Should Congress authorize military action against Syria?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Sep 1, 2013.

  1. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    If we do anything, it will be to paint a temporary "UN" on whichever ships launch missiles and have the Arab countries pay for the cost of the armaments, as Hall says, up front. I'm for doing nothing now....the emphasis being on the word now.

    Revenge is best served and tasted cold. Find out where the stockpiles are and down the road, celebrate the 4th of july with a little chemical weapons eradication.
  2. Swampmaster

    Swampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +51
    authorize military action? no---let them solve their own problems. No more U.S. lives or money for middle east civil wars.
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    I've had second thoughts on this.

    If Obama scraps Obama-scamm and undoes the illegal Cap & Trade. And he fires Holder. And he builds a fence on our southern border. And I was in congress... I'd okay the use of force.
  4. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,634
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    Ratings Received:
    +2,151
    I think almost everyone agrees that Obama made a mistake in drawing the red line in the sand without a plan on what to do if the line was crossed. The US is not getting the support of the international community or even NATO allies to an airstrike. Rather than going alone a solution might be to do the following:

    • Have Congress pass a resolution authorizing the use of force in the event of another use of chemical weapons;
    • Force should be directed at any or all military installations under the direction of the side using the chemical weapons;
    • Use of force is not limited in scope or time but should be sufficient to render the use of those weapons nearly impossible;
    • Once resolution is passed by Congress get the support of our NATO allies, Israel, and other Arab states who oppose the use of chemical weapons;
    • Continue the support of the Free Syrian army.

    Basically, lets Obama off the hook on responding to his line in the sand statement and outlines a plan of action in the event of another chemical weapons attack.
  5. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,346
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,430
    I'm not convinced they really know who used the chemical weapons.
  6. GT Gator

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +196
    Neither am I. Assaad's forces had absolutely nothing to gain by gassing a bunch of villagers. On the other hand, the rebels had everything to gain.

    It just makes a lot more sense that the rebels used the gas.
  7. GatrHeel

    GatrHeel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +8
    Heard an expert on the news the other night who said that based on the evidence (lab reports from the victims and satellite intel on the delivery) there was almost no chance the rebels did this. The expert was convinced it was the Syrian government.
  8. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,346
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,430
    Was he from the government?
  9. Lawdog88

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,339
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,788

    They wouldn't want to be harsh on other Arabs or Persians, for doing what they themselves might need to do to their own people some day.

    Now if they could convince somebody else to come in and spanky-spanky those naughty, naughty Syrians, well maybe whoever takes over in Syria will notice that the rest of the Arab states didn't actually . . . DO . . . anything.

    Still friends, still copacetic. Pals, even. Bread-breaking Muslims, even.
  10. DieAGator

    DieAGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,451
    Likes Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Right, and considering Al Qaeda is supposed to be among the rebel groups how would anyone know who is doing the killing? Scary thought though, if it was not Assads forces then who has the WMDs?
  11. GT Gator

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +196
    I also heard someone I really used to respect, Colin Powell, go before the UN and definitively state that Iraq was storing and producing WMDs.

    Powell had far more "proof" for Iraqi's WMDs than anyone has for these gas attacks.
  12. GatrHeel

    GatrHeel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +8
  13. HallGator

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    43,346
    Likes Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,430
    Thanks for the link. If he was from the government or got his info from someone in the government we should be very wary. I think some people up there have ulterior motives for all of this. And I would almost bet it involves money. This whole think stinks to the high heavens.
  14. The_Graygator

    The_Graygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    35,234
    Likes Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,582
    Isn't it amazing how Obama cares so much about this but doesn't give a flying flip about Benghazi, which he has still done NOTHING about? And remember all the libs here, calling Bush a "cowboy" and going to war for personal reason and being a war-mongerer?

    Now that Obama is doing it, it's o.k., it's all "cool" now. :roll:

    Typically, Obama has completely mis-handled this entire Syrian situation because he's too afraid to make a decision based on what will or won't hurt his image and secondly, he hasn't a clue what to do.

    He couldn't organize an international coalition anyway because of what he did in Libya, when he got several nation's together to create a no-fly zone over Libya to help depose Quaddafi. He led everyone in charging head-long and planes a-blazin', and then after throwing the first punch, he backed off to a support position and let our allies shoulder it.

    They all know he'll do the same thing again in Syria and they want no part of it. Simply put, our allies have no faith or trust in Obama because his ego comes before anything else.

    Biden once described Obama would have a "spine of steel" dealing with foreign affairs, but what we've seen is he has a "spine of noodles".

    What we need to do is push the other Arab nations in the region to take out those chemical weapons targets. This is THEIR war, not our's. Nobody attacked us.

    You know, Obama ran a campaign to get elected based on Bush spending too much money on "senseless wars" and here is Obama about to completely turn the Middle East totally upside-down simply because he wants to save face.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. GT Gator

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,525
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +196
    There was almost no chance that the rebels did the gas attack? Hmmmn, I guess the "expert" (AKA propagandist) missed this report:

    Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists (note the report is from June 6th -- BEFORE the gas attack):

  16. Ceal8ter

    Ceal8ter VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,926
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Any action taken, should be initiated by a coalition of UN forces, of which we should share an equal burden. No less and no more, and personally I feel this should be our ongoing policy in any conflict that does not directly challenge our national security.

    If the rest of humanity doesn't see fit to intervene, why should we. They have no less a moral obligation then do we.
  17. uftaipan

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,354
    Russia and China (both permanent members with veto power) are not going to approve such a measure under any circumstances. The U.S. could go to the General Assembly, as it did in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I don't know how well received such a measure would be there either. In short, I agree that the President should go to the UN and ask for an appropriate resolution, but in principle I don't think we should restrict our actions with regard to our own national security if Russia and China are intransigent.

    If the Congress approves war, then that's good enough for me whether I personally agree with the decision or not. If they do not, then we should do nothing. I'm sick of war by imperial fiat.
  18. GuyWhiteyCorngood

    GuyWhiteyCorngood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +109
    What are we trying to accomplish with force?
    What comes next?

    The second question is the really ugly one. This situation is more complex than most people seem to think, and there is no good side for our allegiance. The disadvantages seem to far outweigh any argument for us to intervene without UN support.
  19. DeanMeadGator

    DeanMeadGator '63 Gator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +162
    Absolutely not. The United States is not under attack. Launching a few missiles will accomplish nothing.

    The ramifications on our foreign policy are unknown and more likely than not have not been carefully considered. Moreover, no allies are backing us.

    When will we learn that unless the United States is under attack, the military option should not be used. Who believes that we should go it alone? Who believes that you should telegraph our strategy in advance? Who believes that you can launch a few missiles and accomplish anything whatsoever?

    Lest you think I am a dove, I served in the Air Force for 4 years during 'Nam. We lost 55,000 young American lives, and for what purpose?
  20. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Not a bad proposal, though I don't agree that Obama necessarily made a mistake by making the line in the sand comment. If he intended to back it up, it was not a mistake but a sufficient warning. As to having a plan then, that assumes that events don't change in over a year's time, though one hopes he was working up allies for support. Maybe he did, but the "poisoned well" caused by the Iraq war is tough to clear.

Share This Page