War With Syria: Yea Or Nay?

[blackhawk]

Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.

Would call it a war if it was being done by a Republican President?

 

[Vox]

Boming the hell out of Syrian airfields might be a good idea LOL. I don't call that a war.

Would call it a war if it was being done by a Republican President?

what else do you expect from the hater dupe libtard?

he is the only one who voted "yes"

 

[Freewill]

First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.

Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Think about this folks. As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress. Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria. In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria.

So not only NO but HELL NO.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.

Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions? He lied.

 

[paulitician]

First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.

Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Think about this folks. As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress. Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria. In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria.

So not only NO but HELL NO.

Yes, obviously it should be taken up by Congress. Anything short of that, is unacceptable. Valid reasons for legal Declaration of War should be debated.

 

[Freewill]

First of all this is not like Iraq and Afghanistan which DID pose a threat to American interests.

Second, I voted no as I would have voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thridly, we can't let ANY president decide this, it is Congress' job to wage war as they voted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Think about this folks. As much as I hated the Iraq war at least it was voted on by Congress. Obama now has interjected America into Lybia and now may interject the military into Syria. In my opinion just because ground troops are not sent in does not give the president card blanc to wage war especially when the situation has time to be debated as does Syria.

So not only NO but HELL NO.

Yes, obviously it should be taken up by Congress. Anything short of that, is unacceptable. Valid reasons for legal Declaration of War should be debated.

I doubt there would be an actual Declaration of War more like what happen with Iraq. unlike what Clinton did in his 72 days of terror bombing of Serbia and Obama has already done in Libya.

 

[The Rabbi]

The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here. This is a long standing precedent.

 

[Freewill]

Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.

Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions? He lied.

Don't be too sure. What I think could happen and I thought this all along. I think Obama may wish to flex his muscles. Prove he is a man by bombing the crap out of Syria. There is a chance he may go overboard and provoke another cold war or worse. Or should I say a colder war?

 

[Freewill]

The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here. This is a long standing precedent.

Then why did Bush, and I believe both Bush's, both with Congress at all?

 

[The Rabbi]

Whatever action the administration takes I can pretty well guarantee it will be symbolic, ineffective, and make the U.S. look like idiots and the laughingstock of the world.
It's what happens when you elect an inexperienced 3rd affirmative action candidate who surrounds himself with incompetents.

Remember when Chuck Hegel said he wouldnt be making any important decisions? He lied.

Don't be too sure. What I think could happen and I thought this all along. I think Obama may wish to flex his muscles. Prove he is a man by bombing the crap out of Syria. There is a chance he may go overboard and provoke another cold war or worse. Or should I say a colder war?

Absolutelu nothing in his history shows this is likely. He is a gutless coward unsure of himself and will do the minimum necessary so he can spin that he followed through on his word.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.

 

[dilloduck]

Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.

Well that's not too much to ask after everyone else has done the heavy lifting.

 

[Kondor3]

The president as COmmander in Chief has broad latitude here. This is a long standing precedent.

True.

But it was not always thus, or, at least, it was not commonplace, and the 'usual' road to war.

Perhaps it is time to strip the President of his Undeclared War Powers, in some way, so as to force a Declaration of War from Congress?

Then again, aren't there circumstances under which there is no time to convene Congress, and, consequently, Congress has delegated some of its powers to the Executive?

The Congressional Declaration of War was crafted in another century, with older technologies and modes of travel in mind.

Perhaps there is some way to find a middle ground?

Give the President X-number-of-days of carte blanche authority to engage in warfare, after which he must go to Congress, for asset to continue, or to shut it down?

Ooooops... wait... we already HAVE something like that, don't we?

Makes sense.

When Congress is not in session, and you've got an incoming ICBM that is gonna hit in 20 minutes, there's no time to call Congress back into session and let 'em vote on it.

Perhaps there is some way to 'tweak' what we already have, to give Congress more control, while preserving a PRACTICAL freedom of action for the POTUS?

Or, perhaps, what we have now is just fine... it's just that we haven't done a very good job of entrusting it to worthies, over the past few decades?

 

[whitehall]

Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Pretty sure Israel will be cleaning up this compassionate war.

Well that's not too much to ask after everyone else has done the heavy lifting.

Not sure what you mean. Syria and Iran may strike Israel if we fire on Syria. Its not going to be a pretty situation.

 

[paulitician]

Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?

I don't think it's all that complicated. And i certainly don't think it's insulting to ask the question. Do you want War with Syria or not? Go with your gut and answer.

 

[Kondor3]

Simplistic and perhaps insulting question regarding an extremely complicated issue. What kind of war? Who the hell are we fighting?

Disagree.

We know the 'who'... Assad, and the existing Syrian government (in effect, taking the side of the anti-government forces).

War may take many forms and can be narrow and contained or expansive and inclusive.

The question is quite eloquent in its simplicity.

Translation:

"Are you in favor of military intervention against Syria or not?"

The complexities and subtleties and nuances can be dealt with later.

But first, comes the question...

"Should we?"

Which leaves plenty of time for...

"How?"

...after it has been determined that SOME kind of intervention should or should not be attempted.

One thing at a time.

Logical progression.

The question, and its phrasing, was entirely legitimate, and is serving its purpose admirably.

Everybody beyond the 4th or 5th grade understood what was meant (a broad, sweeping question regarding ANY sort of intervention)...

At least everybody beyond that level that isn't crippled by an over-reliance upon Literalism...

Anybody who's followed the story in even a lightweight and haphazard fashion already has at least some clue about what it at stake and who the major parties are and the destabilization of the region and varying possible outcomes of any intervention...

Save the subtleties and nuances for Round II...

 

[Camp]

Bush should have handled Syria when they sent the first bus load of Syrian and foriegn fighters across their border to join the insurgents and kill Americans. Not like it was done in secret. It was on the cover of TIME and in every newspaper in America. Can't believe people whine about Libya. That asshole that is now dead knocked down a plane full of Americans over England and Ronnie bombed his tent. That was it. He bombed a tent. Those Hezbolla dudes are the ones that bombed the Marine Baracks and killed over 240 Marines, being guarded by Marines with empty weapons as per the Commander in Chiefs orders. No retribution. No payback. Let those Hezbolla soldiers die on the battlefield and let the Syrian Shites die with them. Let them be killed by Sunni fighters and let lots of Jihad Sunni fighters die also. If a few missile strikes will help that process along, lets dance in the streets, the way the Syrians did after 9/11.

 

[antiquity]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

I vote no...let the Arab League handle it, its their territory.

 

[Kondor3]

Looks like it's going to happen. But it's still worth checking out what USMB thinks.

I vote no...let the Arab League handle it, its their territory.

With all respect... the Arab League couldn't find its own ass with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors... they'd screw-up a two-car funeral...

And they've been absolutely and positively useless as a regional peacekeeping force, never mind going up against somebody with balls and a sizable Army like Syria's Assad, in open-daylight warfare...

And they sure-as-hell don't have any credibility as peace-brokers, on the flip side of that coin...

I'm not saying that we or anybody else should step into the League's shoes, to fill that vacuum...

I'm just saying that they're friggin' useless, and that they're not the answer, if there is one...