• 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: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Oh well....and I already took my gas-mask out and bought tons of canned corn, tuna and bottled water.... lol


Fallen.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
Why not? You whine when the President finally does the right thing? :lol:

I hear Congress is gathering on the 09-th of September. Thank goodness, we'll have a brake from war-mongering and war drums. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I only stated my rationale for my misgivings on this.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
What would we have lost with a Franco-American-Turkish punitive bombardment?
Click to expand...

The ability to stave off the combined forces of an allied Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. As such, we would have only called in more NATO allies after the fact. In short, the loss would mean ushering in WWIII because we failed to marshall the international community against acts against humanity several UN nations have long condemned.

Believe me when I say this is one time unilateral action would very likely work against a setting President given the temper in that part of the world.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Objective Voice said:
The ability to stave off the combined forces of an allied Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. As such, we would have only called in more NATO allies after the fact. In short, the loss would mean ushering in WWIII because we failed to marshall the international community against acts against humanity several UN nations have long condemned.

Believe me when I say this is one time unilateral action would very likely work against a setting President given the temper in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for saying so but that is a ludicrous scenario. In what way do you envision a global offensive involving all of those countries or World War III? That is just silly.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
What bloody fall do you anticipate?
Click to expand...

WW3

Let me remind you something about WW1 - it was "supposed" to last 4 months. Instead it lasted 4 years and was a carnage. :roll:
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
WW3

Let me remind you something about WW1 - it was "supposed" to last 4 months. Instead it lasted 4 years and was a carnage. :roll:
Click to expand...

Usually you have to provide reasons that you think something like World War III is imminent. If we relied on the maxim that "World War I was supposed to last four months" no military activity would ever be launched to the detriment of all. Claiming that global war is imminent of we strike Syria is an extraordinary claim especially since our presumptive 'enemies' Russia and China have forsworn military activity.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

ttwtt78640 said:
This sounds very much like Obama simply wants an excuse to back down from his unilateral "red line" nonsense and thus to gain political points in a few ways.

If congress says no:

1) Obama can still assert that after many months of dragging his own feet (leading from behind?) that he "always" wished to "do something" about Syria even though he never sought the advice of congress before.

2) Congress (emphasis will be naturally limitted to the GOP members) is to now to blame if anything "bad" happens in Syria since he wanted to act and congress "stood in his way" by denyinig Obama's wish to attack.

3) If, by some miracle, things calm down in Syria Obama can assert that was due to his "stern resolve" to use U.S. military force if necessary.

If congress says yes:

4) If the Syria attack works out OK then Obama can say that he initiated the bold miltary action resulting in "peace".

5) If Syria goes badly then Obama can still say it was either due to (GOP) congressional resistance to his having taken quicker action - or simply not bringing up the fact that it was basically his idea at all.
Click to expand...

Politically speaking, you're right on all counts. Each and every one of the scenarios you've outlined could happen. But if I'm in Pres. Obama's shoes, it's exactly what I would do.

You call Congress' bluff and force them to act.

You give time to the matter which can only give credibility to your position OR allow cooler heads to prevail.

Either way, it puts the President in the driver's seat and Congress and the international community in the hot seat. This was the smartest thing he could do under the circumstances. He gives all sides a chance to weigh in but leaves himself the option to take matters in his own hands if the situation dictates.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

A very wise decision by President Obama that puts him a cut above the previous presidents who did not go to these lengths. Very well done.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

TheGirlNextDoor said:
The UN inspectors had just finished their investigation.

I still do not see how this poses a threat to U.S. national security?
Click to expand...


It poses a massive threat to not just US national security but the whole world, if you stand back and allow a dictator use chemical weapons on his own people then you are on a slipperley slope and Americas position is weakened globally because of it.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
The previous chemical attacks were so small-scale in nature that they did not seriously threaten the political credibility of the United States. What makes this an issue is that the President made it an issue. By challenging Assad openly, by confronting Russia, by calling for military action, by sending thousands of sailors to the brink of action, and by decisively claiming that atrocities had taken place and needed to be answered for. After organizing a military taskforce, calling for international allies, molding the global media narrative to indicate such action will take place, forcing Russia and Iran to vociferously defend their ally, and by putting an air of inevitability behind action the President I believe has created a situation where action must take place to avoid an extraordinarily dangerous loss of face. If we pull back from the brink I think it will influence foreign decision making dramatically.
Click to expand...

