DescentBB

Obama will lose the Syria military strike authorization vote.

Will he double-down and ignore congress as he has with his imperial use of executive power?

Either way, his legacy as worst president ever will be sealed. How much further will he sink?

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.
That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/o ... 96347.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... e/?print=1

And here and nigh and yonder people continue to misinterpret the President's position. He does not want to use military force on Syria. He is using himself as a scapegoat, with faith that Congress will not let the authorization fly. He is demonstrating his steadfastness as president as someone who will not let an atrocity that is clearly an infringement on international policy just happen without him taking a counteraction. The last thing he needs is to appear as a weak president to the Syrian government. This is all only with intent to set an example. Obama has no intention of taking military action, and is basically rigging his vote to be denied. He does not believe in getting muddled with another nation's civil war, period.

DoTheGeek wrote:And here and nigh and yonder people continue to misinterpret the President's position. He does not want to use military force on Syria. He is using himself as a scapegoat, with faith that Congress will not let the authorization fly. He is demonstrating his steadfastness as president as someone who will not let an atrocity that is clearly an infringement on international policy just happen without him taking a counteraction. The last thing he needs is to appear as a weak president to the Syrian government. This is all only with intent to set an example. Obama has no intention of taking military action, and is basically rigging his vote to be denied. He does not believe in getting muddled with another nation's civil war, period.

What a pile of sycophantic pathetic drivel. It's no wonder this failure was re-elected. Another drone apologizing for Obama's disasterous 'presidency.'

ThunderBunny wrote:

DoTheGeek wrote:And here and nigh and yonder people continue to misinterpret the President's position. He does not want to use military force on Syria. He is using himself as a scapegoat, with faith that Congress will not let the authorization fly. He is demonstrating his steadfastness as president as someone who will not let an atrocity that is clearly an infringement on international policy just happen without him taking a counteraction. The last thing he needs is to appear as a weak president to the Syrian government. This is all only with intent to set an example. Obama has no intention of taking military action, and is basically rigging his vote to be denied. He does not believe in getting muddled with another nation's civil war, period.

What a pile of sycophantic pathetic drivel. It's no wonder this failure was re-elected. Another drone apologizing for Obama's disasterous 'presidency.'

I figured you wouldn't understand

DoTheGeek wrote:..This is all only with intent to set an example. Obama has no intention of taking military action, and is basically rigging his vote to be denied. He does not believe in getting muddled with another nation's civil war, period.

But what does it serve, besides himself? The example isn't one that represents the US as a player that wont stand for chemical weapons use. It doesn't make others think twice or else the big bad US will....well...what?!?

He, if you are correct (and I think you are), is trying to sell himself as the example of one who personally wouldn't stand for it but, oh whoa is he, his hands are tied by the congress (he knew) wouldn't let him go through with 'standing on principle' (which means he isn't willing to).

He telegraphed this whole thing as a pure political calculation when he said "I don't have a credibility problem"....'it's all these other people that do'. Ironic, it is his big ego that diminishes his grand posturing sometimes!

ThunderBunny wrote:Either way, his legacy as worst president ever will be sealed. How much further will he sink?

It's so sad that you and many other people genuinely believe this.

Obama has always been the loser on the block, and a good sport. And that's why he's the greatest president of our time.

I don't even want to get into "greatest" or "worst" debates, but given the overall history of the presidency, Obama falls in the upper half just by default.

Top Gun wrote:I don't even want to get into "greatest" or "worst" debates, but given the overall history of the presidency, Obama falls in the upper half just by default.

Okay, the greatest president I've seen in office since I was born on June 30, 1988

The fate of Barack Obama me have little concern, actually. But still give my opinion.

in my opinion, if Barack Obama is now still can use his personal opinion and his personal power in making his decision regardless of Congress on the Syrian conflict, as precedent decisions of international issues without the use of U.S. armed forces, he will not only will prove in deeds, not words, confirm its title deeds of the Nobel Peace Prize, will get the support and sympathy of the international community and Russia in particular, it risks go down in history as the President of the United States, whose opinion is yet something means in his own country. This can be a big step forward in the progress of the United States. I suspect that the U.S. Congress is panic afraid of strengthening the power and popularity of Barack Obama as the builder of the world. In this case, the U.S. will lose influence policy at the Americans, intimidating them with the myth of the threat posed by Russia, upon which the patriotism of the American people. Raising taxes for them. And the military business of U.S. congressmen.

