chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 28, 2013 15:18:08 GMT -5
Yup, Actually, he said "Push for the Transformation to a democratic Syria" Gotta love that word. Seems like that was what Bush said about Iraq, no? And if memory serves, that was deemed by the left to be all that, and more. I'm sure Bush said a lot of things. like saddam has WMDs ...turned out to be fiction There is a big difference between urging a transformation to Democracy and invading a country based on Bullshit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:21:38 GMT -5
@0:58 push for a democratic Syria without Assad.... sounds like nation building too me. Not to me..sounds like American priciples Pushing American principles on others is nation building. Building is the act of making something new. In this case a new nation with "American Principles". Syrians may or may not want that. I am sure having it forced on them will look like Afghanistan or Iraq. It's sticking our nose into others folks business. My complaint about the US Gov't is exactly that. Stay out of OPB - other peoples business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 15:22:35 GMT -5
Ofama must like Bush's policies. He's doing them too.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 28, 2013 15:56:26 GMT -5
So then, you agree with me that if he "interfere's" without a mandate from congress, then he is not so smart. The smart move is laying it on Congress. Congress will definitely approve war and Obama is stuck fulfilling the mandate. It's the American thing to do. We were indoctrinated with Patton and a staunch belief in our heroes
|
|
|
Post by helens on Aug 28, 2013 16:00:16 GMT -5
Why would we let Congress declare war? Congress is still very Republican. War = money. Oh hell no.
Few missiles to Syria, Iran lobs a few missiles at Israel to retaliate, Isreal FLATTENS Iran. That's the win-win scenario:).
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 28, 2013 16:00:17 GMT -5
White House downplays role for Congress or the UN in Syrian strike The White House is downplaying the role of the United Nations in any potential strike against Syrian weapons, even though it also says U.S. intervention is justified by an international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The anti-U.N. stance stands in sharp contrast to the policy maintained by President George H. Bush, who sought and won U.N. and congressional approval prior to removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991. Similarly, President George W. Bush sought and won a favorable U.N. resolution against Iraq in 2002, titled U.N. Security Resolution 1441. Bush said that resolution endorsed action against Iraq’s government for not fully disarming itself of chemical weapons following the 1991 war. Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/white-house-downplays-role-for-congress-or-the-un-in-syrian-strike/#ixzz2dIeAlvINObama and his team contradict past statements on war powers, Syria As President Barack Obama weighs military action in Syria, it remains unclear whether he will first seek congressional authorization. It is clear, however, that Obama once thought such authorization was necessary. “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” candidate Obama told The Boston Globe in late 2007. He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.” Read more: dailycaller.com/2013/08/27/obama-and-his-team-contradict-past-statements-on-war-powers-syria/#ixzz2dIep8hUE
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Aug 28, 2013 16:03:58 GMT -5
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 28, 2013 16:07:57 GMT -5
You are slippin', Rich.
