The Red Line: Part Deux

#255
#255
My conspiracy theory is that the US doesn't give a crap about the Syrians getting gassed and that its just a ploy.....just like the BS video that caused the spontaneous riot in Benghazi.....truth is they're going after the WMDs that were said to have been moved from Iraq....and Benghazi was somehow tied to this.
I know it sounds like complete BS but there has to be a reason for the US to give a damn
 
#256
#256
Carl Pickens said:
My conspiracy theory is that the US doesn't give a crap about the Syrians getting gassed and that its just a ploy.....just like the BS video that caused the spontaneous riot in Benghazi.....truth is they're going after the WMDs that were said to have been moved from Iraq....and Benghazi was somehow tied to this.
I know it sounds like complete BS but there has to be a reason for the US to give a damn
Click to expand...

Primarily so Obama doesn't look like a dolt with his red line bravado, IMO.
 
#257
#257
DC_Vol said:
Primarily so Obama doesn't look like a dolt with his red line bravado, IMO.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think this is better than 50% of the reason we'll take any given action. He put a challenge on the table and without backing it in some way we lose influence.

The notion that somehow we've "regained" respect in the world is absolutely silly at this point.
 
#258
#258
Senator Obama:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress." The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
Biden:
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens. They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That's why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.
Click to expand...
"I want to make it clear to you," Biden said speaking at a campaign event in Davenport, Iowa in December 2007. "I've drafted, with the help of 17 years I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or the ranking member. Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted and outline of what I think the constitutional limits have on the president in over the war clause. I went to five leading scholars, constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me, and it's being distributed to every senator. And I want to make it clear and I made it clear to the president, if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without congressional approval — I will make it my business to impeach him."
Click to expand...
 
#259
#259
Carl Pickens said:
My conspiracy theory is that the US doesn't give a crap about the Syrians getting gassed and that its just a ploy.....just like the BS video that caused the spontaneous riot in Benghazi.....truth is they're going after the WMDs that were said to have been moved from Iraq....and Benghazi was somehow tied to this.
I know it sounds like complete BS but there has to be a reason for the US to give a damn
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because Assad and Syria is Iran's number one ally and with those relations most likely broken after a revolution, Iran would lose its influence in that region. With Syrias hand, Iran could easily arm Hezbollah groups in Lebanon or etc,. It probz has to do with Israel in the end.
 
#260
#260
Persian Vol said:
Maybe it's because Assad and Syria is Iran's number one ally and with those relations most likely broken after a revolution, Iran would lose its influence in that region. With Syrias hand, Iran could easily arm Hezbollah groups in Lebanon or etc,. It probz has to do with Israel in the end.
Click to expand...

That certainly might be one reason. But what about the terrorists that will take over? Right now, Iran and Syria are contained just as Iraq was. What happens when no one knows where the bad guys are because they blend in with the civilians? Won't this make everything less stable and more dangerous for the region?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#261
#261
If he attacks it will ONLY be to save face because of his red line statement!

And u dont bomb country's to save face!


Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?


If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Robert Fisk: We
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#262
#262
davethevol said:
That certainly might be one reason. But what about the terrorists that will take over? Right now, Iran and Syria are contained just as Iraq was. What happens when no one knows where the bad guys are because they blend in with the civilians? Won't this make everything less stable and more dangerous for the region?
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a bit of a dilemma
 
#265
#265
volmaverick said:
If he attacks it will ONLY be to save face because of his red line statement!

And u dont bomb country's to save face!


Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?


If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Robert Fisk: We
Click to expand...

Short memory volmaverick ?

During most of the 1980's,during the Reagan Administration, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to Afghanistan to support of the mujahedeen–or holy warriors–in a jihad against the Soviet Union. We were supporting the Taliban and a young freedom fighter called Osama Bin Laden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#266
#266
Gramps said:
Short memory volmaverick ?

During most of the 1980's,during the Reagan Administration, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to Afghanistan to support of the mujahedeen–or holy warriors–in a jihad against the Soviet Union. We were supporting the Taliban and a young freedom fighter called Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Exactly why we should not be lending any support to the rebels in Syria. They will turn on us in a second.
 
#267
#267
Gramps said:
Short memory volmaverick ?

During most of the 1980's,during the Reagan Administration, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to Afghanistan to support of the mujahedeen–or holy warriors–in a jihad against the Soviet Union. We were supporting the Taliban and a young freedom fighter called Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

Sounds legit & where did that lead us? Are we better off now for having done that? Looks to be a vicious circle that we keep running into & out of. We need to take care of business at home first now than to be beating our war drums.
 
Last edited:
#270
#270
We need to continue to supply Israel with the latest tech and pull all Americans and assets from the sandbox. Not our problem...close the borders and greatly increase scrutiny on all modes of transport of goods into this country to reduce the threat of nuclear or chemical weps being smuggled in for terrorist activities. Cut foreign aid to any country that does not have a working democracy that favors us and our policies, and that supports our interests militarily as well as politically. Solve problems at home first. The third world will always be a sheethole whether we throw money and troops at it or not. Its a desert. Will always be a desert. Same for Africa, asia etc. Americans and our interests first, second and last. Quit trying to police the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#274
#274
marcusluvsvols said:
We need to continue to supply Israel with the latest tech and pull all Americans and assets from the sandbox. Not our problem...close the borders and greatly increase scrutiny on all modes of transport of goods into this country to reduce the threat of nuclear or chemical weps being smuggled in for terrorist activities. Cut foreign aid to any country that does not have a working democracy that favors us and our policies, and that supports our interests militarily as well as politically. Solve problems at home first. The third world will always be a sheethole whether we throw money and troops at it or not. Its a desert. Will always be a desert. Same for Africa, asia etc. Americans and our interests first, second and last. Quit trying to police the world.
Click to expand...

Agree w everything but closing the border. It's unfortunately not realistic.
 
#275
#275
Vols520 said:
I don't really agree with this sentiment. Either way it's a bad position.
Click to expand...

Really you don't agree?

He needs to keep his mouth shut, he f'ed up big time here. By making the "Red Line" statement he;

1. Dared Assad to use CW

2. Opened the door for the rebels (or someone else) to frame Assad for using CW

In either case his mouth and ignorance have put this country in the position to go to war again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top