• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

John Kerry: ‘We Are Not Going to Lose’ Vote Authorizing Syria Military Action'

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
7,180
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
At first I wanted this vote to be a no because going into Syria would be stupid. Now I want it to be a no vote so that Kerry can have egg on his stupid face.
 

The Cat

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
15
Reaction score
11
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It would be a foolish thing to go into Syria, but then again John Kerry is a foolish man.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It would be a foolish thing to go into Syria, but then again John Kerry is a foolish man.
Principles, ethics and perspectives are like the wind among most political enthusiasts, particularly when power is a factor in any of the former.
John_Kerry_Hearing.jpg

He does look more foolish than most political slime-balls though, doesn't he?
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
God I hope they attach the authorization to a bill to repeal obamacare and outlaw abortion just to watch democrats stroke out.
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
God I hope they attach the authorization to a bill to repeal obamacare and outlaw abortion just to watch democrats stroke out.
Yeah, won't happen.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
he's right... Congress with vote "yes" to military strikes.
I'm not so sure. I'm very interested in which democrats will vote for/against it because an election is coming up, and many of them recently ran campaign strategies where they incessantly bashed Bush and Republicans for their handling of similar issues. Seems like it might be tough to support something that's even worse than what you were just railing on a few years ago. Some might consider it hypocritical and others, like me, might have trouble telling the difference between Republicans & Democrats. They just seem to reverse roles on international security issues when power changes hands.
 

Thrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
20,295
Reaction score
9,800
Location
Texas, Vegas, Colombia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not so sure. I'm very interested in which democrats will vote for/against it because an election is coming up, and many of them recently ran campaign strategies where they incessantly bashed Bush and Republicans for their handling of similar issues. Seems like it might be tough to support something that's even worse than what you were just railing on a few years ago. Some might consider it hypocritical and others, like me, might have trouble telling the difference between Republicans & Democrats. They just seem to reverse roles on international security issues when power changes hands.
all good points.... but I don't see congress.. either house... rebuffing El Primo when he wants to bomb something.
democrats already have MSNBC selling how this decision is very different from Iraq... it's a marketing campaign to separate Obama from bush and give Democrats cover., most likely to preempt the points you touched on.

I think it'll pass the Senate easily... Reid is already on board, so are key Republicans.
it can potentially get dicey in the House, but i think there are enough votes in the bag already to pass it.

if you can't tell the difference between the 2 factions of the one party we have...well... good for you, you're paying attention :thumbs:
 

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction score
6,632
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm so pumped to see how this goes down! Congress could very well smack this down. That's what makes it so interesting! There is no longer a pro-war party vs. an anti-war party.
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The longer the debate lasts, though, the tougher it will be for Obama. Without the urgency to act fast, the Republicans might settle back into their usual intransigence.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,233
Reaction score
14,441
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
140 bipartisan signatures and counting from congress? Why demand Obama get congressional approval if they aren't going to approve it?

Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.

But if congress does vote no, then Obama will have an out not to strike Syria and save face. The decision might also depend on what the French and UK Parliments vote as well. I think the UK will be making a second vote now that the UN report is out.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It would be very interesting to see Republicans stand up and say that they no longer want to help eliminate WMDs.
I think you need to revisit your perception of Republicans and more likely your understanding of history. Republicans don't want to eliminate WMD any more than they want to eliminate guns. Good luck supporting this argument.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
140 bipartisan signatures and counting from congress? Why demand Obama get congressional approval if they aren't going to approve it?

Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.

But if congress does vote no, then Obama will have an out not to strike Syria and save face. The decision might also depend on what the French and UK Parliments vote as well. I think the UK will be making a second vote now that the UN report is out.
At least you understand that this potential war action is all about Obama saving face and remaining macho. Maybe he should take his shirt off as he asks for congressional votes.
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Anyway, Obama doesnt' need their authority to do a limited strike. There is too much precedent going back to Truman for presidents to conduct limited miltary action.
The precedent is there, what's exciting is the prospect of restoring the precedent to Congress. When was the last time we actually declared war? 1941. Not many people like to have the President, whoever that is, have the ultimate say in whether we go to war or not. A restoration of the responsibility of Congress to declare war over the President might lead a long way to our extraction out of the Middle East.

