• 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!

You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and why

You're the Congressman, and Your Vote on Syria


  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Why do I suspect that all the "Conservatives" voting no, you be shouting and screaming "USA,USA...." if a Republican President were considering bombing Syria?

As for myself....I don't support it under Obama any more than I would support it under a Bush or any other Republican.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

A slap on the wrist . . . sanction in the eyes of the world . . . hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure damage . . . loss of face at one's inability to do a damned thing about it . . . it's more than a slap on the wrist.

I'm afraid you really have the wrong perspective on this. Infrastructure damage is the least of Assad's concerns right now (you may have noticed he's fighting a very bloody civil war) and if he survives this will be an enormous boost to his prestige, at home and around the world.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Because you can't tax him. Sanctions are not going to work simply because too many countries will still deal with them.
I was being facetious.

Precisely what is our interest in doing anything w/r to Syria? Saving Obama's face seems to be the only real goal in lobbing a few bombs onto targets that have long been moved now that we've broadcast our intentions.

And if the world isn't going to stand by us, regardless how heinous the use of chemical weapons may be - who are we to presume the right to do it in the world's stead?

Furthermore:
1) Who pulled the trigger on the use of chemical weapons? We have yet to be told who did it and why. And a bunch of liberals here want us to do it - without knowing that answer to that question. Why? All I can think of is to help Obama save face.
2) If we did bomb Assad, aren't we then helping the very people we've been fighting lo these past 12 years? How is it possible to save face given that is the practical consequence of attacking Assad, regardless our reasons?

This is such an ill-advised action it's appalling.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Your vote?

Yea.
Nay.
Or Obama's favorite... Not Present.

###

At the moment I'd vote no.
This is all about Obama and covering his ass. He's looking to Republicans to save his ass. It's all political as everything is with this Amateur. First he says we can't tolerate this... then on Saturday before going golfing and everyone is expecting him to make a statement about upcoming bombings, he says he's going to Congress.

Isn't it amazing how Obama left Kerry out to hang?

The measures are half assed. A pin prick. Symbolic... Useless... and the problem is 100% of Obama's own making.

Where is the coalition?

Where is Obama's preparation after making the Red Line statement?

Let the Arab League sort this out. We've sold them enough hi-tech equipment... we can assist with AWACs and the like.

There is a reason to vote yea and it is because it's the US, and our credibility is on the line. But sorry, our credibility is damaged and the only thing that will restore it is having a mature adult as president, and the first opportunity for that it 2016.

Nay.

Let them sort it out. The Sunni radicals are fighting the Shi'ite government and there is no good that can come of us stepping between them or helping one side or the other.

BTW, Saudi Arabia has it's own AWACS, they don't need the US, NATO, British or French ones.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Just wondering: is anybody going to attach an amendment authorizing the President to launch strikes against any group in Syria who is targeting Christians for abduction and murder (like certain parts of the anti-Assad-forces)? Or does that not cross a red line?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

A few bombs can do some pretty significant damage to his military power. He can withstand it certainly, but it will be a significant cost.
It's beginning to look like what the president has in mind might be a little more than just a few bombs. What Obama is presenting us with is a confrontation with Syria, Iran, and Russia. Either we confront it as that, i.e., the reality, or we leave it alone. The other side of this is that an attack on Assad may actually force him to use CW in the near future to hang on to power. Then there's the chance that our attack will detonate some CW's there....
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Why do I suspect that all the "Conservatives" voting no, you be shouting and screaming "USA,USA...." if a Republican President were considering bombing Syria?

As for myself....I don't support it under Obama any more than I would support it under a Bush or any other Republican.
Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.

There's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

There's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
I think the Iraqi Kurds might have a little dispute with you over "potential".
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

There's nothing rational about supporting a 10 year occupation in Iraq over the potential of having and using WMD's then not supporting strikes against a country that actually used WMD's.
Well now I'm truly curious. What is it that makes you think there are WMD's in Syria? ....as opposed to none in Iraq?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I vote "Yea".
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Do you, for a minute, believe that if the US bombs Syrian military facitilites and weapons that the Russians won't be right there in the next few days offloading replacement weapons and much, much more in a ramped up response to US action? And when that happens, is the President and all those pushing for "saving face" going to lose face then or go all in?

Replacing hardware, certainly. Replacing facilities and trained people, not so much, that takes time.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

but you do realize I hope that once the bombing starts, not removing him from power would be seen as a political failure so if Obama goes in for a penny, he will go in for a pound. Politics always trumps strategy in politician's minds.

