels there is absolute proof that the Assad Regime launched the chemical weapons attack on civilians.. There is not one unified group fighting Assad and the only group we are affiliated with and supplying some supplies is the Free Syrian Army..
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress to Vote on Syria

I've read the released unclassified info on why the President feels there is absolute proof that the Assad Regime launched the chemical weapons attack on civilians.. There is not one unified group fighting Assad and the only group we are affiliated with and supplying some supplies is the Free Syrian Army..

You are right; that makes the situation even worse.

Let's say Assad is toppled. Btw, I am not saying he's a good guy in any way. Then you wind up with a new civil war afterwards to figure out who gets to control the pile of ashes.

Again, the best case scenario is a destabilized middle east...
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress to Vote on Syria

We have not started a war..

Haven't exactly been pushing for peace either...

Edit; most sensible people on both sides 85-91% oppose military action against Assad, but that's not going to stop obama and friends.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
We don't have to take over anyplace.. We may not be the worlds police, but we are a world leader--"The" world leader and thus we have responsibilities.. By using chemical weapons on civilians including women and over 400 children, Syria broke the rules..


There is your problem. They say world leader as something people voluntarily follow. We lead the way into the future implies that people chose to follow us. What you are talking about is fascism. We will become the world's leader through force and dictates. Those are not the same thing. In one case you are a leader because your way is good and people eventually realize that. The other you lead because you are strong and the good is not inherent. You are trying to claim we are an inherent leader when really we are fallible and using force. You are no better than conservatives who claim rightousness through religion.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,799
Reaction score
20,472
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nothing like getting the cart before the horse. Send out your entire administration to beat the drums of immediate military action, identify all the sites you're going to bomb, etc., and then limp into congress in two weeks to see if you can scrounge up enough support for a "plan" that has no or little rationale and even less of an end game or desired outcome. Does anyone have confidence that Obama and his gang have a clue what they're doing?

There are only two possible outcomes here - the congress will see this as a foolish jump into nonsense with no good ending and vote against it or they will see a weak President, further weakening America's reputation abroad, and foolishly vote to approve it in the hope of bolstering America's reputation. Neither is good.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
20,967
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nothing like getting the cart before the horse. Send out your entire administration to beat the drums of immediate military action, identify all the sites you're going to bomb, etc., and then limp into congress in two weeks to see if you can scrounge up enough support for a "plan" that has no or little rationale and even less of an end game or desired outcome. Does anyone have confidence that Obama and his gang have a clue what they're doing?

There are only two possible outcomes here - the congress will see this as a foolish jump into nonsense with no good ending and vote against it or they will see a weak President, further weakening America's reputation abroad, and foolishly vote to approve it in the hope of bolstering America's reputation. Neither is good.
I think that is exactly right. Obamas turn to congress was a run for cover. He ran right up to the edge of attack and pulled back. That makes him look week and cowardly. He doesn't want to bomb Syria or transform the Middle East, he wants to transform America. Getting us bogged down in a war is Syria will just distract him from his ultimate goal. He screwed up drawing the red line, Syria called his bluff and Obama folded. Game over. The negative impact of this and the degree to which his fecklessness will embolden our enemies remains to be seen, but there is no upside to bad guys around the globe having no fear of the US.

As for congress, they will not authorize any action, and Obama wont push them in any way. They will come back with a no vote and Obama will thump his chest and say how willing he was to take bold action but Congress stopped him. It is probably best that we don't do anything is Syria, but the way we arrive at that determination is important. It is one thing to say we wont act because it is not in our interest to act, but another altogether to send your Secretary of State out there to declare that attacking IS in our national interest then have the President turn tail and run. Not good.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
432
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Congress not rushing back for Syria vote



Good, more than likely Congress will vote down his authorization for force in Syria.

I am very pleased that the president has listened to the suggestion we and many others have made to bring this authorization to Congress. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee

What? Their suggestion? WTF happened to the Law and the Constitution? Suggestion my behind.

This is one of the things that is wrong with our government...the Constitution & the Law are merely suggestions.
 
Top Bottom