99% of the yapping and posturing was all Obama's doing yet, only now, does he want the "advice and consent" of congress. True Obama, and the USA, will indeed look stupid but congress, not Obama will then get the blame for not backing up Obama's planned "action".

On the other hand, if congress gives Obama the go then Obama can always deny that it was his plan at all, he was just doing what "America" wanted if it should go badly, otherwise Obama can take credit for the "brilliant plan of action". ;)
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

haymarket said:
A very wise decision by President Obama that puts him a cut above the previous presidents who did not go to these lengths. Very well done.
Click to expand...

Bush got approval for Afghan and Iraq. Obama did not get approval for Libya.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
Forgive me for saying so but that is a ludicrous scenario. In what way do you envision a global offensive involving all of those countries or World War III? That is just silly.
Click to expand...

It's not silly. Syria, Russia, China and Iran are friends and allies. Syria promised to strike Israel if attacked. Lebanon, I'm not sure. Jordan will not stay put. Egypt is already on fire... The whole region is a damn dynamite store.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Domestically, I think this was a potentially smart move. The United States lost a key supporter from the UK, is currently blocked from the Security Council, and it is a risky move domestically to move forward. The President does need to make a public appeal through the Congress, but Congress should have met sooner to decide.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
Usually you have to provide reasons that you think something like World War III is imminent.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's imminent, I said it's very likely. :peace
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
It's not silly. Syria, Russia, China and Iran are friends and allies. Syria promised to strike Israel if attacked. Lebanon, I'm not sure. Jordan will not stay put. Egypt is already on fire... The whole region is a damn dynamite store.
Click to expand...

It is extremely silly. Russia has no reason and never would have become militarily involved over Syria. Which while obvious to everyone was underlined by Sergei Lavrov just a few days ago... Egypt remains unrelated to Syria by the way.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

Higgins86 said:
It poses a massive threat to not just US national security but the whole world, if you stand back and allow a dictator use chemical weapons on his own people then you are on a slipperley slope and Americas position is weakened globally because of it.
Click to expand...

Especially if you are put into a position where it is even more unpopular to go in and continue to uphold international goals. You can end up posturing all you want, but when allies and your own population aren't in favor of enforcing those positions, it becomes clear the international community is weak on its own idealism.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
That is not relevant to the point under discussion. No one would dispute that Putin is overtly skeptical that Assad used chemical weapons or that the US should not attack Syria.
Click to expand...

I wanted to tell you that Russia cares. So does Iran, they declared that many times.
Why risk an open war for something that isn't even proven to be true?
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Canell said:
I wanted to tell you that Russia cares. So does Iran, they declared that many times.
Why risk an open war for something that isn't even proven to be true?
Click to expand...

Your assertion remains unfounded. There is no reason whatsoever to believe we are risking 'open war' over a missile strike on Syria. The worst (and still unlikely) outcome is a Syria that lashes out at it's neighbors. I think even this scenario is supremely unlikely. Russian involvement is a fiction, it is not even part of the equation.
 
Re: Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporv

Sherman123 said:
Forgive me for saying so but that is a ludicrous scenario. In what way do you envision a global offensive involving all of those countries or World War III? That is just silly.
Click to expand...

PM sent outlining what I believe is a real possibility should unilateral action have taken place without international support.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

Higgins86 said:
It poses a massive threat to not just US national security but the whole world, if you stand back and allow a dictator use chemical weapons on his own people then you are on a slipperley slope and Americas position is weakened globally because of it.
Click to expand...

Then why, are we not being supported by our strongest of allies, hmm?
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

If Obama would go to Congress before Cameroon, I bet he would have his "yes" and I bet british would have vote different.
 
Re: Obatake military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Apporval

I don't think it matter if he goes to Congress now or later.... it's not like Congress is going to say "no" ...now or later....

the federal government loves it some war... it never passes on the chance to get it some.
 
Obama: "US should take military action against Syria", seeks Congressional Appo

TheGirlNextDoor said:
Then why, are we not being supported by our strongest of allies, hmm?
Click to expand...

Because there is no evidence; and what evidence is out there is that it was the rebels, that includes Alquaida, are the ones responsible... But like Kerry said, it doesn't matter WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, but the fact tha SOMEONE committed the crime is EnouGh to go after Assad.

The whole administration MUST BE FLUSHED and soon before we go to war with Syria and Russia at the minimum... Especially on behalf of Alquaida who we are at war with.

Obama, by supporting the rebels is aiding and abetting our enemies; that is the definition of treason. Even more direct treason than what GW had done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom