Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SyriaFollow

#77 Sep 03 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The problem here is that Presidents don't normally go to Congress and get permission for air strikes in response to something going on in the world around them. They take action immediately while there's some value in taking action immediately.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Oh, you.
Quote:
He waged a large scale air war in Libya

No he didn't. The US waged a few days of air campaign (such as blowing up undefended runways and missile strikes on various anti-air facilities is an "air war") and then fell back into a support role as far as the air campaign was concerned. The first strikes were on March 19th, by the 25th the US was largely done with shooting things and the operation was handed over to NATO on the 31st. Even in the initial conflict, past the first couple major salvos, the heavy lifting was done by the French.

Quote:
and didn't bother to get approval from congress

And you screamed and cried and ranted endlessly about how unconstitutional it was and how this was the worst thing ever.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2013 4:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Sep 03 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem here is that Presidents don't normally go to Congress and get permission for air strikes in response to something going on in the world around them. They take action immediately while there's some value in taking action immediately.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Oh, you.


Huh? They don't. Not when it's a limited one time air strike in response to some provocation or action somewhere. More or less precisely because such action has to be taken quickly or it loses any potency. We can debate why presidents do this, how legal it is, etc, but nearly every president has done this since the US has had the capability to do air strikes (I'd actually say "all", but it's not like I've done extensive research or anything). Taking a couple weeks to get congressional approval for such a thing is pretty uncommon. And by "uncommon" I mean "I can't think of any president ever doing this".

Quote:
Quote:
He waged a large scale air war in Libya with the intent of toppling the current regime

No he didn't. The US waged a few days of air campaign (such as blowing up undefended runways and missile strikes on various anti-air facilities is an "air war") and then fell back into a support role as far as the air campaign was concerned. The first strikes were on March 19th, by the 25th the US was largely done with shooting things and the operation was handed over to NATO on the 31st. Even in the initial conflict, past the first couple major salvos, the heavy lifting was done by the French.


Please stop editing out key parts of sentences I write. The objective is kinda important here. The "support" part you hand wave away is air support for an ongoing military effort to topple the then government of Libya. The fact that we only had manned aircraft over enemy airspace for a week or so doesn't remove the significance of why were were there and what we were doing. To suggest in any way that what we did in Libya didn't require congressional approval, but a simple air strike in response to chemical weapons use, ostensibly purely as a punitive move, and with no long term military goal, cannot move forward with congress is nuts.

Quote:
Quote:
and didn't bother to get approval from congress

And you screamed and cried and ranted endlessly about how unconstitutional it was and how this was the worst thing ever.


And you argued that it wasn't required. So I assume you agree with me that Obama has even less of a need to get approval from Congress this time than then, right? Therefore, you must agree that his insistence on getting congressional approval this time is motivated by politics and not legal requirement. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Sep 03 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,235 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I suspect this is a cya for the pres as much as it's the law and what-not.


gbaji wrote:
He clearly doesn't think he needs it for this. It's CYA if they vote for it, and off-the-hook if they don't.


/agree

There's really not a lot of public support for any sort of intervention. Best to have the blame rest with the 'do nothing' congress rather than himself, or something like that.

Also this is relevant.


Yes, but the propaganda machine... oops.. swy, commercial media, "inluencers" and various interested parties are making it clear that the Americans should very much want to attack. Like yesterday.

CNN was something of a surprise to me.

Almost as amusing as Kerry saying that is not war, and in the next sentence talk about bombing the **** out of Syria.

May you live in interesting times...
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#80 Sep 03 2013 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The fact that we only had manned aircraft over enemy airspace for a week or so doesn't remove the significance of why were were there and what we were doing.

Of course it does. The War Powers Act doesn't apply or not apply based on some Gbaji Standard. And the stated mission was to prevent Gaddafi from using air power and heavy armor against civilian centers (largely by enforcing a no-fly zone; France did the anti-armor work) which is what we were targeting. Did or did Obama not need Congressional approval for a week's worth of combat action?

Anyway, the "intent" is somewhat secondary to the point that Libya was not a "large scale air war" by any stretch of the imagination. So the second half of your statement was irrelevant. You might as well said Obama launched an elephant cavalry charge to topple the regime and then got ***** about me leaving out "topple the regime" when mentioning that there were no elephants.
Quote:
And you argued that it wasn't required. So I assume you agree with me that Obama has even less of a need to get approval from Congress this time than then, right? Therefore, you must agree that his insistence on getting congressional approval this time is motivated by politics and not legal requirement. Right?