Sorry if it sounds too anti-American. Just think about it at your leisure.

The fact of the matter is that it has never legally been to the discretion of the President to declare war, or punish rouge states for breaking international law or treaties. That has always solely been under the discretion of Congress. So, at the very least, Obama's appeal to Congress is legal and re-establishes precedent.

flip wrote:The fact of the matter is that it has never legally been to the discretion of the President to declare war, or punish rouge states for breaking international law or treaties. That has always solely been under the discretion of Congress. So, at the very least, Obama's appeal to Congress is legal and re-establishes precedent.

I'm sorry, I did not know. We have such important decisions are made by the President of Russia. In that case the President of Russia needs to meet and talk not the U.S. President, and with authorized representative of the Congress of the USA.

No, Congress decides National policy, and the President negotiates whatever Congress' decision is, despite his personal feelings. Ideally.

EDIT: For instance, even if the President is against war, and Congress declares it, the President must still carry out the wishes of Congress.

flip wrote:No, Congress decides National policy, and the President negotiates whatever Congress' decision is, despite his personal feelings. Ideally.

EDIT: For instance, even if the President is against war, and Congress declares it, the President must still carry out the wishes of Congress.

I thought that the U.S. President has the power similar to the power of the President of Russia. It seems that this not equivalent political figures. I'm sorry again.

No need to apologize, but a true democracy creates a balance of power.

I do not deny that the opinion of the President of Russia is largely based on the opinion of Russian political elites. But the President of Russia has the right to express their opinion on behalf of the whole of Russia. The American President, apparently deprived of this right. Now I at all do not understand what kind of conversations can be shared with the President of the United States and the President of Russia, except the weather.

I think you misunderstand me, although decision making power is, or at least should be, spread between the legislative and executive branches of our government, the President speaks with the full authority of the American people and government. Although, in our recent past, Presidents have stepped outside of their Constitutional restraints, I think it's a good move that Obama has made. I do fear that there are underlying motivations though, because if the whole of Congress approves action against Syria, well we know how things get out of hand. It's very possible that it escalates with full approval at that point, with the only recourse being moving forward and holding everyone to their decision. I look at this as a diplomatic relations problem, where Syria could very well be the instrument of instigation here. That's why I say Congress should vote no and the President persuaded to dump this at the UN's feet. It turns the tables and repairs our image. It also reveals the UN's resolve to enforce international law.

Let me ask you a question. If it is proven that Syria did use chemical weapons on it's citizens, do you agree that they should be punished and deterred from doing so again in the future, or do you agree with using chemical weapons?

Top Gun wrote:I don't even want to get into "greatest" or "worst" debates, but given the overall history of the presidency, Obama falls in the upper half just by default.

yup

flip wrote:Let me ask you a question. If it is proven that Syria did use chemical weapons on it's citizens, do you agree that they should be punished and deterred from doing so again in the future, or do you agree with using chemical weapons?

You know the proverb - "Two fighting - third should stay out of the fray?" In my opinion, Congress United States has no right to unilaterally decide on military intervention in conflicts in other countries without the unanimous approval of the decision by a majority of countries around the world. As I said , the UN has lost its power in Yugoslavia, when the U.S. ignored the opinion of the UN. But, of course , still remains a possibility to revive the organization as a means of expression of other countries and to influence decision -making unjust aggressor countries.

