Obama to seek congress approval

[proudveteran06]

I think it's funny ! This " Christian" honestly doesn't care that Arabs are getting gassed. Yet we as Jews are supposed to care about Arabs? I do not stay up at night thinking about it . However unlike this " Christian" I do not believe they deserve to get gassed

Could you imagine if these reports/ pictures were coming out of the W. Bank?

I have never argued for US miltary strikes against anyone anywhere anytime. I oppose the US killing of anyone to include innocent civilians and I am proud of my position opposing US military strikes in the ME that always lead to killings of civilians in the ME. And while we have not seen US killings of civilians in Syria this weekend, thank God, we , I am sad to say, did carry out a military strike in Palistan and killed civilians there. My opposing US miltary strikes/killings says nothing about how I feel about others who kill.

The " Christian" deliberately takes what I said out of context; She claims that the reports of what is going on in Syria is a lie that is manufactured by Israelis. Yet if those SAME attacks were coming out of the W. Bank the " CHRISTIAN" wouldn't feel that way !

If Israelis were doing the same to the Palestinians she would be BEGGING for the U.S. to intervene !!!!!

 

[Care4all]

Bush screwed the pooch by getting the UN, an international coalition, and Congress, behind him when he invaded Iraq.

Obama is redeeming us by openly saying that, since the UN disagrees with him, he doesn't need them, nor does he need Congress, and he won't even lead from behind like he did in Libya, he will just act because, despite the fact that no nation has ever acted in the past when chemical weapons were used, we have to do it because history demands it.

Sorry, I got lost trying to figure that one out, can you explain it?

No, you are WRONG on President G W Bush getting the UN'S approval.

We DID NOT get the UN'S approval for the Iraqi War, and as far as the UN is concerned they stand by the Iraqi invasion BY President GW Bush as being an ILLEGAL WAR.

yes, he DID - UN SC resolution 1441 and specifically 678, Iraq war was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

Following the passage of Resolution 1441, on 18 November 2002, weapons inspectors of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission returned to Iraq for the first time since being withdrawn by the United Nations. Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being investigated by Hans Blix, head of the Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors remained in the country until they withdrew after being notified of the imminent invasion by the United States, Britain, and two other countries.

Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.
In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bush screwed the pooch by getting the UN, an international coalition, and Congress, behind him when he invaded Iraq.

Obama is redeeming us by openly saying that, since the UN disagrees with him, he doesn't need them, nor does he need Congress, and he won't even lead from behind like he did in Libya, he will just act because, despite the fact that no nation has ever acted in the past when chemical weapons were used, we have to do it because history demands it.

Sorry, I got lost trying to figure that one out, can you explain it?

No, you are WRONG on President G W Bush getting the UN'S approval.

We DID NOT get the UN'S approval for the Iraqi War, and as far as the UN is concerned they stand by the Iraqi invasion BY President GW Bush as being an ILLEGAL WAR.

yes, he DID - UN SC resolution 1441 and specifically 678, Iraq war was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

Thanks.

I didn't feel like looking those up again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's quite the conundrum the wingnuts have gotten themselves into. You should take your fingers out of your ears before your head explodes.

Here are his exact words.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

In other words? Obama caved to pressure NOT only from The people, The Congress, but other World leaders as well...He was forced to do his job much to his annoyance.

That is one way of looking at it, I prefer to think he is lying.

 

[The T]

Here are his exact words.

In other words? Obama caved to pressure NOT only from The people, The Congress, but other World leaders as well...He was forced to do his job much to his annoyance.

That is one way of looking at it, I prefer to think he is lying.

Yours is the real truth. I was trying to appeal to those that still don't get it...but either way works for me, they're BOTH the truth.

Thanks compadre.

 

[J.E.D]

Really?

He said he has decided to ask for their approval, even though he doesn't need it, might not wait for it, and will act on his own even if he doesn't get it. That is not putting the decision in the hands of Congress, it is placating idiots, like you, that want to believe he is better than Bush.

It's quite the conundrum the wingnuts have gotten themselves into. You should take your fingers out of your ears before your head explodes.

Here are his exact words.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Right. Where in that quote does it say, to quote you, "he has decided to ask for their approval, even though he doesn't need it, might not wait for it, and will act on his own even if he doesn't get it"?

 

[The T]

It's quite the conundrum the wingnuts have gotten themselves into. You should take your fingers out of your ears before your head explodes.

Here are his exact words.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Right. Where in that quote does it say, to quote you, "he has decided to ask for their approval, even though he doesn't need it, might not wait for it, and will act on his own even if he doesn't get it"?

Inserting crap again where it doesn't exist Vern?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's quite the conundrum the wingnuts have gotten themselves into. You should take your fingers out of your ears before your head explodes.

Here are his exact words.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Right. Where in that quote does it say, to quote you, "he has decided to ask for their approval, even though he doesn't need it, might not wait for it, and will act on his own even if he doesn't get it"?

Having made my decision.

 

[Care4all]

No, you are WRONG on President G W Bush getting the UN'S approval.

