maybe obama was smart enough to know tossing missiles for 2 months wasnt going to fix shit. Now russia is embedded in the place and their are worst solutions to the problem. Congrats with your shit gop party. All republicans are bad for the country.
Lol no again. Congress did not block him. He also did not "act" against Assad. Congress voted no to him asking for permission he did not need if he simply wanted to act.
The Republicans did not block Obama from taking action. I'm pretty sure the existing AUMF was considered sufficient by most everyone at that time.
Obama was very vague about what he wanted to do. "Pin prick, not a pin prick something bigger, but not really big etc". He didn't give Congress much to work with. Also, Obama was looking for political cover, which the Repubs were not going to give him. Obama could have acted if he wanted, but as usual dithered until it no longer mattered) (Putin jumped up and acted instead.)
-----------------------------
The President has a Constitutional obligation to protect and defend the USA and her interests and therefore does not need Congressional action in doing so. Is gassing Syrian civilians a threat to the USA or her interests? I'll let others argue about that.
Fern
When I try and pin Syria on Obama? J said Republicans blocked Obama, and that is not true. I corrected him, that was all.
No, I understood your reasoning, the point is he wasn't doing it to garner political points, just that it's a lose-lose when it comes to Republicans, therefore to him, it probably didn't matter in regards to congress which he chose. So he made his own choice, which was to make a bluff. Maybe that was the wrong call, maybe not.I was accepting your premise. You said that if he did try to take action, the Republicans would have complained about abuses of power, and so he did not act out of that fear.
And Obama was wrong to do engage in war without Congressional consent. Again, a craven Congress gave him a pass.Has everyone forgotten about Libya 2011? Over the course of 7 months, Obama conduct thousands of airstrikes with tens of thousands either dead or wounded without even seeking approval of congress under the war powers act. Obama argued that the war powers act didn't even apply to libya because the US wasn't engaged in “hostilities” ignoring part of war powers act about deploying Armed forces into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training. Obama blew a giant hole in the war powers act and unless congress grows a spine and does something, Trump going to walk through the same hole with the same bullshit.
I expect Trump will to go war with Syria probably by the end of the month, just to be a distraction from Mueller investigation. There is nothing to gain for american public with war with Syria and such a war would be one of the shittiest moves by the Trump admin (which is saying something considering how many turds they have laid).
maybe obama was smart enough to know tossing missiles for 2 months wasnt going to fix shit. Now russia is embedded in the place and their are worst solutions to the problem. Congrats with your shit gop party. All republicans are bad for the country.
1. I'm not a Republican.
2. I never said we should have gone in.
What I did say was that your statement was wrong. The Republicans did not block Obama. You can try to expand things beyond what they are, but I will stick to what I actually said.
Would he have been blocked past 60 days?
Be sure you don't conflate the reasons for deaths. It may seem irrelevant, but it isn't.
As I said to do that Congress would have to take a close look at the funding of the military. Minor wars like what we are involved in over in Syria is literally paid for out of the Military's petty cash fund, so to defund it would require granular control of what the military spends money on, something congress can do, but nobody in Congress wants to do that.
Oh, I'm not stating it was right or wrong, I was only stating that you cannot necessarily make a direct comparison between deaths caused by the US in $MECountry and Syria's cannibalization of it's population.What are the reasons for the deaths? We invaded Iraq causing upwards of 1 million deaths. Invaded Afghanistan causing tens of thousands of deaths. We toppled Libya and turned it into a human traffic bonanza and now we have been in Syria prolonging the misery for years.
Has everyone forgotten about Libya 2011? Over the course of 7 months, Obama conduct thousands of airstrikes with tens of thousands either dead or wounded without even seeking approval of congress under the war powers act. Obama argued that the war powers act didn't even apply to libya because the US wasn't engaged in “hostilities” ignoring part of war powers act about deploying Armed forces into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training. Obama blew a giant hole in the war powers act and unless congress grows a spine and does something, Trump going to walk through the same hole with the same bullshit.
I expect Trump will to go war with Syria probably by the end of the month, just to be a distraction from Mueller investigation. There is nothing to gain for american public with war with Syria and such a war would be one of the shittiest moves by the Trump admin (which is saying something considering how many turds they have laid).
No, because he also would have 30 days to "withdraw". Again, you are trying to get around the issue. You were flat out wrong. Obama was not stopped by the Republicans. He had options to go in, and he owns that. It was probably the right thing to do considering there is not a good side, but that changes nothing in terms of what you said. Obama was not stopped by the Republicans.