Absolutely. He's supposed to be representing the will of the people. If not directly via popular support than via the elected representatives in Congress.

Oh, I'm sorry. That was your big "gotcha", wasn't it? Smiley: frown

[Edit] According to one recent poll, 80% of those asked said that Obama should seek Congressional approval for an attack on Syria. Is it "politics" to act upon what 80% of the country wants you to do? Maybe, I guess. But I don't think "politics" is a dirty word in that scenario.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2013 10:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Sep 03 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/kerry-assad-dinner.jpg
You think Assad refused to pay his share?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#82 Sep 03 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
It's not that simple.

Nope, that simple. Sometimes things are simple, sometimes they are complex. One of your primary failings seems to be your inability to discern the difference.

To suggest in any way that what we did in Libya didn't require congressional approval, but a simple air strike in response to chemical weapons use, ostensibly purely as a punitive move, and with no long term military goal, cannot move forward with congress is nuts.

Yes, and the imaginary person you've invented arguing that congressional approval is required here is really, really, really wrong with a really flawed argument. Someone should battle through his army of Cadillac Driving Welfare Mothers Who Use Abortion For Birth Control And Vote 20 Times For Santa to let him know.

Edited, Sep 3rd 2013 10:18pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#83 Sep 03 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
According to one recent poll, 80% of those asked said that Obama should seek Congressional approval for an attack on Syria.

According to many polls, 80% of people who answer poll questions don't understand government, the legal system, or military action, and they also believe angels intervene in their daily affairs. Seriously, what an idiotic poll question.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Sep 03 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Yes, and the imaginary person you've invented arguing that congressional approval is required here is really, really, really wrong with a really flawed argument. Someone should battle through his army of Cadillac Driving Welfare Mothers Who Use Abortion For Birth Control And Vote 20 Times For Santa to let him know.

gbaji told us that the vehicle of choice of the poors is a used Lexus.Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#85 Sep 03 2013 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
Apparently McCain, who wants Obama to do even more militarily than Obama wants to do, was caught playing poker on his iPhone during the Syria hearing.

& worse, he lost.
McCain's Twitter wrote:

Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 3, 2013
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#86 Sep 03 2013 at 10:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
According to many polls, 80% of people who answer poll questions don't understand government...

They don't have to understand government to have an opinion on it. An uninformed, perhaps idiotic opinion but an opinion nonetheless and one that affects public response towards military action.

Anyway, looks like both the House and Senate are shaping up a resolution for 60 days, plus 30 more if the need is there, no boots allowed on the ground and strikes limited to "disciplinary" targets subject to change if Syria uses chemical weapons again.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Sep 04 2013 at 12:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
80 percent of the people who work at the government don't understand the government some days.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#88 Sep 04 2013 at 4:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
that number sounds low.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#89 Sep 04 2013 at 6:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Quote:
.... a 60-day deadline for military action in Syria, with one 30-day extension possible, according to a draft of the resolution.

The proposal, drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., would also bar the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Syria, according to the draft.

Three months and no ground troops.....

Until that proves fruitless and then the administration is allowed a little bit more time and maybe just a few ground troops.

Until that not only proves fruitless and also detrimental. Now we commit for a bit more time and a few more ground troops and more bombs...

I really was hoping we wouldn't commit to Syria, but if we've made up our minds to do it, i'd rather we didn't do little beany pieces at a time.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#90 Sep 04 2013 at 6:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Until that proves fruitless

There is no "fruit" Both Congress and the Executive know this. Any strike is about posturing to other minor players, theoretically to be an object lesson to prevent Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi from getting ideas or the like. Enjoy your googling, ignorant savages.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#91 Sep 04 2013 at 6:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Guy from Batman, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Sep 04 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
Dude with beard, funny hat.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Sep 04 2013 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,412 posts
The HoverRound community from my wife's side of the family is screaming about this being the beginning of WWIII, and several young kids on our MC server were all in a panic this morning over some similar "news" they must have heard their parents loudly squawking about over the breakfast table.