At least you understand that this potential war action is all about Obama saving face and remaining macho. Maybe he should take his shirt off as he asks for congressional votes.
I must admit that Obama would probably not have advocated a strike if it hadn't been for his very un-politick "red line" declaration. If he hadn't said that, though, he'd face criticism from all angles for being unresponsive to a chemical attack. This is a very gray area in a lot of ways.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I must admit that Obama would probably not have advocated a strike if it hadn't been for his very un-politick "red line" declaration. If he hadn't said that, though, he'd face criticism from all angles for being unresponsive to a chemical attack. This is a very gray area in a lot of ways.
Yes, but the "red line" declaration was Obama refusing to not look macho. This is the use of a mistake to cover for another mistake, all because Obama has no realistic international strategy. A nuke free world is a happy place befitting Disney but unbefitting a US president yet this seems to be the sum of his international strategy, now that his "sit down and negotiate with the enemy" strategy failed.
 

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, but the "red line" declaration was Obama refusing to not look macho. This is the use of a mistake to cover for another mistake, all because Obama has no realistic international strategy. A nuke free world is a happy place befitting Disney but unbefitting a US president yet this seems to be the sum of his international strategy, now that his "sit down and negotiate with the enemy" strategy failed.
The declaration might have simply been Obama hoping that the threat of retaliation would be enough to prevent Syria from using CW, allowing him to act tough but send a signal that we wouldn't respond unless you did something really stupid.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The declaration might have simply been Obama hoping that the threat of retaliation would be enough to prevent Syria from using CW, allowing him to act tough but send a signal that we wouldn't respond unless you did something really stupid.
Making threats/promises isn't too presidential unless there is a solid enough reason behind them to follow though on them. As has been pointed out, we (the USA) aren't the world police so we shouldn't be policing the world or attacking other countries unless it's clearly in the national security interests of the US. I'm not sure how we can condemn the Iraq war on one hand yet condone our Libya, Syria and Egypt actions on the other.
 

EdwinWillers

Be different, be honest
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
4,361
Reaction score
2,324
Location
Divided States of Kardashia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm so pumped to see how this goes down! Congress could very well smack this down. That's what makes it so interesting! There is no longer a pro-war party vs. an anti-war party.
No, it's just two "me!" "me!" parties jockeying for a sense of relevance in a mire of their own making.
 

EdwinWillers

Be different, be honest
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
4,361
Reaction score
2,324
Location
Divided States of Kardashia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Making threats/promises isn't too presidential unless there is a solid enough reason behind them to follow though on them.
Sadly, if there's one thing this president excels at is not being presidential.
As has been pointed out, we (the USA) aren't the world police so we shouldn't be policing the world or attacking other countries unless it's clearly in the national security interests of the US.
And we've yet to hear the evidence why, precisely this is in our national interest at all.
I'm not sure how we can condemn the Iraq war on one hand yet condone our Libya, Syria and Egypt actions on the other.
I suppose it's possible if the "friendly" in each were one and the same.
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The president absolutely hopes this is voted down because, despite shirking the responsibility, he's still linked to the decision.
Just as when he anncounced his red-line, he hoped it would never be crossed or, if crossed, never proven. He has never made a pro-active decision in regards to foreign policy.

Imagine if a year ago his macho red-line announcement was "Chemical weapons are the red line for me. If Syria uses them I will not hesitate. I will ask congress what I should do."
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The president absolutely hopes this is voted down because, despite shirking the responsibility, he's still linked to the decision.
Just as when he anncounced his red-line, he hoped it would never be crossed or, if crossed, never proven. He has never made a pro-active decision in regards to foreign policy
A black and white statement that falls flat on its face. The series of strikes aimed at Al Qaeda in both Yemen and Pakistan in particular come to mind, as does the assassination of Al Awlaki.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,877
Reaction score
27,936
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Top Bottom