• 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!

Obama ready to move on Syria without allies

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Obama administration said the president is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria without the assistance of allies after the British Parliament rejected a preliminary vote authorizing action. The U.S. said it would continue to consult with the UK but that the vote would not alter its plans.
"As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States," said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. "He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Click to expand...


Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs

Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone.
 
ill probably get deployed again.

not like obama hasnt tried to start a bunch of wars already.
 
Alone?!
With Russian ships going around?!

It is not going to be Battle Field game.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs

Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...



Heya DS :2wave: ......then again maybe not.


Official: U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria

In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was still weighing a potential response, but said his administration was working on a "compressed timeline."

Obama faces calls for American vote on force

Across the Atlantic, Obama said in a televised interview Wednesday that he has no doubt Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. He said government claims that the opposition used them were impossible.

"We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences," he said on "PBS NewsHour" Wednesday.

Obama said that he has not made a decision about whether to conduct a military strike in Syria. A senior administration official said the United States would continue to consult with British officials, but declined to say if the slowdown in London would affect U.S. decision-making on Syria.

The president is facing doubts at home as well: More than 160 members of Congress, including 63 Democrats, have now signed letters calling for either a vote or at least a "full debate" before any U.S. action.

The author of one of those letters, Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California, said Obama should seek "an affirmative decision of Congress" before committing American forces.

More than 90 members of Congress, most of them Republican, signed another letter by GOP Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia. That letter urged Obama "to consult and receive authorization" before authorizing any such military action.

Congress is currently in recess until September 9......snip~

Official: U.S. may take unilateral action against Syria - CNN.com


Does Obama think International Consequences comes before US National Security. Think that question should be asked by the MSMedia?
 
I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq. Obama cant even get the Brits. Surveillance, drones, Gitmo, gunboat diplomacy, WMD, move over Bush, looks like there is a new Cowboy in town.
 
Fletch said:
I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq. Obama cant even get the Brits. Surveillance, drones, Gitmo, gunboat diplomacy, WMD, move over Bush, looks like there is a new Cowboy in town.
Click to expand...

Obama-cowboy-hat.jpg



Y4TrI.gif


:2razz:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs

Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

See, that's what we knew all along. The president will do what's in the best interest of the United States. Not whats in the best interest of the Syrian civilians who largely support their government. Also "US Interests" do not equate with your and my interests.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
See, that's what we knew all along. The president will do what's in the best interest of the United States. Not whats in the best interest of the Syrian civilians who largely support their government. Also "US Interests" do not equate with your and my interests.
Click to expand...

As Syria does not pose any imminent threat to U.S. interests in the Mideast or U.S. allies there (and it won't, because that would be suicidal for a regime already struggling to hold onto power), it's difficult to envision the national interests that would be served by a military operation. Some peripheral interests might be served, but certainly not critical or vital ones.

What appears to be at stake is Presidential prestige on account of the President's having drawn a "red line," quite foolisly IMO as it was not anchored on critical U.S. interests, which sort of locked him into his current dilemma. Failure to attack, would risk creating perceptions of weakness. An attack would protect Presidential prestige but would probably not serve any overriding American interests given the information that is currently available. It could worsen already deteriorating relations with Russia and Russia could take stances that make it more difficult for the U.S. to pursue its goals e.g., a diplomatic resolution concerning Iran's nuclear activities. An attack might serve some modest humanitarian purpose, but only if strong evidence (beyond the circumstantial evidence currently available, which the British Parliament did not find sufficient) justified launching the strikes against the Assad government.
 
I agree with that Don.
 
donsutherland1 said:
As Syria does not pose any imminent threat to U.S. interests in the Mideast or U.S. allies there (and it won't, because that would be suicidal for a regime already struggling to hold onto power), it's difficult to envision the national interests that would be served by a military operation. Some peripheral interests might be served, but certainly not critical or vital ones.