Just own it.
Has everyone forgotten about Libya 2011? Over the course of 7 months, Obama conduct thousands of airstrikes with tens of thousands either dead or wounded without even seeking approval of congress under the war powers act. Obama argued that the war powers act didn't even apply to libya because the US wasn't engaged in “hostilities” ignoring part of war powers act about deploying Armed forces into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training. Obama blew a giant hole in the war powers act and unless congress grows a spine and does something, Trump going to walk through the same hole with the same bullshit.
I expect Trump will to go war with Syria probably by the end of the month, just to be a distraction from Mueller investigation. There is nothing to gain for american public with war with Syria and such a war would be one of the shittiest moves by the Trump admin (which is saying something considering how many turds they have laid).
Who on the left would want to remember that dumpster fire? Libya turned into a slave state. I was told it was ok on this board because it didnt cost the US very much money.
No, because he also would have 30 days to "withdraw". Again, you are trying to get around the issue. You were flat out wrong. Obama was not stopped by the Republicans. He had options to go in, and he owns that. It was probably the right thing to do considering there is not a good side, but that changes nothing in terms of what you said. Obama was not stopped by the Republicans.
Just own it.
and you will lose every engagement going into them like oh i only have 60 days. You conservatives suck.
Dude, you said the Republicans blocked him, not that he was smart for not going in. Had you not said the first false part, I would not have said you were wrong.
He had options that a Congress, who was itching to impeach the president for anything, would have impeached him for an abuse of power of going to war with a country who not only wasn't a threat to us but there wasn't support from NATO.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/314778-top-aide-obama-worried-about-impeachment-for-syria-actions
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/308193-gop-rep-threatens-impeachment-if-us-troops-killed-in-syria
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/hunter-obama-inviting-impeachment-strikes-syria/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1e14de7bbd6e
“The president was looking for a way to not have to make good on the threat that he had made,” Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.), author of The Limits of Power, tells FRONTLINE. “I think because the president having drawn that red line realized that he had no appetite for direct military engagement in Syria.”
As the documentary details, wary of involving America in a potentially long-term military engagement, Obama decided to seek airstrike authorization from a Congress he knew to be opposed rather than proceed with his initial plan.
“He was describing it as seeking strong political support for this decisive move. He had all the rhetoric of action,” David Ignatius of The Washington Post tells FRONTLINE. “But in truth, it was stepping back from the imminent attack that was ahead … it was all in motion, and at the last minute, the president blinked.”
I would not have said you were wrong.
is much more readable as.....
I would have said you were right.
Really though, aren't we at the point where the President follows the orders of the military-industrial complex and not the other way around?
No, you were told it was ok because it was agreed upon by NATO members and had the support of other Arab nations in the region. It was a humanitarian effort.
By now, everyone but the most delusional must concede that the Libya intervention was a debacle of gigantic proportions. Libya remains a failed state with Jihadists controlling huge swaths of the country, including the once-prosperous town of Sirte.
The security of Tunisia, Mali and the Lake Chad Region (Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon) has been profoundly undermined by the spill-over from the Libya conflict. And, though the NATO intervention in Libya was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as “thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,” and “kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant.”
Incredibly, the deeper questions about the Libya intervention and its aftermath remain a largely verboden topic, even as the invasion’s prime intellectual author, Hillary Clinton, campaigns for the highest office in the land. However, thanks to the release of many of her emails from her time as Secretary of State, one can get a rare glimpse into the making of what has been claimed to be a “humanitarian intervention.” And, the emails show that the NATO operation was nothing of the sort.
The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Wow talk about opening your mouth for a full load on this subject. Humanitarian effort with no plan to actually address the humanitarian crisis intervention created. Brilliant!
So you are ok with how this turned out then?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html
The reasons behind this intervention were many. In official exchanges humanitarian reasons were absent.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co...ls-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
These email exchanges are a glimpse into the level of depravity these people live within. Every reason to keep killing people and throwing Libya into a failed state except actually being humanitarian. Blumenthal even mentions it to boost a presidents approval rating. Anybody who defends this stuff is a god damn sociopath.
The President has a Constitutional obligation to protect and defend the USA and her interests and therefore does not need Congressional action in doing so. Is gassing Syrian civilians a threat to the USA or her interests? I'll let others argue about that.