Not if the stated goal is not to remove him from power, which it is. Saying achieving your stated goal is a failure is just silly.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I was being facetious.

Precisely what is our interest in doing anything w/r to Syria? Saving Obama's face seems to be the only real goal in lobbing a few bombs onto targets that have long been moved now that we've broadcast our intentions.

And if the world isn't going to stand by us, regardless how heinous the use of chemical weapons may be - who are we to presume the right to do it in the world's stead?

Furthermore:
1) Who pulled the trigger on the use of chemical weapons? We have yet to be told who did it and why. And a bunch of liberals here want us to do it - without knowing that answer to that question. Why? All I can think of is to help Obama save face.
2) If we did bomb Assad, aren't we then helping the very people we've been fighting lo these past 12 years? How is it possible to save face given that is the practical consequence of attacking Assad, regardless our reasons?

This is such an ill-advised action it's appalling.

Really? What is our interest? Do you own a ****ing map?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

I think the Iraqi Kurds might have a little dispute with you over "potential".

Well if you think conservatives are being "rational" not supporting action in Syria then you'll really have to explain to me how invading a country 20 years after the use of Chemical weapons is Kosher and military strikes soon after the use isn't.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

It's beginning to look like what the president has in mind might be a little more than just a few bombs. What Obama is presenting us with is a confrontation with Syria, Iran, and Russia. Either we confront it as that, i.e., the reality, or we leave it alone. The other side of this is that an attack on Assad may actually force him to use CW in the near future to hang on to power. Then there's the chance that our attack will detonate some CW's there....

Niether Iran nor Russia stands to gain from pushing a confrontation beyond political with the US.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Well now I'm truly curious. What is it that makes you think there are WMD's in Syria? ....as opposed to none in Iraq?

Well for one the use of chemical weapons by the government against their population. That kind of leads me to believe they have WMD's....
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

No. There is not sufficient evidence that it was Assad's regime that used the weapons based on what we are being told. Given the recent scandals such as the IRS, Fast and Furious and Benghazi I simply don't believe anything they are telling us. I would need other outside unbiased information. This is about saving face for Obama, not the US. I'm not willing to be a part of destabilizing the ME just to cover his punk ass. He spoke out of turn, it's not our problem as a nation.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Well if you think conservatives are being "rational" not supporting action in Syria then you'll really have to explain to me how invading a country 20 years after the use of Chemical weapons is Kosher and military strikes soon after the use isn't.
The invasion of Iraq was not predicated on the existence of CW alone. The existence and use of CW in Syria is not the only consideration, either. Yep, it's bad, but it can be much, much worse unless we are prepared to maintain our presence and pressure for an extended time. You might want to take a quick look at the disposition of our Navy right now. What ships are in port, and why, before you get too enthusiastic.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Really? What is our interest? Do you own a ****ing map?
I own lots of maps. So what? But if it's that easy, maybe you can spell it out for me - especially how owning a map let's you know who pulled the trigger on the use of chemical weapons, or why. And what does owning a map have to do with answering the question about why its in our interest to help the very people out whom we've been fighting for the past 12 years. Or what does owning a map have to do with our need to bomb Assad when the rest of the world refuses to stand by such an action.

Yes, I own a ****ing map. So what?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Niether Iran nor Russia stands to gain from pushing a confrontation beyond political with the US.
I hope you're correct. We are not the only players in the area though, and some have far more to lose than we do.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Because contrary to ad-nauseum leftist propaganda, conservatives can and do think rationally, especially in times of impending crisis.

Actually....quit the opposite. I suspect that they aren't thinking at all....they are simply basing their feelings on which party in in charge.
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

Well for one the use of chemical weapons by the government against their population. That kind of leads me to believe they have WMD's....
Ok, then where's the beef with Bush's actions in Iraq? Surely you're aware that government used chemical weapons against their population too, right?
 
Re: You're The Congressman... You Make the Call on Syria (Yea... or Nay.. or...) and

NO! The US is not the police of the world. We need to start working on our own problems and let other countries deal with thier own problems or let some other country be the police. IMO we need to withdraw ALL troops from everywhere except embassies and let people know that if they F*** with us or our CLOSE allies then we will either send an assassin team or just bomb the crap out of them (depending on situation). We have the technology now to not have to send one single man/woman into another country. We should use it instead of being chicken ****s about not hurting "innocent lives". War is ugly and will always be ugly. Treat it as such.

The US has NOT been in some type of war or another for the past 30 years straight....and people wonder why some call the US empiralistic....
 
Back
Top Bottom