GOP Congress Plans To Deal With ISIS

[g5000]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

 

[Kosh]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

Yes the irony impaired far left once again proves that far left propaganda rules over reality..

 

[g5000]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

Yes the irony impaired far left once again proves that far left propaganda rules over reality..

What should the United States do about ISIS?

Lay out a plan, coward. Go on record.

But we all know you will run away to your corner and stick your thumb up your ass instead.

 

[Kosh]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

Yes the irony impaired far left once again proves that far left propaganda rules over reality..

What should the United States do about ISIS?

Lay out a plan, coward. Go on record.

But we all know you will run away to your corner and stick your thumb up your ass instead.

I asked what your plan was and you avoided answering it..

Typical far left!

So that means you approve 100% with the way Obama is handling ISIS. Which means you support Obama and his illegal wars..

Come on coward admit to it..

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep deflecting from the question. WHere is Congress' role on foreign policy spelled out in the Constitution?
btw, when did Congress pass authorization for Obama to make war on Syria?

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

You havent answered the question as to where Congress' authority over foreign affairs comes from. Despite many many requests. Do you even understand the question?

Read the Constitution some time, not that it would help you. The President's foreign policy options don't include military action against a sovereign nation without Congressional approval.

So you support impeaching Obama?
But at least you're getting around to the idea tht Congress does not set foreign policy.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

What were teh Republicans supposed to do, given the president sets foreign policy?

 

[Discombobulated]

Congress has the sole constitutional war making powers.

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

You havent answered the question as to where Congress' authority over foreign affairs comes from. Despite many many requests. Do you even understand the question?

Read the Constitution some time, not that it would help you. The President's foreign policy options don't include military action against a sovereign nation without Congressional approval.

So you support impeaching Obama?
But at least you're getting around to the idea tht Congress does not set foreign policy.

So then you evidently have no idea what the Constitution says. That really is surprising.

 

[g5000]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

What were teh Republicans supposed to do, given the president sets foreign policy?

So you believe Republicans never ever ever ever open their mouths about foreign policy, eh? They never use the power of the pulpit to sway public opinion?

Yeah. Congress is totally impotent when it comes to foreign policy. BWA-HA-HA-HA!


You just get funnier by the minute!

Still sitting there with your thumb in your ass, avoiding committing to a plan of what should be done, I see.

What are these studs doing in Kabul if they are so impotent on foreign policy?

 

[The Rabbi]

We've already debunked that. You're way behind here.

You haven't even touched the subject.

You havent answered the question as to where Congress' authority over foreign affairs comes from. Despite many many requests. Do you even understand the question?

Read the Constitution some time, not that it would help you. The President's foreign policy options don't include military action against a sovereign nation without Congressional approval.

So you support impeaching Obama?
But at least you're getting around to the idea tht Congress does not set foreign policy.

So then you evidently have no idea what the Constitution says. That really is surprising.

Actually I have no idea what you are saying. Sometimes you criticize the GOP in Congress for not directing foreign affairs, even though you can't produce a cite saying that is their responsibilty. Sometimes you think the president cant take miliary action without Congress' vote. Sometimes you think the president doesnt need Congress' vote to take action.
Basically your view appears to be:
Republicans--BAD!
Democrats--GOOD!

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

What were teh Republicans supposed to do, given the president sets foreign policy?

So you believe Republicans never ever ever ever open their mouths about foreign policy, eh?

WHere did I write that? No place.
You havent produced a whiff of evidence to support yoir bizarre view that Congress is responsible for foreign policy. Even Obama disagrees with you.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the New Republican Way. Do nothing, then blame the other guy if shit goes wrong.

What were teh Republicans supposed to do, given the president sets foreign policy?

So you believe Republicans never ever ever ever open their mouths about foreign policy, eh? They never use the power of the pulpit to sway public opinion?

Yeah. Congress is totally impotent when it comes to foreign policy. BWA-HA-HA-HA!


You just get funnier by the minute!

Still sitting there with your thumb in your ass, avoiding committing to a plan of what should be done, I see.

Where did I write any of that?
I've already laid out what Obama should do. Did you miss that part too?
Again, what source is there tha says Congress is responsible for foreign policy? You have yet to answer it. Probably because you have no source. All you have is bullshit.

 

[g5000]

Again, what source is there tha says Congress is responsible for foreign policy? You have yet to answer it. Probably because you have no source. All you have is bullshit.

Poor Rabbi. So ignorant of how our government works that you actually need someone to show you that Congress is responsible for foreign policy! HOLY SHIT!!!


Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.

 

[g5000]

I've already laid out what Obama should do. Did you miss that part too?

Yes, I did miss that part. What is the post number?

I hope you aren't referring to "formulate a policy that is geared to solving the problem if ISIS" [sic]. That's hilarious. Obama should do something about ISIS by doing something about ISIS. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

Specifics, coward.

 

[g5000]

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/congress-us-foreign-policy/p29871

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress extensive powers to shape foreign policy though congressional activism and influence on foreign policy has varied over time. Lawmakers seldom interact directly with other nations on policy, but the laws that Congress passes, or treaties and nominations the Senate approves, can influence U.S. interactions with other countries. Foreign policy has been a source of tension through the years between Capitol Hill and the White House, especially over issues such as sanctions and foreign aid, trade, and human rights.

Congress has historically used its oversight role, issuing subpoenas in event of investigations, to show its disapproval of executive actions or change policy.

 

[g5000]

Let's start with a very simple question.

Should we put boots on the ground to fight ISIS and/or Assad?

I'll give the cowards their cue by informing that Boehner said at the end of September we should put boots on the ground to fight ISIS.

