• 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!

I Am Now Against a U.S. Military Strike Against Syria

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm a progressive - I like much of what Obama's done (except for where he's adopted strictly conservative ideas like the Individual Mandate). He's been a vast improvement over the conservatives when it comes to foreign policy.

And yes, I realize those previous two sentences are already setting some conservative heads on fire.

But anyway, given his statements at face value, he's wrong on Syria - we should not send a military strike their way. The world is not behind us, and even the Arab League - which kicked Syria out of their organization due to his tyranny two years ago and who are strongly supporting the rebels - don't want us to get militarily involved. Even England isn't with us. The majority of the American people don't want us to get involved. The ONLY nation willing to side with Obama is France. Funny thing is, there's a bunch of (but by no means all) conservatives who agree with a military strike against Syria. Imagine that - conservatives who are siding WITH not only Obama, but France, too! The irony burns....

Anyway, given that there's so little support for a strike against Syria, Obama should not initiate the strike on his own authority, even though most presidents since WWII have done so. He should set a modern precedent of refusing to go to war without the consent and support of Congress, so that hopefully future presidents will feel pressured to follow the same precedent and not be so eager to get us involved in another war. We are all outraged by Syria's use of chemical weapons, of killing 400 children in one fell swoop, but the larger picture is ending the 'unitary executive' authority of the American presidency.

BUT that's all if Obama's words are taken at face value. What if he really isn't planning on any military strike without the support of the American people? What if he's only maintaining his hawkish stance to further drive wedges between the far right and the few moderates left in the Republican party, and by doing so, (1) expose their eagerness to go to war yet again (in the case of the hawks), and (2) expose their hypocrisy in the cases of those who oppose a strike against Syria but eagerly supported our illegal invasion of Iraq?

Is he being up-front? Or is he playing political chess again? In my opinion, as long as he doesn't send a military strike against Syria (if they don't continue using chemical weapons), it doesn't really matter - he and the American people come out the better in any case.
 

thinkforyoursel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
314
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm a progressive - I like much of what Obama's done (except for where he's adopted strictly conservative ideas like the Individual Mandate). He's been a vast improvement over the conservatives when it comes to foreign policy.

And yes, I realize those previous two sentences are already setting some conservative heads on fire.

But anyway, given his statements at face value, he's wrong on Syria - we should not send a military strike their way. The world is not behind us, and even the Arab League - which kicked Syria out of their organization due to his tyranny two years ago and who are strongly supporting the rebels - don't want us to get militarily involved. Even England isn't with us. The majority of the American people don't want us to get involved. The ONLY nation willing to side with Obama is France. Funny thing is, there's a bunch of (but by no means all) conservatives who agree with a military strike against Syria. Imagine that - conservatives who are siding WITH not only Obama, but France, too! The irony burns....

Anyway, given that there's so little support for a strike against Syria, Obama should not initiate the strike on his own authority, even though most presidents since WWII have done so. He should set a modern precedent of refusing to go to war without the consent and support of Congress, so that hopefully future presidents will feel pressured to follow the same precedent and not be so eager to get us involved in another war. We are all outraged by Syria's use of chemical weapons, of killing 400 children in one fell swoop, but the larger picture is ending the 'unitary executive' authority of the American presidency.

BUT that's all if Obama's words are taken at face value. What if he really isn't planning on any military strike without the support of the American people? What if he's only maintaining his hawkish stance to further drive wedges between the far right and the few moderates left in the Republican party, and by doing so, (1) expose their eagerness to go to war yet again (in the case of the hawks), and (2) expose their hypocrisy in the cases of those who oppose a strike against Syria but eagerly supported our illegal invasion of Iraq?

Is he being up-front? Or is he playing political chess again? In my opinion, as long as he doesn't send a military strike against Syria (if they don't continue using chemical weapons), it doesn't really matter - he and the American people come out the better in any case.

If you don't give credit to Obama for anything else...at least give him credit for being smarter than the republicans.
He won 2 major elections by simply out thinking them.
He was one of the few lone wolf in the wilderness voting against the Iraq war.
He got bin Laden

Those are not mere coincidence ....he knows what he's doing.

If nothing else give the republicans credit for shouting and creating fear and scare among the populous. It worked for them with Iraq ...here they go again with all the theories why ...Obama is wrong. If you're really progressive ....these are the very same people who were ssssoooo sure there were WMD in Iraq.

If you can't remember that ...think about recent election ...did you not see the conservatives popping the Champaign corks election eve...again ...a group that was sssoooooo sure they would win!!
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Those 100,000 Muslim men, women and children who were killed or murdered by other Muslims ?

By going in there, we killed tens of thousands...and by creating a power vacuum, our actions directly led to the deaths of the others.

Or, to give an interesting comparison, the Versailles treaty did not put Hitler in power...but it sure as heck created the conditions that led to his rise.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
By going in there, we killed tens of thousands...and by creating a power vacuum, our actions directly led to the deaths of the others.

Or, to give an interesting comparison, the Versailles treaty did not put Hitler in power...but it sure as heck created the conditions that led to his rise.

I have to concur.

Re: Iraq
President G.W. Bush was warned by the military brass that when his daddy G.H. went to war he went to war with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 American boots on the ground. G.W. was warned that he was going to war with Clinton's military and he could only put 200,000 American boots on the ground. G.W. Was warned that 200,000 American boots could kick ass big time and accomplish the mission of regime change but he would need a minimum of 400,000 boots on the ground to occupy Iraq after the mission was accomplished.

Sec. Def. Rumsfeld response was "You go to war with the army you have." The rest is history.

Note: From 2003 - 2007 19,000 insurgents were killed by American and coalition forces. 8,000 of them were Al Qaeda fighters.
 
Top Bottom