- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 566
- Location
- Southwest AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Where did Syria get these weapons? Maybe these are the ones Saddam moved out of Iraq before we gave him the big wupass?
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...
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.
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..
Mornin' INF. :2wave: Yeah and I wouldn't trust Corker on this one. He is in line with McCain and just came back recently from over there. But like you I am glad to see Obama.....DO THE RIGHT THING for Once!!!!!
Albeit.....a bit late. Still better late than sorry.
Where did Syria get these weapons? Maybe these are the ones Saddam moved out of Iraq before we gave him the big wupass?
I assume by doing it right you mean toppling the Syrian government and putting in another government. The rebels have failed to cooperate effectively with one another and none of the factions would be satisfied with the other in control. The Syrian people prefer the status quo of their government over the uncertainties of the terrorist rebels, they've observed Iraq, Egypt and Libya.
It's still not clear why people weren't terribly upset when Saddam gassed his own people but are now ready to drop bombs when Assad does the same.
These mixed messages only encourage dictators.
I completely disagree. Bush was improving relations with Libya, and Obomba blew the country to hell. Just one example.
The Constitution requires Congressional authorization for war because it is less likely to pull the trigger than an imperial president. This is the first time Obama has followed the constitutional mandate on a major policy decision. I don't think his reason was constitutional however. He wants to bomb Syria but that is so unpopular with the American people that he is hoping that Congress will take some of the heat from the electorate. Asking Congress to share the blame is a calculated political decision. This administration makes Bush look like a foreign policy genius.
You can always tell when a liberal has run out of excuses for Obamas failures: they circle back to blame Bush. Seriously dude, Obama is in his second term as president. In Hilary Clinton, he had the (supposed) greatest Secretary of State in the history of Secretary of Statedom. Yet in the face of mass slaughter and WMD use, Obama cant cobble together a single ally to take action. And you blame Bush? Blind partisanship only serves to make you look, well, blind. Open your eyes. Obama botched this all by himself.
No one even knows if Assad's government did this yet.
Going through the proper channels, following the rule of LAW will be admired by the world, not seen as weak. Other countries are backing off because the White house can't deliver the goods in terms of evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
Russia and China vetoed any use of force, sanctions or no fly zone at the UN. That's what shuts things down.
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.
I'm not sure about that. He did capture the dolt vote. They even gave him a Nobel Prize!!
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.
The Constitution requires Congressional authorization for war because it is less likely to pull the trigger than an imperial president. This is the first time Obama has followed the constitutional mandate on a major policy decision. I don't think his reason was constitutional however. He wants to bomb Syria but that is so unpopular with the American people that he is hoping that Congress will take some of the heat from the electorate. Asking Congress to share the blame is a calculated political decision. This administration makes Bush look like a foreign policy genius.
True enough - but if they could vote to take it back, don't you think they would?
I think you're mostly right, but I think this President is so weak of character that he cannot act alone unless others are prepared to lead and allow him to jump to the front of the line when the action starts. He opposed moving on Libya until the French pushed it in NATO and it became a NATO action and then Obama jumped to the front of the line. Obama now finds himself out on the ledge all by himself, claiming he's gonna do it, he's gonna jump, but he now wants congress to take the tough decision.
How stupid and feeble he looks - he claims he doesn't need congress's approval to act but he's going to hold up action, action he just last week claimed was absolutely needed and required, and wait a couple of weeks. If he loses the vote, is he still going to act? Leaders lead, they don't shoot their mouths off and then hide behind their friends.
People of the world, particularly those in Syria and the greater middle east, will assume that the President of the greatest and most powerful country in the world would have known the proper channels, the rule of law, and have gone through them before preaching to the world and threatening immediate military action. By not doing that first, the world sees him as a dolt and people don't follow dolts.
Well not to disagree with that, but US presidents haven't followed proper channels for a long time. In this case you look at the will of the people, military action in Syria is widely unpopular. But the second step is congress, if you don't secure congressional approval, the UN is a moot point. Yet the US has been at the UN for nearly three years. Bassakwards.