carlfense Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 A quick lesson on Syria Good breakdown. +1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Why would we help people that are supported by AQ? What? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-29/al-qaeda-links-cloud-syrian-war-as-u-dot-s-dot-seeks-clarity-on-rebels Link to comment
krill Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Nothing like a little pointless bombing in some mideast ****hole to distract us from the real issues. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Why would we help people that are supported by AQ? What? http://www.businessw...arity-on-rebels But "helping" the rebels isn't goal. It's not like Libya where we were providing air support for the rebels on the ground. Link to comment
tschu Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Just when we're finally sort of trying to end Bush's war mess, we go ahead and just jump right back to square 1 and start another war because, f#*k it, why not i hate our government so much Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House. “This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he said. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” Obama said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed to hold a debate and a vote on authorizing the use of force "as soon as Congress comes back into session." That would be Sept. 9 unless they opt to return earlier. "I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress." http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House. “This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he said. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” Obama said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed to hold a debate and a vote on authorizing the use of force "as soon as Congress comes back into session." That would be Sept. 9 unless they opt to return earlier. "I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress." http://news.yahoo.co...-161723103.html Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I can't get that breakdown link to work for me. This is a lose-lose situation for us and I'm sick of us getting involved in every little thing that's going on in the world. Why are we the world's police? Why does everyone think we have a solution to all of their problems? From what I understand if Syria is attacked by us or whomever, and the only ones that are willing to go with us is France..............neat, then Israel is in danger, Turkey is in danger, etc. Just hearing from Israel that they will defend themselves if attacked means we get involved no matter what since we are allies with them and they want us to get involved. You don't mess with Israel from what I understand when you talk about military power and abilities. World War III should be real fun to watch.............*insert sarcasm here* Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House. “This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he said. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” Obama said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed to hold a debate and a vote on authorizing the use of force "as soon as Congress comes back into session." That would be Sept. 9 unless they opt to return earlier. "I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress." http://news.yahoo.co...-161723103.html Please explain how this is in our national security interest? What has changed since 2008? But senior administration officials briefing reporters at the White House later said that Obama still believes he has the legal authority to act without congressional support — meaning that a “no” vote would not necessarily handcuff his foreign policy. And they disputed that Obama risked setting a precedent that could limit the power of future occupants of the Oval Office. LINK “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said in 2008. LINK 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?) The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 “After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House. “This would not be an open-ended intervention, we would not put boots on the ground,” he said. “Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” Obama said he had spoken by telephone with Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and that they agreed to hold a debate and a vote on authorizing the use of force "as soon as Congress comes back into session." That would be Sept. 9 unless they opt to return earlier. "I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interest, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy," Obama said. "I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress." http://news.yahoo.co...-161723103.html Please explain how this is in our national security interest? What has changed since 2008? I wonder why you bolded that sentence instead of the one after it . . . I've no doubt that Obama is wrong regardless, but what exactly is your complaint here? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 I wonder why you bolded that sentence instead of the one after it . . . I've no doubt that Obama is wrong regardless, but what exactly is your complaint here? Ummmm....because that is the one that completely contradicts his statements in his initial campaign that he constantly criticized Bush for. I thought that would be pretty clear. My question was....what changed? Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Ummmm....because that is the one that completely contradicts his statements in his initial campaign that he constantly criticized Bush for. I thought that would be pretty clear. Huh? Seriously . . . read the sentence after the one you put in bold. It sure looks like you're missing something important. Compare that to "without seeking a use-of-force," "unilaterally authorize," "without congressional support" etc. in the links that you posted. It looks like you're trying so hard to criticize Obama that you're losing track of the facts. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 For a long time I considered our foreign military interventions to be something that simply caused resentment around the world and never really liked getting into wars or non-war military engagements that Congress didn't declare. The outcry of countries over Obama's "weak" desire to get Congressional approval is a little surprising to me. I'm coming around to the opinion that much of the world actually wants America to be a global police state. Weird. No matter what the U.S. does, there'll be outcry from one side or another. Russia will be Russia, but if the evidence is really so compelling, it should be presented to the U.N. If we have the ability to shame Russia and China, why not take it? If we don't, do we really have the evidence? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 3, 2013 Author Share Posted September 3, 2013 Ummmm....because that is the one that completely contradicts his statements in his initial campaign that he constantly criticized Bush for. I thought that would be pretty clear. Huh? Seriously . . . read the sentence after the one you put in bold. It sure looks like you're missing something important. Compare that to "without seeking a use-of-force," "unilaterally authorize," "without congressional support" etc. in the links that you posted. It looks like you're trying so hard to criticize Obama that you're losing track of the facts. I read the entire thing many times. I will go read it again....hang on a sec.... OK...I read it again. He is saying (paraphrasing) "I have the power to do what I want but since everyone wants me to, I am going to go ask permission from congress". BUUUUTTTT.....back in 2008 he was adamant that the President does NOT have the power to act on his own to bomb a country without congressional permission unless we are under attack. Link to comment
AgMarauder04 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Obama is spinning this as a national security concern because of the chemical weapons. This means the only way to get them is to go in with troops. Good Gawd, we can't afford it, and NOBODY WANTS TO GO. HE just TOLD our enemies, if we attack, it will be limited in scope. Seriously, is this guy a moron? Link to comment
Recommended Posts