Obama needs a new diversion-Syria screwed up

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    I mean haven't we resolved civil wars with UN peacekeeping and joint military operations before? Haiti? Nicaragua? Rwanda? Bosnia? Croatia?

    These were not unilateral military actions. These all involved horrible atrocities.
  2. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,615
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    Ratings Received:
    +2,146
    There was nothing wrong with Obama drawing the line in the sand but crossing the line had to mean "instant, significant response". Not doing so makes it look like he is just going to draw another line.
  3. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Here was my worry with this: Obama draws this line and the Al Qaeda has their blueprint for getting support from the U.S. Stupid to even give them this.

    Let's find out who did this definitively and then support the U.N. mission (as Britain and France will be doing).
  4. Tasselhoff

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +264
    Obob,
    I wasn't clear sorry
    I meant the more we lean on other countries the less likely we are to go to war on our own. The more countries involved the harder it is to get everyone on board with a prolonged military attack. I am not against co-operating with other countries, forming coalitions and such - but when and if we make a statement, like drawing a line in the sand, and it applies mainly only to the US, it makes it harder for us to act by ourselves. Those that we warned know we will not move with out approval from all the other countries. They know they have time, other countries they can sway, bribe or threaten. In some ways the coalitions and the UN strengthen us. In others....they weaken us.
  5. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    Define instant. If we are talking a month or a few, I think in political terms, that's instant enough. If he waited a year, but it doesn't need to happen right away. Regardless of any line drawing, he still needs political support form within and without.
  6. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    I have no problem with the "when" if it is decided that action is required. I have a problem with them announcing to the world in advance. Just do it and tell us about it after the missiles have struck. Get concensus. Do whatever you need to do. let the French lead...again.
  7. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,615
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    Ratings Received:
    +2,146
    In my mind, instant would be quick enough that the first official White House response to the situation would be: "this morning the US destroyed Syrian targets in ......."
  8. icequeen

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    4,402
    Likes Received:
    1,950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +2,959
    I was watching the news this morning and had to roll my eyes at what a girl/translator said. She said if the US didn't help them, that when she grew up she'd write "Obama didn't help us". The reason for rolling my eyes - once more damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the US gets involved then AQ and others can say the Evil Infidel Americans are getting involved. If the US doesn't get involved, the Evil Infidel Americans care nothing about the plight of the innocent :roll:

    Frankly, no I don't want the US leading this. Let the UN and other countries stick their necks out.
  9. Swampmaster

    Swampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +51
    the u.s. needs to stay out of middle east civil wars----let them figure it out. invading syria is not in the best interests of this country.
  10. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,125
    Likes Received:
    973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,026
    weaponizing and delivering weaponized chemical weapons on this scale is or at least has been beyond the capabilities possessed by AQ and is limited to a few central governments. there is a reason Syria has been shelling the areas since the UN wanted to go, they are trying to destroy any evidence related to the delivery systems that would relate directly back to Assad. I suspect the NSA already has copies of electronic transmittals authorizing the use of chemical weapons.

    And the principle here is much larger than Syria. Is the world willing to accept the massacre of civilians using wmd's? Anywhere..not just Syria.
  11. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Estimates re casualties in Syria range from 80 K to 100 K. Before the chemical weapons were used.

    My question is what in the hell is the UN doing when he's murdering 80,000 of his own citizens?
  12. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a civil war?
  13. uftaipan

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,313
    I notice that we're not even discussing getting authorization from Congress in accordance with the law. See, it is already an underlying assumption that this President will assume dictatorial powers and conduct war without so much as a GFYS to the people's representatives.
  14. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Well first probably because Congress is in recess.

    Second, because it would likely follow a Libya game plan.
  15. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
  16. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,334
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,427
    I think we can trace this back to at least Mr. Lincoln.
  17. uftaipan

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,313
    The President has had over a year to seek statutory authority in the event that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons. He probably would have gotten it. And the fact that he had it in writing would have served as a deterrent to Assad. The President did not seek it because to do so would be to admit publicly that he does not have the absolute power to make war on his own.

    Of course, he's following the Libya gameplan, which is of course to make war unilaterally without the approval of Congress. They did not force a war powers crisis last time. Why should they this time?
  18. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Isn't it weird for people then to clamor for him to do in Syria what he did in Libya?
  19. uftaipan

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,313
    Lincoln? Really?

    Okay. I'll play.

    First, the War Powers Resolution was not in effect under Lincoln. Second, even if it had been, the states in rebellion triggered Presidential war powers pursuant to §1541(c)(3) by attacking Fort Sumter (has there been a Syrian attack on the U.S., its territories, possessions, or armed forces?). Third, the Civil War was an insurrection within the United States, not war on a foreign power.

    I don't even disagree with the idea that Syrian use of WMDs should trigger a world response. But in the United States we should go about things in the correct way. The correct way involves going to Congress except in the case of a national emergency, which this is not.
  20. gatorman_07732

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,739
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,003
    So this is the Ole recess war. Fantastic

Share This Page