Should Congress authorize military action against Syria?

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

  1. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,300
    Ah, so support for the war only came after our troops were there? There was no banging of drums beforehand? I think we remember it differently.

    Good. It's nice to know you've learned something. Though I don't quite believe it.

    Well, I certainly don't want a war with Russia. But then I knew the war with Iraq was a really bad idea.
  2. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,300
    Republican congresswoman:

  3. AzCatFan
    Online

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,689
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    We are in a no-win scenario in Syria. On one hand, how can anyone sit idly by and allow the use of chemical weapons in this day and age without any repercussions from the international community? On the other, why should we ever get involved in a civil war 1/2 around the world, especially when both sides fighting are anti-American?

    Personally, I'm in the let Allah sort this one out camp. If we had the support of the international community, and could shoot some missiles with a UN Flag on them, that would be one thing. But the only support we have is France and Sweden. And without a large coalition of support, any action we take will be seen as unilateral. And the potential fall-out is just too great of a risk to get involved.

    President Obama made a huge mistake drawing any line in the sand. Perhaps he thought other countries would get in line if Syria crossed the line and used chemical weapons? Probably should have secured the support before saying anything big. And now we are damned no matter what we do. Do nothing, and we are seen as weak. Get involved, and we are the Great Satan again, meddling in affairs we have no business meddling in. But given the fact that people in the ME have been killing each other for years, and nothing we can do can stop it, I'd rather be viewed as weak. We can always act later if need be.
  4. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,894
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,311

    Well, he turned himself into one in a matter of weeks, or less.
  5. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,894
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,311

    And the localized use of chemical weapons in Syria, by Syrians against Syrians, threatens our national security how . . . again ?

    I have not heard the case made for that yet.
  6. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,157
    Likes Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,428
    Not what I was responding to, I was answering a post about what happened if Iran responded against us and the authorization didn't deal with that subject.
  7. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,894
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,311

    I didn't expect you to become a talking head for the administration.

    But neither you, Bueller, Kerry, or anyone else, has not demonstrated how our national security interests are affected by the localized us of a killer gas, in Syria.

    At least, I haven't heard it, and that's why I asked if you knew.
  8. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,157
    Likes Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,428
    I don't think you have to in order to authorize a strike, particularly not if you are seeking congressional authority to do so.

    Without congressional authority? You run into the issue that determinations of national security and the conduct of foreign affairs are almost exclusively within the province of the executive. If the executive says it does, that's arguably enough, and I think they can get to that point by articulating the position that maintaining international norms forbidding the use of chemical weapons, particularly when the US has liquidated its own chemical weapons stockpiles in reliance on those norms, are in the direct national security interests of the United States.

    Is it as satisfying of an answer as you could craft if we actually got attacked? Clearly not. But I'm not sure it doesn't fly. And for all the minimizing of executive power the administration arguably engaged in by seeking congressional authorization, the Senate is kicking it right back with the final whereas clause in their draft resolution: "Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States."

    That's one of the broadest potential recognitions by Congress of inherent executive authority to make war that I can remember, and could potentially be cited by the administration if they lose a congressional vote and want to proceed anyways.
  9. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,894
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,311

    I would call that a specious, facile, and supercilious argument claimed to justify unilateral military action on our part, vis-a-vis, the limited, localized use of chemical weapons in Syria.

    If in fact, they - somebody - had the nads to articulate that. And I don't think Kerry has, and I know Barry Oh! hasn't.
  10. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,805
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,318
    There's only one possible answer.

    [​IMG]
  11. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +952
    The b******* statement that Americans were happy to send soldiers to die in Iraq is so over the top I really don't even know how to address it. Some of us actually sign the dotted line to die for this country. Until it is your ass on the line kindly refrain from stealing such b******* in the future.
  12. DieAGator
    Offline

    DieAGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,837
    Likes Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,054
    CNN just showed McCain being admonished yesterday during a town hall meeting. I'm glad some citizens stood up and told him this country doesn't need another war that's avoidable.
  13. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    444
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,300
    Oh, get off your ******* ******** high horse.
    But how about eager, instead of happy?
  14. DeanMeadGator
    Offline

    DeanMeadGator '63 Gator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,673
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +233
    I agree 100%. When will we stop getting into wars when there is no immediate threat to the security of the United States?

    It appears that neither Obama nor those who support action have any idea what the reaction of Russia, China, Iran and other countries will be if an attack, whether limited or not, is launched. Moreover, they have obviously not considered the potential for unintended consequences.

    Even worse, will military action enhance the position of terrorists fighting against the Syrian government?

    It is absolutely clear that Syria has already moved its weapons to other locations. It is also absolutely clear that such action will have no effect on Assad or his willingness to continue slaughtering people, including children.

    No other country supports what Obama wants to do. The American public does not support what Obama wants to do. It is unlikely that Congress will support what Obama wants to do.

    What consequences will there be if Obama acts without the approval of Congress, without the support of the public and without the direct support of any other country?

    Please consider giving your opinion on the consequences.

    I was in the Air Force for 4 years during 'Nam. We lost 55,000 American lives. FOR WHAT PURPOSE??

    I, for one, am not willing to support an action against Syria for all of the reasons expressed herein, and others.

    Would you want your child, husband or wife, or your grandchildren to participate in this operation? Would you participate?

    In summary, I will never support any military action of any kind.

Share This Page