From the article you posted:
“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” the law states.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Aug 28, 2013 17:01:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 17:16:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Aug 28, 2013 20:04:59 GMT -5
I'm sure Bush said a lot of things. like saddam has WMDs ...turned out to be fiction There is a big difference between urging a transformation to Democracy and invading a country based on Bullshit So where exactly did syria get the WMD's? The satellite photos of truck convoys going from Iraq to Syria while we were waiting around for UN arms inspectors to finish with Saddam kinda make sense. They're kinda keeping quiet about that one though. That said, we did not belong in Iraq and definitely should do nothing in Syria with a total buffoon as commander in chief. Lee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 20:26:05 GMT -5
Yes, Lee the libs were all over Bush for doing Iraq. How is this any different? Oh, that is right, it's their patron saint Ofama doing the heavy lifting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 20:27:56 GMT -5
So then, you agree with me that if he "interfere's" without a mandate from congress, then he is not so smart. The smart move is laying it on Congress. Congress will definitely approve war and Obama is stuck fulfilling the mandate. It's the American thing to do. We were indoctrinated with Patton and a staunch belief in our heroes Now you have gone circular. Of course he should lay it on congress. But when they get nothing done (this is the do nuthin' congress right?) then he has to choose on his own. Just as he is smart to lay it on them, they'd be pretty smart to lay it back at his feet. THEN if he acts he is on a limb. Somehow you seem to want to ignore this rather likely option.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 29, 2013 4:54:38 GMT -5
Yes, Lee the libs were all over Bush for doing Iraq. How is this any different? Oh, that is right, it's their patron saint Ofama doing the heavy lifting. Invading a country to defend your daddies honor, effectively killing American boys to defend some imagined slight of the family name and you see similarities to someone going after someone who actually has and is currently using chemical weapons
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 29, 2013 5:02:21 GMT -5
The smart move is laying it on Congress. Congress will definitely approve war and Obama is stuck fulfilling the mandate. It's the American thing to do. We were indoctrinated with Patton and a staunch belief in our heroes Now you have gone circular. Of course he should lay it on congress. But when they get nothing done (this is the do nuthin' congress right?) then he has to choose on his own. Just as he is smart to lay it on them, they'd be pretty smart to lay it back at his feet. THEN if he acts he is on a limb. Somehow you seem to want to ignore this rather likely option. I have been consistent from the start...lay it on Congress...let them decide...we know the Reps cant agree on how to shell a peanut, let alone what to do about Chemical weapons...if a Rep were in office , we'd be over there already...since a Dem is in office, they will dither and dither, but will eventually approve war and Obama leads a united America and if they do nothing...President Obama makes the decision and the Reps will jump all over him and the Dems will defend and the Indies will lean toward Obama
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Aug 29, 2013 6:40:41 GMT -5
|
|
Don
Cave Dweller
He wants you too, Malachi.
Member since December 2009
Posts: 2,616
|
Post by Don on Aug 29, 2013 9:40:14 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the Lib position on this is that obama should go through congress not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will supposedly make congress look bad.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Aug 29, 2013 10:56:21 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the Lib position on this is that obama should go through congress not because it's the right thing to do, but because it will supposedly make congress look bad. No Don ... That's not a Lib position What I said was "What a smart and crafty move that would be for Obama" Charlie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 11:16:54 GMT -5
One buffoon or another buffoon makes no difference. WE SHOULD NOT GO THERE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. We have popped into every skirmish on the planet and it is time to let those people keep killing each other like they have been doing for a couple thousand years. Put it to a vote of the people and see if we should go there and get a bunch of the little people killed. The prez and congress should lead into battle if they vote to go there. Patton did it why can't they. No person should be allowed to vote to send other people into battle if they or their child are not willing to go and help. Jim
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Aug 29, 2013 11:30:45 GMT -5
Headline today - Haunted by Iraq: Lawmakers wary of strikesNo, it’s called cover your ass, the very reason for the War Powers Resolution. Whatever their recollections or knowledge of history, a primary motivation for enactment of the War Powers Resolution was to assure the American voters that Congress was not responsible for this unpopular war and that Congress was acting to prevent similar tragedies in the future. At its core, the War Powers Resolution was a fraud, designed to deceive the voters and to absolve Congress from political accountability. Republicans blamed it on Lyndon Johnson; Democrats pointed the finger at Richard Nixon. Either way, one thing was clear-Congress had nothing to do with it and was, therefore, not a proper target of public ire. Another prominent Vietnam critic who championed war powers legislation-but ultimately voted against the bill that passed on the theory that it was not tough enough in restricting the President-commented in 1988:
“Finally . . . I came to the conclusion that Congress really didn't want to be in on the decisionmaking process as to when, how, and where we go to war. I came to the conclusion that Congress really didn't want to have its fingerprints on sensitive matters pertaining to putting our Armed Forces into hostilities. I came to the conclusion that Congress preferred the right of retrospective criticism to the right of anticipatory, participatory judgment. . . . I harbor the notion that most Senators and House Members don't have the political stomach for decisionmaking involving war.” Good read, only 10,332 words. : ) www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-war-powers-resolution-an-unnecessary-unconstitutional-source-of-friendly-fire-in-the-war-against-international-terrorism
|
|