46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 11:11 am
@spendius,
Cameron is as far left as Obama. Hollande is in a completely different league.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 11:46 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Cameron is as far left as Obama. Hollande is in a completely different league.
And that's what really makes me wonder: the French Socialists are the only (or last) left party in Europe.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 12:01 pm
@JPB,
Just so

Quote:
Obama to seek authorisation from Congress on Syria air strikes
There will be a debate and a vote "as soon as Congress comes back into session", Obama says.

He says he is "confident" that he has the authority to launch strikes without that authorisation, but says the decision will be stronger with it.

He says the US is primed to strike on Syria.

"The chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose."

Obama says the chairman has informed him that the military is ready for his order. He says strikes "will be effective tomorrow, next week or one month from now". Guardian Live Blog
roger
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 12:08 pm
@JPB,
How totally cool! Ask permission, then do it anyway.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but this is definately an odd approach.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 12:34 pm
@roger,
France is under no obligation to wait for the US Congress to reconvene in September. If it's so damn important to be done sooner let them go ahead and do it.

I don't think he'll get the permission he's looking for. I hope not, at least. I also don't think he'd do it anyway without it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 12:47 pm
@JPB,
http://i1334.photobucket.com/albums/w641/Walter_Hinteler/a_zps6b2becac.jpg

Hollande reflects about the the intervention in Syria
Head: I'll go, perhaps
Tail: I won't go, but I'm not sure
(Source: Le Nouvelle Observateur)
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 01:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 01:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I am completely stumped. Is the goal to get congressional approval so they can bear some responsibility, or to have Congress say no, then place the blame of future atrocities on Congress?

I truly do not understand what is happening. It's hard to imagine anyone so craven they would destroy their own people in such a horrific manner. It has to stop but whose responsibility is it to make it stop?

When you think about the amount of money poured into the UN to put a stop to things like this from ever happening, but more importantly the measure of suffering endured by people, I believe the UN has made itself irrelevant.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 01:37 pm
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2013/08/after-painting-himself-into-corner-and.html

Quote:

After Painting Himself Into a Corner and Losing All His Allies, NOW Obama Looks to Congress!

As an excuse to back down, that is...
then blame the Republicans, of course



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb083013dAPR20130830124535.jpg

Quote:
....Either somebody warned Obama he's opening himself up to impeachment with another violation of the war powers act... or he simply realized he's been abandoned or opposed by just about everybody on Earth, including the UN.....
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 01:39 pm
http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451af9f69e2019aff139d63970b-500wi
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 01:40 pm
@gungasnake,
I might have known you'd be opposed to greater democracy. You won't be happy until you get a president with a toothbrush moustache.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:02 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

I am completely stumped. Is the goal to get congressional approval so they can bear some responsibility, or to have Congress say no, then place the blame of future atrocities on Congress?


By golly, I think you've hit it. Seriously, I think either situation would be perfectly acceptable to him.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:05 pm
@roger,
Could be he hopes this may sway public opinion for him. Right now, only he and his dog are in favor of action.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:07 pm
@edgarblythe,
I guess that's France now.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:08 pm
@glitterbag,
That's a bit extreme gb. Try to see it as a step along a long and difficult and thorny path. It took a few hundred years to bring Rome from a primitive beginning to high civilisation and a few more to return it to shipwreck.

But the art survived.

The organic theory of cultures suggests that our own is starting to list.

Mr Obarmy, with his "red line" speech, must have thought that internal politics were more important than the external ones. Which is never the case for a nation among other nations.

He has a problem going up steps as well and it might be linked to his eagerness to look good. I saw him the other day let a guy go first up the steps of a speedbird. The guy proceeded in the manner we all do after an eventful day and Mr Obarmy followed him doing slow-motion jogs with his elbows up near his shoulders.

Whether he does it on steps not in public view I don't know. I should think he crawls up them hand over hand.

It's something I find odd. I would replace steps up to stages with shallow ramps when he is making a speech.

His pronouncements are dreadful to my ears. GWB was silver-tongued by comparison.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Right now, only he and his dog are in favor of action.

Nonsense. Those of us who think it is wrong to use nerve gas on civilians are all for prompt action.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:14 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:
When you think about the amount of money poured into the UN to put a stop to things like this from ever happening, but more importantly the measure of suffering endured by people, I believe the UN has made itself irrelevant.


There's big difference between saying you'll pay the UN and actually putting your hand in your pocket.

Quote:
The financial indicators for the United Nations for 2012 were generally “positive and sound”, but the regular budget’s cash level would face pressure in the next three months as $855 million of the $2.4 billion budget remained unpaid,


http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2012/121019_Guest.doc.htm

If you really want the UN to be able to stop stuff like this happening, you've got to give them a lot more money, and a lot more power.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:19 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

If you really want the UN to be able to stop stuff like this happening, you've got to give them a lot more money, and a lot more power.
... a bit more to their little power.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:29 pm
the call for Congress to authorize attack means it will not happen, the military is strongly opposed to the action so it will be easy to build a coalition to stop it.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 02:29 pm
@glitterbag,
Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people. You have access to your representatives. You can tell them that your future vote depends on how they decide this issue. They can then decide whether to listen to you, to vote their conscience, to vote their party line, or to try to stick it to the President politically. This is the proper way to go. It's the only way that gives you the time and the means to make your opinion known to those who will be casting votes. It's the President's decision, ultimately, but this gives you and me time to speak out to those we've elected.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 11:54:46