We DID NOT get the UN'S approval for the Iraqi War, and as far as the UN is concerned they stand by the Iraqi invasion BY President GW Bush as being an ILLEGAL WAR.

yes, he DID - UN SC resolution 1441 and specifically 678, Iraq war was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

Thanks.

I didn't feel like looking those up again.

QW,

maybe YOU SHOULD HAVE looked it up and then know........?

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

” The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, he DID - UN SC resolution 1441 and specifically 678, Iraq war was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.

Thanks.

I didn't feel like looking those up again.

QW,

maybe YOU SHOULD HAVE looked it up and then know........?

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

” The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

When you point out where I said anything that that article argues against you can get back to me, all I said was that Bush had UN support, which that article actually agrees with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the way, Obama is asking for authorization to invade Syria if he decides it is necessary.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/310870-obama-asking-for-open-ended-power-to-go-to-war.html

Don't worry though, there will be no boots on the ground, Obama promised, just like he promised that White House visitor logs would be online and open to the public, and that you could keep your insurance.

 

[Contumacious]

But again, in order to do the aforementioned, imagine for a moment that you don't hate Jews. Trust me, facts become much clearer then.

You want CLEARER historical facts

Let's see if Norman G. Finkelstein, himself a Jew and the son of a holocaust survivor , can shed some light "

The goal of “disappearing” the indigenous Arab population points to a virtual truism buried beneath a mountain of apologetic Zionist literature: what spurred Palestinians’ opposition to Zionism was not anti-Semitism in the sense of an irrational hatred of Jews but rather the prospect—very real—of their expulsion. In his magisterial study of Palestinian nationalism, Yehoshua Porath suggests that the “major factor nourishing” Arab anti-Semitism “was not hatred for the Jews as such but opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine”.7"

.

 

[Beachboy]

Part of me says "bomb that bitch".

And there's the "stay away" part.

But all me says "fuck Obama" the loser.

Such an ineffective and ineffectual idiot. I wouldn't give a shit if the guy was purple. What a goddamn moron. A clown in a rodeo show.

Hey-there's an idea!

As an Independent voter who voted for President Obama, (like I had a choice), I consider him a mediocre POTUS. I believe he has given his best effort to Syria. I have also reversed myself on this issue.

At first I was really sorry about the 100,000 Syrians who had lost their lives, and thought surely we could help in some way. Then I looked up "Syria" in Wiki. Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 50 to 60% Sunni, 13% Shia, and 10% Christian. Didn't we see the same story in Viet Nam and Iraq? Help these people out and in five years they hate the United States, and everything wrong with their third world country is our fault. We give some the opportunity to move here, and they kill our citizens and blow up our cities. How much more stupid can we be?

We have a strong military to defend our nation, not get involved in every injustice on the planet. Syria is not worth any American lives. People! This is another Afghanistan waiting to happen. The United Kingdom was smart enough to stop their Prime Minister from getting into Syria. We should stop Obama. According to the link in the OP, only 20% of Americans want U. S. involvement in Syria. Screw Obama, we should go with the 80% who say stay 'away', (not that those knuckleheads in Washington listen to anything the American people want).

Face it, if Congress turns Obama down for military action, we can all bow out of this situation gracefully, and let the laws of nature resolve the Syria problem.

Remember how Muslims say "Thank you?"
​

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I think it's funny ! This " Christian" honestly doesn't care that Arabs are getting gassed. Yet we as Jews are supposed to care about Arabs? I do not stay up at night thinking about it . However unlike this " Christian" I do not believe they deserve to get gassed

Could you imagine if these reports/ pictures were coming out of the W. Bank?

I have never argued for US miltary strikes against anyone anywhere anytime. I oppose the US killing of anyone to include innocent civilians and I am proud of my position opposing US military strikes in the ME that always lead to killings of civilians in the ME. And while we have not seen US killings of civilians in Syria this weekend, thank God, we , I am sad to say, did carry out a military strike in Palistan and killed civilians there. My opposing US miltary strikes/killings says nothing about how I feel about others who kill.

Where’s the moral outrage over the deaths of innocent civilians in Pakistan?

But the study,*Living Under Drones, shows that these drone strikes killed up to 881 innocent men, women, and children in Pakistan from June 2004 to September 2012. Researchers also documented the physiological*effects of the attacks.“US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning,” wrote researchers.“Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves,” they added, also noting that Pakistanis now avoid large groups for fear that they will attract attention. They also point out that some parents have decided to keep their children at home.The drones strikes being carried out in Pakistan have brought out horror stories from victims that are not unlike the one that Secretary of State Kerry told at his press conferenc. Where's the moral outrage over the deaths of innocent civilians in Pakistan? | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[dilloduck]

I have never argued for US miltary strikes against anyone anywhere anytime. I oppose the US killing of anyone to include innocent civilians and I am proud of my position opposing US military strikes in the ME that always lead to killings of civilians in the ME. And while we have not seen US killings of civilians in Syria this weekend, thank God, we , I am sad to say, did carry out a military strike in Palistan and killed civilians there. My opposing US miltary strikes/killings says nothing about how I feel about others who kill.

Where’s the moral outrage over the deaths of innocent civilians in Pakistan?