So go on record now as to whether or not we should. This way, if something bad happens, you can stand up and say your idea was a good one or a bad one.

See, that's what courage is. Laying yourself out there to possibly be wrong about something instead of never committing to anything and just being a hack trying to find a way to blame someone else every time something bad in the world happens somewhere.

If Obama and Congress (via AUMF) put boots on the ground, and something bad happens, it will be, "He shouldn'a put no boots on the ground!" Obama will get the blame, while Congress will go unmentioned. If things go well, Congress will get the credit.

That's what the cowards will do. You know they will.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, what source is there tha says Congress is responsible for foreign policy? You have yet to answer it. Probably because you have no source. All you have is bullshit.

Poor Rabbi. So ignorant of how our government works that you actually need someone to show you that Congress is responsible for foreign policy! HOLY SHIT!!!


Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

The United States Constitution divides foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

Congress can make foreign policy through:

1) -- resolutions and policy statements
2) -- legislative directives
3) -- legislative pressure
4) -- legislative restrictions/funding denials
5) -- informal advice
6) -- congressional oversight.

OK that's someting anyway.
Maybe Obama should read that because he believes Congress doesnt play a role except in declaring war.

Now, remind me what the Democrats have done for the last 6 years and why suddenly this is a GOP problem, you sniveling little partisan bullshit artist you.

 

[g5000]

Here is what I say we should do.

Option A: Fully commit. No half assed shit. We go to war with ISIS on the ground and in the air. We cannot be effective against ISIS just from the air. So if we are going to war with ISIS, we have to put boots on the ground. And we have to occupy that ground for at least a decade.

Option B: Leave the area entirely. If we are not going to put boots on the ground, then we need to quit the fight altogether and let the combatants in the area fight it out among themselves, and then deal with whoever comes out on top.


I don't think the American people have the stomach for a long term commitment to more fighting by our troops. They might want to see boots on the ground next week, but less than a year from now, they will be calling for the troops to come home.

Stabilization in the Middle East during this period is going to require very long term commitments by anyone who gets involved. The Middle East is going through a transitional period that is going to get very ugly before it emerges as a more democratic region way down the road. In terms of the Enlightenment, the Arabs are two or three centuries behind us on several levels.

We are not going to be able to prevent a slaughter.

Because of this, I believe Option B is the pragmatic one. Beef up our defenses at home, be ever vigilant for the occasional jihadist asshole who is inspired by YouTube videos, and for chrissakes don't trash the Constitution any more than it already has been in the name of "security".

We can and should do something about keeping arms out of the hands of the players in the Middle East.

 

[rdean]

The GOP controlled Congress will do nothing about ISIS. They will take every opportunity to score political points while criticizing the President's policies......but they will take no action of their own. They won't seek to authorize any kind of actions in Iraq or Syria, the Republican controlled Congress plans to stay as far away as they can get from taking any actual responsibility for anything. They certainly won't debate about this country going to war; the Republican Congress will do what ever they can to avoid their Constitutional responsibilities.

Congress does not set foreign policy, doofus. That would be the President of the United States. And every foreign policy set by this president has been an abject failure.

You mean like the war in Iraq?
Oh, that was Republicans.
Or letting North Korea obtain nuclear weapons?
Oh, that was Republicans.
Or letting Bin Laden go?
Oh, that was Republicans.

It seams like Obama has spent much of his time cleaning up GOP mess. Thankfully, Republicans have been helping Obama clean up GOP mess.
What?
You mean they haven't been?
How embarrassing for them.
Lucky they have no integrity.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's start with a very simple question.

Should we put boots on the ground to fight ISIS and/or Assad?

I'll give the cowards their cue by informing that Boehner said at the end of September we should put boots on the ground to fight ISIS.

So go on record now as to whether or not we should. This way, if something bad happens, you can stand up and say your idea was a good one or a bad one.

See, that's what courage is. Laying yourself out there to possibly be wrong about something instead of never committing to anything and just being a hack trying to find a way to blame someone else every time something bad in the world happens somewhere.

If Obama and Congress (via AUMF) put boots on the ground, and something bad happens, it will be, "He shouldn'a put no boots on the ground!" Obama will get the blame, while Congress will go unmentioned. If things go well, Congress will get the credit.

That's what the cowards will do. You know they will.

So if Boehner is making statements wtf are you complaining about? Just to complain?

We will not win this war by bombing. That was obvious to everyone but Obama and his claque on this board. Even the generals are saying we need boots on the ground.
The first thing that need to happen is for Obama to shut the fuck up, give his generals clear directives as to the goals, and let them do it. But he wont.

 

[g5000]

Let's start with a very simple question.

Should we put boots on the ground to fight ISIS and/or Assad?

I'll give the cowards their cue by informing that Boehner said at the end of September we should put boots on the ground to fight ISIS.

So go on record now as to whether or not we should. This way, if something bad happens, you can stand up and say your idea was a good one or a bad one.

See, that's what courage is. Laying yourself out there to possibly be wrong about something instead of never committing to anything and just being a hack trying to find a way to blame someone else every time something bad in the world happens somewhere.

If Obama and Congress (via AUMF) put boots on the ground, and something bad happens, it will be, "He shouldn'a put no boots on the ground!" Obama will get the blame, while Congress will go unmentioned. If things go well, Congress will get the credit.

That's what the cowards will do. You know they will.

So if Boehner is making statements wtf are you complaining about? Just to complain?

We will not win this war by bombing. That was obvious to everyone but Obama and his claque on this board. Even the generals are saying we need boots on the ground.
The first thing that need to happen is for Obama to shut the fuck up, give his generals clear directives as to the goals, and let them do it. But he wont.

Simple question for you: Should we put boots on the ground?