Obama to seek congress approval

[Hoffstra]

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

That's pretty funny.

Now, I must ask: who do you work for?

 

[J.E.D]

Here are his exact words.

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.

Right. Having made the decision to seek congressional approval. Your point?

 

[proudveteran06]

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

Stop deflecting and changing the subject. if what was reported in Syria was reported in the W. Bank with Israel as the agressor THEN you would believe it ! You would be YELLING for the US to intervene You are the one who brought up Israel again

 

[Beachboy]

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

That's pretty funny.

Now, I must ask: who do you work for?

I am a WASP in the communications industry, who knows how to do a mystical thing called "reading."

Here is a link from a highly credible Jewish source that describes the Israeli/United States relationship all the way back to President Kennedy. U.S.-Israel: A Special Alliance | Jewish Virtual Library It is lengthy, but here is the conclusion:

"When we look at the evolution of the alliance, and the current, broad institutionalization of friendship, it is easier to understand why an Israeli election that brought to power a man whose policies clashed with the President's would have so little impact on the relationship. The truth is the differences between the present administrations in Israel and the United States are relatively narrow, primarily disagreements over the means to the same end."

I think the real question here is "What Anti-Israeli group are you posting for?" I provide facts, you are debunked noise.

​

 

[The T]

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.

History more oft than not start with limited engagement...and blossom into something the leaders told us wasn't intent.

WHY does Obama wish to duplicate history again?

Because he doesn't care. Legacy all the way baby!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anybody remember Korea? Vietnam?

 

[The T]

Anybody remember Korea? Vietnam?

Yep...indeed...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The OP

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "President Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from an imminent military strike against Syria to seek the approval of the U.S. Congress, in a decision that likely delays U.S. action for at least 10 days.Obama, in a statement from the White House Rose Garden, said he had authorized the use of military force to punish Syria for a chemical weapons attack August 21 that U.S. officials say killed 1,429 people. Military assets to carry out a strike are in place and ready to move on his order, he said.But in an acknowledgement of protests from U.S. lawmakers and concerns from war-weary Americans, Obama added an important caveat: he wants Congress to approve.Congress is currently in recess and not scheduled to return to work until September 9. " Obama backs off imminent military action against Syria. Now, this is great news, plenty of time for the 80% of Americans who oppose a military strike/war against Syria to make our feelings known to our Congressmen .

That is the OP. What is it you are trying to say?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is quite a big difference between this presidunce ignoring Congress and claiming immediate action is necessary and ignoring congress entirely in his desire to be dictator.

 

[Vox]

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.
On September 16, 2004 [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations"]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][/SIZE]

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

what the UN scumbags thought in 2004 is totally irrelevant for the blessing from Security Council they gave more than a year before

plus an opinion of ONE PERSON is not valid - the DECISION of Security Council - is

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Right. Having made the decision to seek congressional approval. Your point?

Wow, you are fucking stupid.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.
Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And 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 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.

I don't see a damn thing there about waiting for Congress, though I am sure you will find it because you want to believe that he isn't going to do it without Congress, even though he said he would.

 

[saintaugusto]

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"

.

I don't care what some Finkelstein or Frankenstein thinks of what Arab thought. That's pure speculation.

Look at facts. You will barely find any Jew in 23 Arab countries. Close to 1 million of those Jews were thrown out of there in 1947-48.

Look at Israel now. 20%!!!! of their population are Arab. Now what expulsion are you talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anybody remember Korea? Vietnam?

I read about Korea, and watched MASH, I lived through Vietnam. This reminds me of them both.

 

[Vox]

The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion. Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised

As I have said before - private OPINIONS of any UN scumbag is just THAT - his private opinion.

NO LEGAL ACTION EVER approved those opinions.

Therefore - the war was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED by SC resolutions 678 and 1441.
PERIOD

 

[kaz]

Therefore - the war was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED by SC resolutions 678 and 1441.
PERIOD[/SIZE][/B]

The Constitution does not give the UN the power to declare war on behalf of the US, and the US has no such treaty which allows it to. And neither made it defense of the United States, which is the only Constitutional justification for use of the US military.

Sorry, it was an illegal war.

 

[The T]

So Could it be stated that the UN is illegal and flies in the face of the Constitution? What better way than to get the HELL OUT of it...send them packing, and use that real estate they occupy for better.

The U.N.: He-Man Despot and Dictators, Amerika Haters Klub...*I* Despise them. THEY fly in the face of Sovereignty.

 

[testarosa]

Obomber chasing his tail around in a circle. Around around around he goes.

Obama's legacy: What to do. What to do.

 

[testarosa]

Lmao about his Saturday statement.

Puppeteer was on today solidifying bitchboi's position with or without Congress.

They're busy shaking the Magic Eight Ball for a solution.

If you draw a red line, you probably should have A Plan when you're the leader of the free world.

Who's in charge here anyhow?

What a joke.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

If Obama strikes Syria, what will that accomplish? He made it sound as if there were no specific targets, we would go in for a limited timeframe, limited strikes. So .... then what?

Give the man a break. He is simply following orders from this man:

.

You mean, the same man that he treats worse than any other foreign leader, while praising Muslim Brotherhood?

I hope, you love for America finally supersedes your hatred for Jews.

But Obama hasn't done ANYTHING to make Israel accountable, and simply criticizing Netanyahu isn't saying much. ALL the wars in the Middle East and 9-11 are driven by our support of Israel, and all we have to do is cut off all aid and wash our hands of it, and the healing with Arabs can begin. Israel is easily able to fend for itself without anymore of our help and could have many years ago.

The fact is we have been in the wrong from the beginning to support's Israel's many massacres, enslavement and theft of what little land the Palestinians have. Is all of these wars worth that?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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 !!!!!

Intervene by attacking Israel?! You're not making any sense.