• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama's air strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria

Fake or real?

MARINE.jpg
 
I don't know how many people have to say,"we aren't putting boots on the ground in Syria" before you believe, but pick a number and we'll starting counting.
 
And he's wrong. The far left is getting as crazy as the far right.

Obama has been consistent about not wanting to expand our military footprint and has acted that way for five years.
 
RJKarl said:
And he's wrong. The far left is getting as crazy as the far right.

Obama has been consistent about not wanting to expand our military footprint and has acted that way for five years.
Click to expand...

So explain why the US, under Obama, has helped to train and arm the rebels fighting in Syria?
 
We are not putting boots on the ground. We've had opportunities for over two years and haven't done it. Two years ago we probably could have put a few troops in as advisors and added some hardware and turned the war, but we didn't.

It's extremist conspiracy theory to think Obama wants to send troops. Sorry, the left is creating their own version of anti-Neocons.
 
RJKarl said:
We are not putting boots on the ground. We've had opportunities for over two years and haven't done it. Two years ago we probably could have put a few troops in as advisors and added some hardware and turned the war, but we didn't.

It's extremist conspiracy theory to think Obama wants to send troops. Sorry, the left is creating their own version of anti-Neocons.
Click to expand...

How is blowing up some empty warehouses, and a few airstrips going to detour Assad? What do we do if he gases more people in response to our attack? (assuming he did this in the first place) What scares me is we have Putin/Assad matching wits with Obama/Biden. They win that battle on several fronts. Intelligence, experience, and that they have no conscience. Assad has an ace in the hole in that Russia will offer him asylum if he fails to stay in power.
 
totally right to hand it to congress. If/when we bungle this it's on the dipshits in that chamber.


I don't trust our intelligence one bit. We lie like fuck to protect our money all over the world. This is horseshit, Assad didn't gas those people.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/obama-congress-syria-authorization

It's a potent sign of how low the American political bar is set that gratitude is expressed because a US president says he will ask Congress to vote before he starts bombing another country that is not attacking or threatening the US. That the US will not become involved in foreign wars of choice without the consent of the American people through their representatives Congress is a central mandate of the US Constitution, not some enlightened, progressive innovation of the 21st century. George Bush, of course, sought Congressional approval for the war in Iraq (though he did so only once it was clear that Congress would grant it: I vividly remember watching then-Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden practically begging the Bush White House to "allow" Congress to vote on the attack while promising in advance that they would approve for it).

But what makes the celebratory reaction to yesterday's announcement particularly odd is that the Congressional vote which Obama said he would seek appears, in his mind, to have no binding force at all. There is no reason to believe that a Congressional rejection of the war's authorization would constrain Obama in any way, other than perhaps politically. To the contrary, there is substantial evidence for the proposition that the White House sees the vote as purely advisory, i.e., meaningless.
 
More from the link above:
More to the point, his aides are making clear that Obama does not view the vote as binding, as Time reports:

"To make matters more complicated, Obama's aides made clear that the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection."

It's certainly preferable to have the president seek Congressional approval than not seek it before involving the US in yet another Middle East war of choice, but that's only true if the vote is deemed to be something more than an empty, symbolic ritual. To declare ahead of time that the debate the President has invited and the Congressional vote he sought are nothing more than non-binding gestures - they will matter only if the outcome is what the President wants it to be - is to display a fairly strong contempt for both democracy and the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
Obama should be looking for a way out, and I hope that is what he is doing. Uncertainty is widespread, success unclear, objectives muddled, and the costs are potentially too high.
 
RJKarl said:
I don't know how many people have to say,"we aren't putting boots on the ground in Syria" before you believe, but pick a number and we'll starting counting.
Click to expand...

President Barack Obama has said he only wants to undertake “limited” strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But the administration’s draft proposal for a congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force would grant Obama the authority to do way more than that.

“The draft resolution is very broad,” Democratic Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings to reporters following a classified briefing on Syria. “The president said this effort would be limited in scope and duration and I don’t know that the authorization is that limited.”

Cummings isn’t the only lawmaker concerned about how far the administration’s proposal goes. NBC News reports that Judiciary Committee chair Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont told reporters that the draft was too open ended, saying “I know it will be amended in the Senate.”

“I’m concerned at this point it’s too open ended,” Leahy said.
Click to expand...
In other words, though the administration has publicly said it is seeking Congress’ approval for a limited strike on Syria, it’s proposal would grant Obama authority for a much more open-ended mission—one that ultimately could include boots on the ground, if Obama decided it were necessary. As written, the draft language would also approve more than just an attack on Assad, but on any of Syria’s regional allies, or even the Syrian rebels if Obama decided it were necessary.

“As the history of the 9/11 AUMF shows, and as prior AUMFs show (think about the Gulf of Tonkin), a President will interpret an AUMF for all it is worth, and then some,” writes Goldsmith.
Click to expand...
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/01/congress-to-amend-obamas-broad-syria-strike-plan/
 
OGBDeacon07 said:
So explain why the US, under Obama, has helped to train and arm the rebels fighting in Syria?
Click to expand...

They are Al Qaeda, and he's a Muslim, Kenyan that hates America and Capitalism?
 
What sucks are extremists on the left or the right:

"We’re not considering any open-ended commitment,” the president said, according to a White House pool report. “We’re not considering any boots on the ground approach.”
 
RJKarl said:
What sucks are extremists on the left or the right:

"We’re not considering any open-ended commitment,” the president said, according to a White House pool report. “We’re not considering any boots on the ground approach.”
Click to expand...

Then the authorization submitted to Congress should say that, right? Or should they just take his word for it?
 
Something that has become clear throughout the past week is that I'm really grateful that neither John Kerry nor John McCain won the presidency. What clowns... For as much as I criticize him, I think that Obama has actually handled this pretty well all things considered. The last thing that you want to do is commit to military action without the approval of elected representatives and on the foundation of what could be intelligence on par with Bush II's hunt for WMDs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top