Indeed, in Russia widely believed that the U.S. ventured military conflict in Syria to provoke Russia to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries , in the image and likeness of militant policy USA. Then to accuse Russia of military intervention in the affairs of other countries. In addition, all here are confident that the United States organized by the war in the Middle East with the aim of NATO bases closer to the borders of Russia . In all strategic military facilities now Russian regime introduced high alert because of the conflict in Syria. Fixed and the perceived hostility any activity in the border area around Russia . Even the weather balloon launch . Or unknown aircraft or submarine . U.S. adds fuel to the fire, not considering it necessary to warn Russia of military trials or training missile launches . In violation of the mutual agreement of 1985 on the prevention in such cases. In Russia, the growing tensions due to forced military response or erroneous operation of automatic means of preventing a nuclear attack . Accumulation of U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea is seen here as an excuse to provoke Russia to the first strike on the ships of the United States. Further possible developments , I think no need to explain to anyone.

I agree. Syria is only a pawn here, but it's whose really doing the instigating that is at question. The UN has decided that any attack on a people with chemical weapons is a violation of international law. Then Russia is the one who has less respect for international convention on those grounds, as Russia has continually supported and resisted any punitive action against Syria's total and complete disregard for international law. Why would a country such as Russia stand by such a man and grievous act against humanity? Syria has executed 100,000 of it's own people, the last event even with chemical weapons. How is that any different than what Hitler did? Is it because in Russian history itself there has been great genocide that the people now are so desensitized to it?

The President has the authority to start 'a war' but Congress has the authority to let it continue, by voting for it's continuation it becomes officially a "war", or they vote no and it must stop. Until Congress calls it a war it is simply the President sending troops or bombs somewhere.
To the people on the ground where the President sent troops or bombs I'm pretty sure they would say the war started when the first bomb and/or rifle shot hit their country regardless of whether Congress had voted yet one way or the other.
Things happen too fast sometimes to have to wait on Congress to decide which way the political winds are blowing.

It is my opinion that in the case of Syria, only the Congress has that authority per Article 1, section 8.

flip wrote:It is my opinion that in the case of Syria, only the Congress has that authority per Article 1, section 8.

There is a guy in the Whitehouse, and a bunch in the halls of Congress, that are flying drones around the globe dropping missiles on people who think of that Article 1, section 8 etc. as 'more like guidelines' ...

Maybe if Assad would shout 'parlay' real loud.

flip wrote:Let me ask you a question. If it is proven that Syria did use chemical weapons on it's citizens, do you agree that they should be punished and deterred from doing so again in the future, or do you agree with using chemical weapons?

Are these the only two options? By what authority does the U.S. step in and punish the Syrian government, militarily, for harm done to their own citizens? What are we even doing over there? Doesn't our president have enough to do? I think it's pretty clear that unless everyone has just gone insane, that there is something else going on. Also this by definition cannot be a violation of international law, because it only concerns one nation.

BTW, I think the only right thing to do if we feel strongly enough about what is going on in another country is to modify our relations with that country, and if we feel really strongly about what is going on maybe we just need to take the country and make it the next U.S. territory/state. That last option is not one I would trust our government with.

I was just pointing out general hypocrisy. I have said over and over in this thread that the genocide of over 100000 people by a madman lies at the feet of the International Community.

flip wrote:I was just pointing out general hypocrisy. I have said over and over in this thread that the genocide of over 100000 people by a madman lies at the feet of the International Community.

and, is but a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths in Africa over the past 20 years, all of them with the worlds 'civilized' nations serving a bystanders, or worse.........

It seems that the U.S. has not learned lessons from the Cuban missile crisis. Understand finally that excessive concentration of military power in the hands of one of the country, allows politicians to think about the omnipotence of this country. This false confidence is fraught with big trouble for everyone. Politicians in the U.S. think that if Russia does not conduct aggressive military policy towards other countries, they apparently believe that Russia is weakening. Therefore, it can be treated like how some sort of Vietnam. Numerous bullying and disrespect for Russian diplomats and opinion international community of the United States is a prime example. There are many examples. But, Russia is the heavy artillery in the world arena. Russia is trying not to get involved in petty conflicts. The U.S. knows about it. U.S. is playing with fire as a child. It's not James Bond films. I am amazed at the stupidity of the American administration.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:I was just pointing out general hypocrisy. I have said over and over in this thread that the genocide of over 100000 people by a madman lies at the feet of the International Community.

and, is but a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths in Africa over the past 20 years, all of them with the worlds 'civilized' nations serving a bystanders, or worse.........

