Obama to seek congress approval

[TemplarKormac]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

So, would you care to explain why Obama is breaking his?

 

[Redfish]

Likewise, if there are no penalties or enforcement against chemical weapons attacks, why does it matter if the world condemns it?

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

We appointed ourselves, after WWII. Because we're the richest and the biggest, and mostly because if we don't try to stop world wars, we repeatedly get dragged into them, as we saw in WWI and WWII.

This was a good policy, but it has worn out now. We keep making pissant wars that always lose and take ten years losing. (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan ---- soon Syria and Iran.) IOur world policeman role worked pretty well to stop WWIII for long time, nearly 70 years, but now we're more likely to be starting WWIII, so it's time for a different foreign policy, IMO.

Nothing lasts forever and this is not working.

Well, I am glad to see you do not support our starting a war in Syria.

And if you really think we should make changes in our foreign policy, why not consider the effects of us simply abiding by our obligations under international treaties.

The fact we have ignored abiding by our obligations under treaties before today does not mean we have committed ourselves to an eternal policy of unlawful violations of intl law with impunity.

The fact is we do have legal obligations under Treaties, we always did and we still do, and we can choose to abide by those obligations and refrain from attacks on other nations that are not lawful under intl law.

The world never appointed us policeman and we should step away from that role.

 

[Redfish]

'
As Sherri pointed out, the United Nation's Charter is a treaty to which the United States is a signatory, ratified by Congress, and the law of the land according to the Constitution.

Those who think that it is all right to violate it have less respect for law and far less respect for the Constitution than even I have.

They are just much more hypocritical and morally degraded than I am.

.

We should only agree to get into it if china, russia, UK, France, Germany, Japan, et al agree to take part in "enforcement".

 

[Synthaholic]

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

If this is the right wing logic, then why all the obsession with Iran's nuclear program? It hasn't been used on Americans.

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

That's where the oil is.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

who appointed us as the world's enforcer? are we the mafia of the world? if the entire world condemns it why is the USA the only one who has to take action?

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

Israel wants us to fight this war for Israel.

It all started with dubious Intelligence provided to us from the Mossad.


Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria | Mondoweiss

 

[Redfish]

I agree. The Arab League should be taking the lead on this. I don't see any microphones being shoved into the face of the Chinese ambassador, asking what China plans to do about this chemical attack on civilians.

But their absence in responding does not absolve us of all responsibility to respond. The United States was the main force behind the chemical weapons ban. It greatly serves our interests to not have chemical weapons on any battlefields.

unless they are being used on americans, why is it our duty to stop them? If the "entire world" wants Assad punished, then why aren't the blue hatted UN troops doing it?

It is not our role to get in the middle of every civil war in the world. But if you think it is, why didn't we stop the slaughter in Sudan and Congo?

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

Israel wants us to fight this war for Israel.

It all started with dubious Intelligence provided to us from the Mossad.


Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria | Mondoweiss

could be. But unless Israel is actually attacked we should stay out of it. If Iran is dumb enough to attack Israel then we should reduce the entire country to radioactive rubble, and do it in about 3 days.

 

[numan]

Where are you posting from? If you are an anti-American foreigner, there is no use in my talking to you --- I make a point of avoiding enemy propagandists. No "aid and comfort to the enemy." You don't sound American to me. What are you?

Where are YOU posting from? You don't sound like an American to me -- not a citizen of the America of toleration and free expression of opinion. You sound like a totalitarian who wants to stamp out dissenting opinion.

What you are saying is evil. You sound like an enemy propagandist.

.

 

[Kondor3]

"...But your view that we can ignore the Constitution and do differently..."

That is not the view.

The majority view is that the Constitution is interpreted differently than you would have it.

When there is a need for a major focal-change, then, an Amendment is in order.

When there is a need to put a different spin on an existing Enumerated Power or Restriction, without overturning the thing altogether, then supplemental statute, subjected to judicial review, has been deemed sufficient by that majority.

Don't like that? You need a different majority, and I do not think you're likely to achieve it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Legally, he doesn't have any choice. Congress has to authorize force. The President has no authority to go it alone.

Of course, that didn't stop him with Libya. Of course, we had members of Congress who actually demanded to be heard this time.

Obama is only getting congressional approval this time, because he already has Syria in a stranglehold and knows they cannot get out no matter how long it takes.

 

[Redfish]

Legally, he doesn't have any choice. Congress has to authorize force. The President has no authority to go it alone.

Of course, that didn't stop him with Libya. Of course, we had members of Congress who actually demanded to be heard this time.

