AngryOldGuy
double secret probation
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,917
- Reaction score
- 658
- Location
- Phx,Az
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
As several people have pointed out, Obama can use military force for 90 days without congressional approval. Asking for Congress permission is not to launch a few missiles. While Obama can say it's to launch a limited strike on Syria, Congressional approval will actually grant Obama sweeping wartime powers, which he'll abuse of course.So this will be all over when Congress tells Hussein "no you can not shoot missiles at Assad".
Anyone want to guess what faux crisis will be shoved at us next to deflect from the real issue(s)?
Obama speaks. He will seek authorization from Congress to strike...but that he feels he has full authority to do so with or without their approval.
Case of national security my ass.
hah that would indeed be a very effective means to keep the American population distracted.sweeping wartime powers
I'd rather just sit back and let them fight each other. I feel no need to have our troops over there getting involved in this mess.
At this point it is not about troops. It is by allowing them to fight each other did it gathered extremists such as Al-Qaeda. Allowing them to be involved more and there may be less to gain.
If Al-Qaeda establishes root contact with the majority of the population then you have another Afghanistan in Syria. Who would benefit from that even they manage to kick Assad, Russia, and Iran at a high life price?
On the other hand if Assad wins there may be more retaliation. There may be media black out Russia style, where people may be put to death squads and no one would know.
It seems the best way to do this now would be to kick Assad, reach the people, and build on them against extremists there. Kinda like Morsi in Egypt. More work but this should put a plug into "this mess" as you state.
Do you realize the extent of involvement you're talking about here. Do you realize how much money that would cost the United States? We are still paying for the Iraq war and Afghanistan. OUR people are hurting here at home. There are not enough jobs, and people are having to collect benefits from the government. We have some major problems here at home that need to be taken care of, as well as a lot of money owed, and you want us to build a new nation in Syria? Silly. We should stay out of it and concentrate on OUR problems. Let someone else deal with it.
I do realize them all. Sadly though the enemies realize the limitations also and may be using the limitations to set an example that "We can even gas civilians and US cannot intervene any longer."
Besides, although I would like to see Syria free for it reminds me the joys of becoming free in 1999, it is not me who is pushing for military action, is it? I said if Obama goes with it then it is unlikely that Al-Qaeda whom would benefit from the strikes would be allowed to be in charge over there.
For you see you would be switching dictators with that? People may not be liberated at all with that?
No, we shouldn't. If the U.N. wants to authorize some sort of action where it would require multiple countries support in both troops and money, maybe. But not just the U.S.
This. This would be a lot better. The world as a whole (or at least the more civilized parts of it) could be world's police, but not a single independent part of it. The U.N. should be doing this, not the U.S.
hah then it is a foregone conclusion Obama's gonna do itwhen Sean Hannity and Dennis Kuchinich both oppose the USA going into Syria that ought to count for something
Uuuugggghhh... On the one hand, we're not the world's police and we shouldn't try to be. On the other hand, it is an evil thing to sit back and do nothing while innocent people suffer.
This. This would be a lot better. The world as a whole (or at least the more civilized parts of it) could be world's police, but not a single independent part of it. The U.N. should be doing this, not the U.S.
It's not up to us. It's not our fault whatever happens over there either. It really doesn't have anything to do with us. If Al Qaeda came to be in control, then we could deal with that at that time.
Look at what's happening in over there. Take a look at the people who live there. The place is a hell hole. I want nothing to do with it.
That is a solution. But until then (and if Al-Qaeda wins over Assad, Russia, and Iran) you have escalation of human rights violations to tolerate. Recently it was gas. There are worse methods. Here I must leave you to your dark imagination.
Dear Christina, usually war zones are not covered in rose and other forms of flowers, nor does politeness and shiny Sun rays influences the joyest of moments in each residents hearts. It is usually a hell hole, and involves uggliness, and a lot of it. Should you not want anything to do with it you are lucky (unlike Syrian women) for you can just decide freely to stay away from it, and it will by most odds. You can even start from unsubscribing to this thread.
And here you are, a person from another country, trying to push the United States into a war with Syria.
This stupid military action is NOT going to accomplish anything. The only purpose for this is for Obama to try to not look like a fool. Too late for that I think.
And another thing, don't you tell me to unsubscribe from this thread. I have more of a say of this than you do. I am a citizen of the United States.
I am afraid you give me too much power with that! LOL :lamo
What happened to the hell zone and the people suffering there? Are those issues not to be aligned with the purpose you mention?
You are on a public forum lady. Your citizenship does not determines the amount of say you have on certain issues.
That's what you're doing isn't it?
I don't think you understood my statement. This response doesn't make sense.
So are you. Don't tell me to unsubscribe from threads ever. I will post on any thread I wish to.
I do not think that any of us here has the power to push other countries into doing things. We just come here for opinions. Frankly I doubt that any legitimate (unlike us) politician and decision maker even notices what we do here. Yet you state twice that I have the power to push USA to do things for me?
You mentioned those earlier, and diminish them as more rightful cause other than face to intervene.
I have you on my friends list. That was a suggestion to keep away from threads that may not be what you are expecting them to be such as this one. What did you made of it?
Of course they aren't going to listen to you, but you're trying to make the case as to why we should. Look at the poll results. Americans do NOT want to go there.
Are you aware of all the other atrocities that are MUCH worse than this that occur in this world, and we DO NOT intervene. Why do you think that is? Why is this particular atrocity OUR problem now?
If I wanted to stay away, don't you think I would? I want to talk about this. This concerns me directly. My tax dollars will pay for all of this stuff that I am against. It doesn't make any sense for us to intervene. There are others than can do it.
I think Putin is calling Obama's bluff and it's working.
They see the US as weak and vulnerable.
It is not my intent to change the position of all of them here.
It is selective media.
So you do want to talk. Well then leave the rose colored glasses on the door and expect talking about a hell hole. See that is what it was all about. It is a hell hole because it is oppressed. Being oppressed keeps it being a hell hole. The intervention if done completely would unhell the hole in the long term if the population between Al-Qaeda and Assad are set free. If one were to choose places to intervene based on how appealing the places are there might not be any intervention at all.
You keep mentioning "others." Whom do you have in mind?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?