Lately there has been nothing on the TV but Nick Jr. and such for the baby, so I've not had a chance to keep up with latest in ****** broadcast journalism, but from the sound of things they've really lowered the bar with this one.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#94 Sep 04 2013 at 10:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Senator McCain wrote:
If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this, after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic, in that the credibility of this country with friends and adversaries alike would be shredded.


Hey, guess who's now saying he can't support the Senate resolution for action against Syria?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Sep 04 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
What? Not Sergeant Grumpy! Say it ain't so!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#96 Sep 04 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Senator McCain wrote:
If the Congress were to reject a resolution like this, after the president of the United States has already committed to action, the consequences would be catastrophic, in that the credibility of this country with friends and adversaries alike would be shredded.


Hey, guess who's now saying he can't support the Senate resolution for action against Syria?
I have to say I'm having trouble coming to grips with this whole pro-war Democrat / anti-war Republican thing. What the heck is going on? Smiley: confused
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#97 Sep 04 2013 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, McCain is still pro-war. He's mad that the resolution doesn't allow for enough war.
The Hill wrote:
Asked by The Associated Press whether he backs the measure announced Tuesday evening, McCain said: “In its current form, I do not.”

The Arizona Republican has long called for a U.S. intervention in Syria but is pushing for action beyond the “limited” strikes that President Obama has called for.
[...]
McCain wants the U.S. to provide arms to the Free Syrian Army, a rebel offshoot that has been among those battling the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Sep 04 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
******
49,667 posts
You know, I keep forgetting that McCain is an Arizona politicritter. That explains everything to me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Sep 04 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh, McCain is still pro-war. He's mad that the resolution doesn't allow for enough war.
The Hill wrote:
Asked by The Associated Press whether he backs the measure announced Tuesday evening, McCain said: “In its current form, I do not.”

The Arizona Republican has long called for a U.S. intervention in Syria but is pushing for action beyond the “limited” strikes that President Obama has called for.
[...]
McCain wants the U.S. to provide arms to the Free Syrian Army, a rebel offshoot that has been among those battling the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Ahh ok, that makes more sense then. I suppose he might as well, given Obama promised no boots on the ground. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#100 Sep 04 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Lately there has been nothing on the TV

Good parenting!


but Nick Jr. and such for the baby


Oh.

Yes, I'm judging you.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#101 Sep 04 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
The HoverRound community from my wife's side of the family is screaming about this being the beginning of WWIII, and several young kids on our MC server were all in a panic this morning over some similar "news" they must have heard their parents loudly squawking about over the breakfast table.


So more or less exactly as planned. You do understand that the entire reason to spend so much time publicly debating and thinking and planning about what to do with Syria is to generate the maximum amount of angst and public reaction possible, right?

What Obama Should Have Done: Ordered an airstrike to hit a handful of military and command/control sites within 48 hours of confirmation that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. Then go on TV and say he did this as a punitive response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad, and he'll do it again if he uses them again. Sends a strong message to Assad that he cares about winning his civil war more than we do and not to call Obama's bluff on this. Also sends a strong message to the next guy to think about using chemical weapons to think again. Oh. And also makes Obama (and the US) look like a bad-***.

Had he done this, there would have been more or less zero political fall out. His action would have been viewed as a clear message against chemical weapons use and not a specific act to involve the US in the Syrian civil war. There might have been some grumblings about unilateral action and whatnot, but as long as it's just a single air strike, congress really can't do anything. It's done, not ongoing, so congress doesn't have much power in that regard (just like every other president who's ordered an airstrike in reaction to some event around the world without asking congress first). All congress can do is censure him (or I suppose attempt to impeach him), but we all know they wont actually do anything in that situation. The action would have been popular and by the time anyone could even raise the question of involvement in the civil war, it would be over, so no real story to tell.


By choosing to drag this out, he's making the aspects of this which should have had nothing at all to do with his original red line position front and center in the debate. It's why everyone is talking about how we shouldn't get involved in a civil war rather than talking about how to prevent folks from using chemical weapons. And, as I've said before, this was deliberate. It's not like we haven't seen a clear pattern in Obama's governing style. If he has a choice between doing something easy, straightforward, and which everyone can agree on, versus doing something that will create conflict, concern, and disagreement (ideally partisan disagreement), he'll choose the latter every single time. He's following the rules of political agitation, because that's what he knows.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 61 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Anonymous Guests (60)