What appears to be at stake is Presidential prestige on account of the President's having drawn a "red line," quite foolisly IMO as it was not anchored on critical U.S. interests, which sort of locked him into his current dilemma. Failure to attack, would risk creating perceptions of weakness. An attack would protect Presidential prestige but would probably not serve any overriding American interests given the information that is currently available. It could worsen already deteriorating relations with Russia and Russia could take stances that make it more difficult for the U.S. to pursue its goals e.g., a diplomatic resolution concerning Iran's nuclear activities. An attack might serve some modest humanitarian purpose, but only if strong evidence (beyond the circumstantial evidence currently available, which the British Parliament did not find sufficient) justified launching the strikes against the Assad government.
Click to expand...

The circumstantial evidence that I've been able to find would justify launching a strike on the rebels. I do notice that no USA press prints any of the evidence that the rebels used chemical weapons. Too many CIA assets and not enough reporters, in my opinion. I even see the AP saying the Assad regime used gas in December and the UNO report of Del Ponte indicts the rebels for that action. Funny a large news organization like Associated Press can't find the news, eh?
 
Obama isn't going to do anything. The regime is already calling an engagement a, "shot across the bow".

If any steel goes down range, it will only be a few units, doing minimal damage, so Obama can feel like a man again.
 
DaveFagan said:
The circumstantial evidence that I've been able to find would justify launching a strike on the rebels. I do notice that no USA press prints any of the evidence that the rebels used chemical weapons. Too many CIA assets and not enough reporters, in my opinion. I even see the AP saying the Assad regime used gas in December and the UNO report of Del Ponte indicts the rebels for that action. Funny a large news organization like Associated Press can't find the news, eh?
Click to expand...


What are you doing Dave, thinking outside the box?! Good post. I LOVE the first line, because its true of course, and if everybody would stop it with the Rah Rah America like this is a football game and really think about lives, maybe we could avoid this mess. Anyway only 9% of Americans support military action in Syria, they must all be on this board!!
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
See: "The United States Bill of Rights/Constitution doesn't mesh with authoritarian/totalitarian socialist ideas."
Click to expand...

Give me a break and loose the lame uneducated talking points.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Give me a break and loose the lame uneducated talking points.
Click to expand...

Lame?

I think we both have different "ideas" as to the United States Constitution.... I see it as a power that limits government and you see it as a power that empowers government...

The only reason why you believe your **** is because you just "take the word" of people you "agree with" while I study and embrace...

In your mind the "constitution" can be anything you want it to be -- not what it is not the line or precedent the document sets...

No I'm not giving you a break...

When you're wrong - you're wrong.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Obama ready to move on Syria without allies - The Hill's Global Affairs

Looks like unfortunately the UK's vote didnt change things. Looks like we are going in alone. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...


imperialism has no limit ,no shame

l heard this story when they decided to overthrow saddam by accusing him of using chemical weapons

where were they when saddam killed those seperatist kurds ?



why did they wait too long ?

not their national interest,their imperial interest

9/ 11 attacks ,haha


because it was saddam who attacked americans


jonior implied he was inspired by god to start a crusade against the muslims


and he already admitted they couldnt find anything in iraq


invalid........
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
Lame?

I think we both have different "ideas" as to the United States Constitution.... I see it as a power that limits government and you see it as a power that empowers government...

The only reason why you believe your **** is because you just "take the word" of people you "agree with" while I study and embrace...

In your mind the "constitution" can be anything you want it to be -- not what it is not the line or precedent the document sets...

No I'm not giving you a break...

When you're wrong - you're wrong.
Click to expand...

And it's the same constitution that makes clear that it is Congress that declares war, not the president. ONLY if and when our country is under attack or imminent threat of attack can the president act alone, but even then he is required to follow up with congress.
 
Fletch said:
I thought with the election of Obama the world was supposed to love us. Bush got about 50 nations to go along with him in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this time around it's a question of Fool Me once, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom