Obama will seek congressional approval to go to war with Syria.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

Hurray! I don't want us to go to war with yet another country, and leaving it in the hands of people who can't seem to accomplish anything seems to me to be the perfect way to not do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Amvis

The crazy thing is that he also said he believes he doesn't need congressional approval in the same announcement. He's just doing it to "be nice." So I worry, that if even if Congress strikes down the idea of going to war that the president would do it anyways. It's kinda scary.

They should just demand Assad's surrender, Hardly anyone there wants a war.

They should just demand Assad's surrender, Hardly anyone there wants a war.

ReadingRainbow4

They should just demand Assad's surrender, Hardly anyone there wants a war.

ReadingRainbow4

Congressional approval, France is supporting our cause (and is willing to help us), Britain isn't going to help us, wtf is going on here?

leviathan91

Today I ate French Fries for the first time in over a decade. I was surprised how similar they tasted to the Freedom Fries I had been eating. It's disappointing the British won't be coming to the party. I thought they were our BFF :cry:

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Congressional approval, France is supporting our cause (and is willing to help us), Britain isn't going to help us, wtf is going on here?

Solaryellow

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Congressional approval, France is supporting our cause (and is willing to help us), Britain isn't going to help us, wtf is going on here?

Solaryellow

I guess the British Bulldog and the English tea will be renamed as Freedom bulldog and Freeom tea.

It was only a matter of time.

I'm against any action in Syria--I actually want our next president to be an Isolationist.  In any case, at least he's asking permission from Congress (even if it's only to share blame with somebody if this whole situation goes to hell).

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Good. Regardless of the result, Congress can be blamed now.

whipassmt

Individual Congressmen and women were blamed for supporting the war, along with President bush. Look at how their votes were brought up in previous elections. 

My point was largely sarcastic anyway. No matter the result of the vote, no matter what the military action is, the blame will be spread around accurately and inaccurately for many years.

america never stops the wars

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="NationProtector"] Because it was not a war, thus it was not a war crime.NationProtector

No matter what you want to call it, when you invade another country, it's a war.  

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Well that's debatable. Anyways presidents have in the past and will continue to do it in the future.Guppy507

How is it debatable?

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="hoola"]

Should have been up to congress in the first place.  He made it sound like he is letting them do it.  I'm glad he's doing this, but the way he is talking is kind of scary.  This one guy has power over the strongest military on the planet.  

hartsickdiscipl

Which he is not supposed to be able to do without a direct attack on the US.  

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Good. Regardless of the result, Congress can be blamed now.

jimkabrhel

Individual Congressmen and women were blamed for supporting the war, along with President bush. Look at how their votes were brought up in previous elections.

My point was largely sarcastic anyway. No matter the result of the vote, no matter what the military action is, the blame will be spread around accurately and inaccurately for many years.

It seems to me that the same interest groups that pushed Bush into going into Iraq, could be pushing Obama to do the same thing with Syria. I am not completely up to date with all of the details but doesn't it seem like for the same reasons. Weapons of Mass Destruction....

Except part of Obama's platform was, justifiably, criticising the Bush Administration for rushing into Iraq. It comes off as hypocritical.

It seems to me that the same interest groups that pushed Bush into going into Iraq, could be pushing Obama to do the same thing with Syria. I am not completely up to date with all of the details but doesn't it seem like for the same reasons. Weapons of Mass Destruction....

 

Except part of Obama's platform was, justifiably, criticising the Bush Administration for rushing into Iraq. It comes off as hypocritical.

thedude-

[QUOTE="thedude-"]

It seems to me that the same interest groups that pushed Bush into going into Iraq, could be pushing Obama to do the same thing with Syria. I am not completely up to date with all of the details but doesn't it seem like for the same reasons. Weapons of Mass Destruction....

 

Except part of Obama's platform was, justifiably, criticising the Bush Administration for rushing into Iraq. It comes off as hypocritical.

Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="thedude-"]

It seems to me that the same interest groups that pushed Bush into going into Iraq, could be pushing Obama to do the same thing with Syria. I am not completely up to date with all of the details but doesn't it seem like for the same reasons. Weapons of Mass Destruction....

 

Except part of Obama's platform was, justifiably, criticising the Bush Administration for rushing into Iraq. It comes off as hypocritical.

thedude-

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="thedude-"] Many parts of the world are out of options and struggling. SHould we just go around the world and sweep them up? The weapons we use usually end up in the wrong hands.thedude-

[QUOTE="thedude-"][QUOTE="Person0"] Chemical weapons aren't used very often. The last large scale use before Syria was in then 80s during the Iran-Iraq war.Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="thedude-"] I get it but there still are atrocities happening right as we speak in places other than Syria.thedude-

[QUOTE="thedude-"][QUOTE="Person0"] But not with chemical weapons and not in important geographic places so we don't carePerson0

What I'd like to know is what has been said in the classified, closed door meetings with Congress. Obama, Kerry, and Hagel are hiding something, something that they don't want the US public or the world to know. My opinion: that they know interjecting the US into Syria will escalate into a regional war that will involve nearly the entire Middle East and will finally give the US incentive to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or that attacking Syria will lead to Syria/Iran activating their sleeper cells here in the US.TruthTellers

I don't think anybody outside the Pentagon and CIA inner circles can say for certain whether the immediate objective in Syria is just to restore the "balance" between the Syrian army and the "rebels" (so that the conflict will linger and continue to weaken both sides), or whether it's to topple Assad altogether in much the same way that Gaddafi was toppled in Libya.

What is rather more certain is that there will be nothing "limited" about the commitment to the Syrian theatre.  The Syrian conflict was planned many years ago and the US/NATO has been involved all along, from funding and training the groups behind the initial "democratic protests", to arming and training the "rebels", to providing intelligence and logistical support for the anti-Assad factions.  The US/NATO will remain engaged for at least as long as it takes to meet one of the two objectives in the first paragraph.

What's also pretty certain is that the Syrian conflict is a mere stepping stone to a much larger conflict with Iran.  Hezbollah will be drawn back into the conflict and/or attacked in Lebanon, either directly or through Sunni proxies.  Once Assad and Hezbollah have been weakened to the extent that they cannot be of assistance to Iran, all-out war will be waged on Iran.  Uprisings by CIA-backed Islamists in the Caucasus (e.g. the Chechens) and in China (e.g. the Uyghurs) will curtail the ability of Russia and China to intevene on Iran's behalf.

The expansion of NATO hegemony is unlikely to end with the fall of Iran.  African states like Nigeria are already under attack from CIA proxies like the "Boko Haram".  Saudi Arabia and the assorted Sunni monarchies will be next in the firing line.  Eventually, even Russia and China will be subordinated to one world government.

It really doesn't matter what congress says. DaBrainz

Is this still valid? I saw a statement by John Kerry in which he claimed they had the right to attack Syria regardless of congress approval. I mean, it's one thing to take a shit on UN whenever they disagree with you, but going against the congress isn't a good idea.

^^^^Obama made his stupid red line comment so he feels he has to attack or whatever shred of credibility he might still have will be gone. He had the authority to attack under the War Powers Resolution without Congress consent yet he did a 180 when it look like he was about to go in then saw the polls, that there would be no UN resolution and that no allies were to be found so he decided to "ask" Congress to get some political cover. So now it looks like Congress might dealt him an unprecedented rebuke so he might attack anyways.

That creates 2 problems, first the optics of all, I mean he goes to the representatives of the people and gets denies and still goes over them? Not even George Bush was that cavalier. 2nd, the War Power Resolution was always thought to be constitutionally shaky, and this act the President going by itself but first asking and getting rebuke AND THEN attacking anyway might make some lawmakers challenge the Resolution in court. Obama's leading from behind is unraveling quickly.

And here we have an issue with which I am definitely disagreeing with Obama on.

No need to get involved. It sounds to me that both sides in this conflict are shady as hell.

I think the most we should do is MAYBE try and put in some protections for the civilians caught in the conflict. You know, just whatever we can do to help civilians leave if they wish or at least keep them out of harms way.

In terms of fighting though? I say a big no to that. This is one of those cases where both sides SUCK and we really should just let them go and kill eachother and figure out their differences by themselves.

[QUOTE="TruthTellers"]What I'd like to know is what has been said in the classified, closed door meetings with Congress. Obama, Kerry, and Hagel are hiding something, something that they don't want the US public or the world to know. My opinion: that they know interjecting the US into Syria will escalate into a regional war that will involve nearly the entire Middle East and will finally give the US incentive to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or that attacking Syria will lead to Syria/Iran activating their sleeper cells here in the US.Stesilaus

I don't think anybody outside the Pentagon and CIA inner circles can say for certain whether the immediate objective in Syria is just to restore the "balance" between the Syrian army and the "rebels" (so that the conflict will linger and continue to weaken both sides), or whether it's to topple Assad altogether in much the same way that Gaddafi was toppled in Libya.

What is rather more certain is that there will be nothing "limited" about the commitment to the Syrian theatre.  The Syrian conflict was planned many years ago and the US/NATO has been involved all along, from funding and training the groups behind the initial "democratic protests", to arming and training the "rebels", to providing intelligence and logistical support for the anti-Assad factions.  The US/NATO will remain engaged for at least as long as it takes to meet one of the two objectives in the first paragraph.

What's also pretty certain is that the Syrian conflict is a mere stepping stone to a much larger conflict with Iran.  Hezbollah will be drawn back into the conflict and/or attacked in Lebanon, either directly or through Sunni proxies.  Once Assad and Hezbollah have been weakened to the extent that they cannot be of assistance to Iran, all-out war will be waged on Iran.  Uprisings by CIA-backed Islamists in the Caucasus (e.g. the Chechens) and in China (e.g. the Uyghurs) will curtail the ability of Russia and China to intevene on Iran's behalf.

The expansion of NATO hegemony is unlikely to end with the fall of Iran.  African states like Nigeria are already under attack from CIA proxies like the "Boko Haram".  Saudi Arabia and the assorted Sunni monarchies will be next in the firing line.  Eventually, even Russia and China will be subordinated to one world government.