Debates
24 Aug 13
24 Aug 13
How much is appropriate? By who?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-hagel-idUSBRE97N01A20130824
(Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel strongly suggested on Friday the United States was positioning naval forces and assets in anticipation of any decision by President Barack Obama to order military action on Syria after apparent chemical weapons use.
24 Aug 13
Originally posted by moon1969From what I hear, neither will there be in Syria. He will just lob more missiles in strategic areas like he did in Libya.
Ignorant comment. We had no troops on the ground in either Libya or Egypt.
Of course, this would not be a war, just like it was not in Libya. I'm not sure what word is appropriate to use to describe this sort of action, but it definitely is not a war, therefore, Congress need not be consulted or notified in any way........ever again.
24 Aug 13
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYes minor actions such as that, are constitutionally well within the sphere of the Commander-in-Chief. Even the constitutionally-questionable War Powers Act does not apply
From what I hear, neither will there be in Syria. He will just lob more missiles in strategic areas like he did in Libya.
Of course, this would not be a war, just like it was not in Libya. I'm not sure what word is appropriate to use to describe this sort of action, but it definitely is not a war, therefore, Congress need not be consulted or notified in any way........ever again.
Of course, ultimately, Congress will have to fund as they did in Libya.
24 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by caissad4And the Saudis. But on the other side is Iran and Russia.
We lack the financial resources for this one. Let the French and the Turks handle this one. 😀
Maybe the UK will provide the rebels with weapons like they did for Sea Lab (crude humor):
http://video.adultswim.com/sealab-2021/new-teeth.html
24 Aug 13
Originally posted by moon1969So lobbing missiles into sovereign countries in order to topple regimes is a minor action?
Yes minor actions such as that, are constitutionally well within the sphere of the Commander-in-Chief. Even the constitutionally-questionable War Powers Act does not apply
Of course, ultimately, Congress will have to fund as they did in Libya.
OK then.
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodeyYes, in terms of magnitude of troops and resources, definitely minor. The Commander-in-Chief has historically handled smaller decisions and commitments.
So lobbing missiles into sovereign countries in order to topple regimes is a minor action?
OK then.
Yet, again, Congress has to ultimately approve such actions by eventually funding the effort, such as Congress did with Libya and as they would likely do with Syria. Not sure what limited action you are talking about with regard to Egypt.
25 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodeyThe Commander-in-Chief has waged limited actions on sovereign nations without a declaration of war by Congress since the founding of our country. If you want something different, must amend the Constitution.
So lobbing missiles into sovereign countries in order to topple regimes is a minor action?
OK then.
25 Aug 13
I highly doubt that Assad used chemical weapons. He knows the west is looking for an excuse to bomb and wouldn't dare give Obama that excuse. Assad simply is not that stupid.
The terrorists who are lovingly called rebels by the US news media are responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Assad has given the UN full access to do an investigation so it looks like Assad has nothing to hide at all and is eager to show it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/24/syria-rebels-chemical-weapons/2695243/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320061/syria-militants-hatched-chemical-plot/
27 Aug 13
http://news.yahoo.com/un-experts-press-syria-chemical-attacks-probe-073509243.html
"It's a question of days and not weeks," said Ahmad Ramadan, adding that "there have been meetings between the Coalition, the (rebel) Free Syrian Army and allied countries during which possible targets have been discussed."
They included airports, military bases and arms depots, he said.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodeyDo you not think the Republicans would bring an inquiry of impeachment against Obama for usurping Congressional powers, if they haven't been complicit in avoiding war declarations ever since the Geneva conventions were signed?
From what I hear, neither will there be in Syria. He will just lob more missiles in strategic areas like he did in Libya.
Of course, this would not be a war, just like it was not in Libya. I'm not sure what word is appropriate to use to describe this sort of action, but it definitely is not a war, therefore, Congress need not be consulted or notified in any way........ever again.
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainIncredibly naive.
I highly doubt that Assad used chemical weapons. He knows the west is looking for an excuse to bomb and wouldn't dare give Obama that excuse. Assad simply is not that stupid.
The terrorists who are lovingly called rebels by the US news media are responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Assad has given the UN full access to do an investigation so ...[text shortened]... 95243/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/23/320061/syria-militants-hatched-chemical-plot/
28 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357The opposition party wanted to Impeach Bush, even after he twice sought and received permission to use military force in Iraq.
Do you not think the Republicans would bring an inquiry of impeachment against Obama for usurping Congressional powers, if they haven't been complicit in avoiding war declarations ever since the Geneva conventions were signed?
The definitions of war have been so bastardized they have no real meaning. When Japan launched an attack of several hundred carrier based fighter/bombers on Pearl Harbor, FDR the next day asked Congress for a declaration of war, and got it. I wonder, and don't know for certain, but I bet that the cruise missiles June 1993 that Bill Clinton ordered fired at Baghdad in his non war amounted to more ordinance than Japan dropped on Pearl.
If anyone fired that much at Washington, DC it would be a war.