Syria? Should We or Shouldn't We?

Yes, while I quoted actual speeches and laid out exactly why the situations were completely different and cited those differences and you completely ignored them, it is your position that it is you that has been reaffirmed here? But at least you managed to come up with a few more childish names to call me, that's something I guess. You know, fixing stupid isn't part of my job description.

 

The reason for bombing the hell out of the two countries is exactly the same, you moron. Keep defending hypocrites as you will. Birds of a feather stick together, after all....

View attachment 1960

 

You lay out a great description of both situations!

The point isn't whether we should or shouldn't take action in either case; the point is whether or not the Executive branch can take unilateral action (in either case) without Congressional approval.

War Powers Act...

Actions taken due to our membership in NATO "could" fall under Section 2c(2) "specific statutory authorization"...I really don't know. If that were the case, I would have to agree with you...that these are different situations. However, that would be for the No-Fly Zone, only. There would have to be similar UN resolutions authorizing additional NATO actions.

That's not what happened. Two (2) days after the UN Resolution, the US/UK began enforcing the No-Fly Zone, not by attacking Libyan aircraft in the air, but by launching Tomahawk cruise missiles and B2 bombers to take out the country's entire air defense and air fields (pretty cool, actually).

However, the US went on to blockade Libyan ports and attack Libyan ground forces...just a bit outside the No-Fly Zone mandate. We interjected ourselves into the Libyan Civil War in March and it wasn't resolved until September. There was plenty of time to let Congress debate and authorize additional military actions...that didn't happen.

If we want to authorize the Executive Branch additional powers, we need to pass additional legislation.

I have to say, I like the idea of the Congressional Approval "speed bump". I like to be able to review any actions our Administrations takes "on our behalf". It also helps to remind them "Who's the Boss".

 

The weapons used by their respective leaders were different in Libya and Syria, but our government's reason for intervention is the same.

Obama said this about Libya:

"The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can't simply stand by with empty words, that we have to take some sort of action."


John Kerry said this about Syria:
"There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again."

 

You're right...the moral justification is the same. However, moral justification is irrelevant without Congressional approval.

Legally, we went into Libya as part of a NATO force deployed to enforce UN Security Council Resolution #1973. That "may" fall under the "60 day notice" rule under the War Powers Act. We clearly overstepped the UN resolution and never sought Congressional approval after the sixty (60) day limit...so there were clear Executive branch violations of the War Powers Act.

We don't even have THAT much authorization when it comes to Syria.

 

Absolutely correct. As much as King Obama would enjoy being able to do whatever he wants insofar as invading Syria, the US is still a republic and he must follow the will of the representatives of the people. If Congress gives him permission to wage war against Syria then so be it.

 

Why would our leader lie to us? He said he wants to invade Syria for humanitarian and punitive reasons. But, our local leftwing-nut JoeNation (formerly known as Moen1305) said the only reason we care about any country in the Middle East is because they have oil. Either Obama is lying to us or JoeNation is wrong. I sincerely hope it's the latter not because I enjoy proving JoeNation wrong all the time, but because I sincerely hope Obama is not lying to us.

Here's a discussion from May, 2011:

http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/what-should-be-obamas-next-move-concerning-libya.3502/page-6

 

It's not just oil. There's Israel too. If we could find a replacement for those 2 things, we could treat the Middle East like Africa.

 

View attachment 1963

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/02/rangel-obama-and-syria-course-its-embarassing

 

This may turn out to be a "positive"!

Perhaps President Obama has learned the important lesson of listening to the wisdom of others before establishing Policy...even if it's just those of his own party.

Ideally, he would be the President of all Americans and incorporate the wisdom of all sides while forming his Administration's policies.

 

The key word here is "ideally". He hasn't worked with the Republicans so far in anything he's tried to do, so why would now be any different?

 

No one's perfect. He's either incredibly evil or incredibly ignorant...I'm hoping for the latter.

 

And you honestly see NO Obsession? Okay.

 

A classic example of the Peter Principal.

 

Personally, I admire his political acumen, but don't agree with his politics...and don't trust "Progressives" in general. How would you characterize his "inclusiveness" so far?

 

"I don't know if Obama is Satan, or just one of his minions"

- Local right-wing nut.

..and this, after Cheney and the boys convinced an idiotic President to invade a country so they could reap loads of $$$

You want evil? If Cheney isn't, he's damn close.

 

Well, it seems that nothing short of complete capitulation to every demand the party that lost the last election wants is the only way Obama can be inclusive and I find it just a bit hard to redefine inclusiveness as giving into the hostage takers. You have to know that giving into terrorists only emboldens them to take more hostages. You're funny.

 

You can't talk about Cheney or Bush. It makes their followers look bad.

 

Personally, I'd have preferred the President call each and every member of congress back for a private discussion, and vote, on whether or not to attack Syria.

The question I have is: Is that even possible, given the members loose-lips and grand-standing?

Probably not, as witnessed by old-man "I'll teach Russia for invading Georgia!" McCain and Graham's immediate press-presense after their private meeting with Obama.

Talk about telegraphing our moves to our enemies!

 

MSNBC rips Obama a new one over Syria and the "red line" comment.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/05/msnbc-panel-destroys-obama