But the study,*Living Under Drones, shows that these drone strikes killed up to 881 innocent men, women, and children in Pakistan from June 2004 to September 2012. Researchers also documented the physiological*effects of the attacks.“US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning,” wrote researchers.“Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves,” they added, also noting that Pakistanis now avoid large groups for fear that they will attract attention. They also point out that some parents have decided to keep their children at home.The drones strikes being carried out in Pakistan have brought out horror stories from victims that are not unlike the one that Secretary of State Kerry told at his press conferenc. Where's the moral outrage over the deaths of innocent civilians in Pakistan? | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

oh we'll pretend to be concerned about them when the proper time comes

Balochistan conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a dream Washington scenario of balkanization of Pakistan, the US could swiftly take over Balochistan's immense natural wealth, and promote the strategic port of Gwadar in Balochistan not to the benefit of the IPI pipeline, but the perennially troubled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline - Caspian gas wealth flowing under US, and not Russian or Iranian, control.

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE08Df03.html

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I have never argued for US miltary strikes against anyone anywhere anytime. I oppose the US killing of anyone to include innocent civilians and I am proud of my position opposing US military strikes in the ME that always lead to killings of civilians in the ME. And while we have not seen US killings of civilians in Syria this weekend, thank God, we , I am sad to say, did carry out a military strike in Palistan and killed civilians there. My opposing US miltary strikes/killings says nothing about how I feel about others who kill.

The " Christian" deliberately takes what I said out of context; She claims that the reports of what is going on in Syria is a lie that is manufactured by Israelis. Yet if those SAME attacks were coming out of the W. Bank the " CHRISTIAN" wouldn't feel that way !

If Israelis were doing the same to the Palestinians she would be BEGGING for the U.S. to intervene !!!!!

If this were true, you should be able to show me a post somewhere where I called on US strikes on Israel. I WILL not be holding my breath waiting for a response, you cannot produce a thing that does not exist. The Israelis have done far worse to the Palestinians, then the alleged acts of Assad . Deliberately BURNING to death entire families with White Phosphourous, one example that comes to mind. Yet, never did I call for US military strikes against Israel.

 

[Hoffstra]

Remember how Muslims say "Thank you?"

I remember how Israelis say "thank you".

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israeli ?art student? mystery - Salon.com

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The " Christian" deliberately takes what I said out of context; She claims that the reports of what is going on in Syria is a lie that is manufactured by Israelis. Yet if those SAME attacks were coming out of the W. Bank the " CHRISTIAN" wouldn't feel that way !

If Israelis were doing the same to the Palestinians she would be BEGGING for the U.S. to intervene !!!!!

If this were true, you should be able to show me a post somewhere where I called on US strikes on Israel. I WILL not be holding my breath waiting for a response, you cannot produce a thing that does not exist. The Israelis have done far worse to the Palestinians, then the alleged acts of Assad . Deliberately BURNING to death entire families with White Phosphourous, one example that comes to mind. Yet, never did I call for US military strikes against Israel.

Another point, I would not have asked for the US to intervene if this had happened in Gaza because I would know the US was a participant/conspirator in what was happening there.
Where did that White Phosphorous come from?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Well that's nice and all, but you didn't answer my question...

I did answer your question, I referred to a thread addressing fabricated Intelligence fed by Israel to the US specifically designed to initiate a US attack on Syria. And that plan is failing, thank God. And after this post, I am placing you on ignore because it is impossible to have rational discussions with you. So, consider posts you address to me in the future as posts to yourself. I shall not be reading them.

As usual, no fact/links to support a word you say!

That thread contains links to articles addressing some so called Intelligence Israel turned over to the US that they maintained proved Assad was responsible for recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Just take a few minutes and click on the link and read the article in the OP and look at other articles addressed in the thread. I dont think any of this so called Intelligence has any credibility.

 

[Beachboy]

Remember how Muslims say "Thank you?"

I remember how Israelis say "thank you".

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israeli ?art student? mystery - Salon.com

This is an old ploy that does not work. "Bury the facts with multiple links." I might suggest you actually read your own links. The U.S.S. Liberty was attacked by Israel in error, and they apologized. Twisting the facts does not work in this forum, not any more. 9/11 like the Boston Marathon bombings were intentional acts of terrorism by Muslims. PERIOD!

In your second link you mention Jonathan Pollard who was a spy, and did pass materials to Israel. I suppose you would not believe that British intelligent receives information about America too? You are either naive or you did not read your own link.

Direct quote from your third link. "The Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal (also known as the AIPAC espionage scandal) refers to Lawrence Franklin's scandal of passing classified documents regarding United States policy towards Iran to Israel through American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Franklin, a former United States Department of Defense employee, pled guilty to several espionage-related charges and was sentenced in January 2006 to nearly 13 years of prison which was later reduced to ten months house arrest. Franklin passed information to AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman who later were fired by AIPAC. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel.[1] The case against them eventually was dismissed."

Your fourth link admits the accusations were never proven.

The relationship between the United States and Israel is strong and time tested.

Don't twist the facts. Very shabby misrepresentation.

Pure propaganda! As real as this animation!
​