Obama is only getting congressional approval this time, because he already has Syria in a stranglehold and knows they cannot get out no matter how long it takes.

yeah right

 

[Kondor3]

Where are you posting from? If you are an anti-American foreigner, there is no use in my talking to you --- I make a point of avoiding enemy propagandists. No "aid and comfort to the enemy." You don't sound American to me. What are you?

Where are YOU posting from? You don't sound like an American to me -- not a citizen of the America of toleration and free expression of opinion. You sound like a totalitarian who wants to stamp out dissenting opinion.

What you are saying is evil. You sound like an enemy propagandist.

.

Circe asked a question.

Answer it.

In order to lead-by-example...

I will volunteer that I am an American citizen, born in the US, residing in the US.

Your turn.

 

[numan]

Why are we so fucking obsessed with the mid east?

That's where the oil is.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Too bad there are still so many brain-dead, television-crazed Americans who can't see it.

"What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war."
---Simone Weil

.

.

 

[kaz]

When there is a need to put a different spin on an existing Enumerated Power or Restriction ...

Now that's an oxymoron, a "spin" on an "enumerated power".

... without overturning the thing altogether, then supplemental statute, subjected to judicial review, has been deemed sufficient by that majority.

Wow, the "majority" support it. The founding fathers were wise to make us a republic, you're showing why. The tyranny of the majority.

And you're willing to whittle it down to that we live by a majority of 5/9.

I don't know if you're a Republican or a Democrat, doesn't really matter. You trust government to decide what powers the people gave government. That trust is why we are headed down the path we are of doing things like attacking Syria because we can.

 

[The Professor]

He made a decision to set the stage for saying "I wanted to do something but republicans wouldn't let me."

I respectfully disagree.

I would caution everyone not to underestimate Obama's ability to get his way. I don't think he would go to Congress expecting to lose. It seems that would be worse than acting on his own to begin with. If he wins, however, he can say he has the support of a Republican-controlled Congress and THAT gives him the political advantage he needs. If the Democrats play “follow the leader” Obama doesn't need many Republicans to get the vote he wants. Unfortunately, there are war mongers within the Republican ranks. When the military strikes begin, as I believe they will, the press will spin Obama's action in the most favorable light possible and the public will be sufficiently appeased to quell any thoughts of impeachment.

I hope I'm wrong, but one thing is certain: nobody is better at arm-twisting than Obama. All that “spying” on private citizens was done for a purpose, and information is power.

We shall see.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Legally, he doesn't have any choice. Congress has to authorize force. The President has no authority to go it alone.

Of course, that didn't stop him with Libya. Of course, we had members of Congress who actually demanded to be heard this time.

Obama is only getting congressional approval this time, because he already has Syria in a stranglehold and knows they cannot get out no matter how long it takes.

yeah right

Of course, the threat of another ME war is strictly coincidence.

 

[numan]

Where are you posting from? If you are an anti-American foreigner, there is no use in my talking to you --- I make a point of avoiding enemy propagandists. No "aid and comfort to the enemy." You don't sound American to me. What are you?

Where are YOU posting from? You don't sound like an American to me -- not a citizen of the America of toleration and free expression of opinion. You sound like a totalitarian who wants to stamp out dissenting opinion.

What you are saying is evil. You sound like an enemy propagandist.

Circe asked a question.

Answer it.

In order to lead-by-example...

I will volunteer that I am an American citizen, born in the US, residing in the US.

Your turn.

You lead? I have already, on a number of threads mentioned my deep American roots -- deeper than those of most people here, and deeper and longer than yours, I wager.

I am not going to do it again because you demand and command -- you are unworthy of your country.

Take a hike, you totalitarian shill. Any example led by you would be an evil example.
.

 

[numan]

I hope I'm wrong, but one thing is certain: nobody is better at arm-twisting than Obama. All that “spying” on private citizens was done for a purpose, and information is power.

Quite right; and don't forget that this process of spying on people in power and blackmailing them was started by the traitor G. W. Bush !!

.

 

[Amelia]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

Wow. Synth thanked that one. Synth, I would have thought endorsing religious bigotry beneath you. I has a sad.

 

[Amelia]

...you do realize that treaties are made and broken all the time. That is the nature of treaties, they are voluntary.

I am not surprised that a Mormon regards breaking a pledge as of less consequence than drinking a bottle of soda pop.

.

You should not expect integrity from cultists.

I greatly misjudged Synth in this area. Learn something new every day.