I note that Russia has long sought to establish a business and develop the economy of countries in Africa and other Third World countries. The U.S. does not like it, probably because the main business and entertainment of the U.S. political elite is the organization of the wars in other countries.

sigma wrote: I note that Russia has long sought to establish a business and develop the economy of countries in Africa and other Third World countries. The U.S. does not like it, probably because the main business and entertainment of the U.S. political elite is the organization of the wars in other countries.

sigma, you are so terribly wrong, so often, in your 'facts' about the US it is getting to be comical. Start with this factoid, Russia has virtually NO presence in Africa, compared to the China or even the US. So anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you. Further, as an American who has grown up for nearly 60 years with time-to-time contacts with the American Political Elite(have know the VP for over 40 years, met the President, twice, on down the line back as far as Strom Thurmond and Bill Roth, both senators, and long dead) the concept that wars are 'entertainment' is laughable and insulting at the same time. Now, do some businesses in this nation profit from military spending? Certainly, but the ideas that you have put forth about the US creating Muslim terrorism to attack Russia(a powerless has-been for all intents and purposes, with a corrupt leadership and ZERO economic reliability in the world market), and the extent of Russia's supposed reach and power has gotten hilarious.

Of course, you have the right to take my words with a sufficient degree of distrust. I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But take my word, everything is much more serious than you can even imagine.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Also this by definition cannot be a violation of international law, because it only concerns one nation.

International law involves standards that all nations are held to, not just conflicts between two or more nations.

sigma wrote:It seems that the U.S. has not learned lessons from the Cuban missile crisis. Understand finally that excessive concentration of military power in the hands of one of the country, allows politicians to think about the omnipotence of this country.

you realize that your nation essentially went bankrupt over excessive military spending? And further, you all spent it on a lot of poorly made, unworkable garbage, some of which is lying at the bottom of the seas and in little craters around the world after a slew of very publicly documented failures.

This false confidence is fraught with big trouble for everyone. Politicians in the U.S. think that if Russia does not conduct aggressive military policy towards other countries, they apparently believe that Russia is weakening.

no, we, and the rest of the world know RUSSIA IS WEAK. Sure you have nuclear weapons, but might well not even have the capability to deliver them accurately. You are led by corrupt officials and your military has shown exactly nothing of note for decades.

But, Russia is the heavy artillery in the world arena. Russia is trying not to get involved in petty conflicts

no, it isn't. Compared to China and the US, you are minor players. Economically, you lag behind several other nations, and far behind as that. The world's heavy artillery, are you joking?

. The U.S. knows about it. U.S. is playing with fire as a child. It's not James Bond films. I am amazed at the stupidity of the American administration.

you continually sell us short. We make mistakes, our foreign policy has been suspect for a long time, or at least, far from perfect. Still, you don't grasp even the basics of our politcial structure(roles of President vs Congress vs Supreme Court), and you make statements that show that you are not even aware of the realities of your own nation's economic influence. You made reference, elsewhere to Russian influence in Africa. This article in the African business press describes that influence accurately with the words,"missing in action"
http://allafrica.com/stories/201307261184.html

This conversation can go on for long. You say that Russia is bankrupt because of the build-up of nuclear capability. At the same time, you say that Russia does not have enough power. If Russia can destroy life on the planet 5 times in a row, but the United States 10 times, you think this is the weakness of Russia? Or the need to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

Does anyone know if Russia has a defense treaty with Syria?

sigma wrote:This conversation can go on for long. You say that Russia is bankrupt because of the build-up of nuclear capability. At the same time, you say that Russia does not have enough power. If Russia can destroy life on the planet 5 times in a row, but the United States 10 times, you think this is the weakness of Russia? Or the need to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

if you cannot deliver those weapons effectively, what good would it serve Russia? Also, note that I said Russia(the USSR) was bankrupt(past tense). As far as I know, the Russian nation is now solvent, but certainly not among the world's most robust economies. One of the core reasons for that is that your reputation, as a nation, in the global business community, is horrible. Russia has reneged on a lot of major cooperative projects, and corruption has made many more economically unfeasable. In the current, global, economy, this does not serve you well.

in the end, what loses the U.S. Congress, if it refuses to military action against Syria? Lose face? Authority? Congressmen it has already lost. In my opinion, the only way to restore respect for the Congress - is to plead interventionists and withdraw troops from the border Syria and try to solve the problem in the legal field.

