Puppet War in Syria

[TulsaRufnex]

Funny... but I don't even think I have to read any of the posts on this thread to come to the conclusion that....

Teabagger on Friday:  "Obama should get congressional approval."
Teabagger on Sunday:  "Obama is weak for asking Congress for approval."

Typical.

[guido911]

Oh, thanks. That cleared it up nicely. A leader would have gone ahead with an attack (and would have been soundly castigated by the Republicans for being both reckless and lawless) but when Obama follows our Constitution he can be criticized for not being a powerful leader.

I think I get it now. Obama is showing tremendous leadership and constitutional awareness by this approach.

[Ed W]

I don't see it that way. I think he's realized that in a democracy, the people and their elected representatives have a voice in affairs of state. Granted, we of the great unwashed will not be asked to vote up or down on involvement with Syria or any other nation, but our voices are heard through those we elect to represent us and we're heard through forums like this one and so many others. It's the NSA, you know.

There's undoubtedly a purely political calculation being done, too. If the President had attacked Syria without consulting Congress, the outcry would have been tremendous. It would haunt the rest of his term in office and probably have an effect on the next Presidential election. Yet by putting this to a vote, he's forcing both parties to take a stand right now. Could we see Republicans voting against it and subsequently being labeled as "soft on defense"?  I'd like to think that party politics wouldn't intrude, but I'm not quite that idealistic.

We've been round and round on drone strikes killing terrorists, innocent civilians, and even some Americans. It's wrong to permit our president to commit an act of war without Congressional approval just as it's wrong to permit him to kill Americans without any legal oversight.

Do we really need to attack Syria? We're being told it's a national defense issue, but how is Assad a threat to us? My thought would be to allow his neighbors and the Europeans to deal with it since it's much more likely to impact them, but then again, since one neighbor is Israel, we know what would happen if they became involved. So in a sense, perhaps American military intervention is intended to keep the Israelis out of it.

[guido911]

I don't see it that way. I think he's realized that in a democracy, the people and their elected representatives have a voice in affairs of state.

Really? Obama just now figured that out?

[Breadburner]

Like Obamacare....

[Ed W]

Really? Obama just now figured that out?

No, he was probably ahead of us on this one, but apparently I'm the first to explain it to you in such simple and easy to understand terms.

OK, enough snark. I get mean on an empty stomach. Time for dinner!

[Gaspar]

It takes a child to raze a village. . .in Syria.  This is so sad.

[Red Arrow]

Yet by putting this to a vote, he's forcing both parties to take a stand right now.

Until the members of the House and Senate find it politically inexpedient, like they did with the vote to invade Iraq.

[guido911]

Dinner with Hitler.


From drudge.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hopefully he won't accuse any of our service men of rape and murder this time.

No need...the actual conviction (through plea) of Bales proved the murder.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It amazes me that some people can't see a difference between a country that had used WMDs over a decade prior and had been supervised destroying them and another that (probably) is using them as we speak.

Don't forget the fact that we were the ones who supplied that country with the tools, equipment, supplies, and training in the use of those chemical weapons...we wanted him to use them against Iran.  He did.  As well as his own people.

There is that difference....

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll have to doubt your assertion. I don't remember anyone making such correlations or laughing during the situation. I remember being doubtful of the evidence of wmd's. Nonetheless, Saddam was worthy of toppling and so is Assad. Is there any doubt about the use of chemical weapons on innocents?

Why?

Same question I have asked since 2001...and before.  Why would we be concerned enough about that cheap little tin-horn dictator who just happened to kill a couple hundred thousand of the people in his country he didn't like...?  Where is the compelling 'need' to attack and depose him with the full force of our military?  (Especially since we provided him the means to do that...)  And even MORE - the fact that we killed another 800,000+ performing that "liberation" of the people of Iraq!!    And as a nation, we see NO inconsistency in these facts....

It certainly had NOTHING to do with humanitarian reasons... else we would have done something in Congo, Uganda, Rwanda - WAY before doing anything in Iraq!!

Or is there something "worse" about killing 1,400 people with gas than there is from killing a million with clubs and machete's...??


But wait...what is missing from this discussion so far...??  Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Oil.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Funny... but I don't even think I have to read any of the posts on this thread to come to the conclusion that....

Teabagger on Friday:  "Obama should get congressional approval."
Teabagger on Sunday:  "Obama is weak for asking Congress for approval."

Typical.

You understand this topic perfectly!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think I get it now. Obama is showing tremendous leadership and constitutional awareness by this approach.

'Bout time....

On both points.

[Cats Cats Cats]