Otherwise the United States are digging the grave of their own, creating a precedent for the use of military force against a sovereign state only on the basis of unproven use of weapons of mass destruction is not clear by whom. If tomorrow someone in the U.S. will blow up a pipe bomb with sarin, the international community has a reasonable question - if the U.S. bombed Syria for the use of sarin by unknown persons, then why others not also try to influence the United States by means of the threat of military intervention on their territory?

Obama isn't going to attack:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/06/obama ... ia-strike/

ThunderBunny wrote:Obama isn't going to attack:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/06/obama ... ia-strike/

No matter what happen, he will not attack. He will make it appear that he's going to attack until the last second if that's what it comes down to, but he will not attack.

callmeslick wrote:you realize that your nation essentially went bankrupt over excessive military spending? And further, you all spent it on a lot of poorly made, unworkable garbage, some of which is lying at the bottom of the seas and in little craters around the world after a slew of very publicly documented failures.

I believe sigma's point is that Russia has learned its lesson.

no, we, and the rest of the world know RUSSIA IS WEAK. Sure you have nuclear weapons, but might well not even have the capability to deliver them accurately. You are led by corrupt officials and your military has shown exactly nothing of note for decades.

So what the ★■◆● is your point? Do you think this is a cock size contest? Do you think Russia is weak because it hasn't seen it fit to wave its military dick at the world lately like we have? Russia is weak because it has less missiles and inferior delivery systems (which is questionable)? How do you manage to live with your stubborn closed-minded conservative definition of weakness and strength every day? Strength is proving that one is not afraid to disarm in front of the world, and have less missiles and sports cars to compensate for inches of dick than the other guy.

no, it isn't. Compared to China and the US, you are minor players. Economically, you lag behind several other nations, and far behind as that. The world's heavy artillery, are you joking?

Again, just because they aren't arrogant, that doesn't mean they aren't powerful. <mod edit="removed inane personal comment"/>

DTG, I was replying to the absolutely ignorant rant about Russian status and view of how the US policy is aimed toward neutralizing the scary Russians. Actually, I don't give a crap about military strength, per se, as it pales compared to economic strength in realpolitik terms, and frankly just doesn't interest me all that much. Also, not much of a fan of folks using penis size as some sort of allegory for, well, pretty much anything. I see we may differ on that.....

DoTheGeek wrote:
So what the **** is your point? Do you think this is a cock size contest? Do you think Russia is weak because it hasn't seen it fit to wave its military dick at the world lately like we have? Russia is weak because it has less missiles and inferior delivery systems (which is questionable)? How do you manage to live with your stubborn closed-minded conservative definition of weakness and strength every day? Strength is proving that one is not afraid to disarm in front of the world, and have less missiles and sports cars to compensate for inches of dick than the other guy.

Again, just because they aren't arrogant, that doesn't mean they aren't powerful. Are you saddened about the 3-incher in your pants? :,(

It clearly seems we have either A) a retarded child in our midst or B) a child that has been so sheltered and indoctrinated that he doesn't know his own rear end from a hole in the ground.

The world is filled with people that want to kill you and take your stuff. The only thing preventing that is force of arms.

i.e. - A savage from the middle east isn't going to admire you for your 'courage' disarming yourself. He's going to laugh while he beheads you and rapes your sisters/mother/daughters and kill them as well.

FEAR is the only thing that will keep them at bay.

Humans are still animals- and many of them will continue to ACT like savage animals for years to come.