The Red Line: Part Deux

[utvolpj]

I'm only pointing out the fallacies in the debate from our elected officials. And I am pointing out that most of those still in office already defined the red line on Syria specifically. Either they conveniently forgot it or they are as stupid as Obama is thinking evidence of past votes was shoved under a rug somewhere.

Feel free to go down the roll call of the House and Senate votes to see the names - almost all of those voting in support just on the R side are suddenly saying Syria's possession and use of WMD's does not matter and Syria has no ties to the national security interests of the United States - counter to the voting yes in 2003 that states otherwise.

unfortunately I have stopped expecting much from our elected leaders and tend to just focus on what I believe the policy should be. I've found only a handful (if that many) actually take their job and positions seriously and deal with each situation regardless of politics. At least one of those is young (Amash) and gives me a glimmer of hope for our future

 

[Velo Vol]

No and we shouldn't be bombing them either.

I would define war as two sides being engaged in military combat.

If we just lob some missiles at distant targets, there's really not much back and forth.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Saddam had a plot to blow up Bush Sr. It wasnt some bs plot either, the bomb was ready to go. Now tell me which POTUS Syria has threatened?

Where was that in the Congressional authorization to go to war?

Tell me why a POTUS and Congress labeled Syria a threat to national security interests. I can show you a Congressional act signed by a POTUS that says the US will not tolerate Syria having, producing, and using WMD's. This same act said that Syria had volunteers going into Iraq with weapons and attacking US forces in Iraq. This same act said that Syria was a threat to regional security and to the national security of the US. Whether Syria has threatened a POTUS is not the issue. The issue is a law on the books that already defined the red line. The issue is the same ones who defined that red line now saying the extreme exact opposite for the sole reason of partisan hatred/dislike for Obama.

 

[Burhead]

Dumb Ass of the Year Award goes to, Secretary Hagel: "It's not my business to trust the opposition."

 

[Velo Vol]

We actually are seeing a lot of that on this very forum. Instead of debating the merits of use of force, some on here seem content to just make this about Obama's comment.

Some people's entire worldview revolves around Obama.

It's kind of sad, actually.

 

[Burhead]

I would define war as two sides being engaged in military combat.

If we just lob some missiles at distant targets, there's really not much back and forth.

I thought you were asking if we were legally, I agree we are unofficially.

 

[utvolpj]

I would define war as two sides being engaged in military combat.

If we just lob some missiles at distant targets, there's really not much back and forth.

we have tacit approval from Pakistan. One country bombing another is an act of war. If they shoot at our bombers as we fly over are we then at war with Pakistan? Do we have to pick a fight to fit into the WPR? Is that even legal?

 

[volinbham]

I would define war as two sides being engaged in military combat.

If we just lob some missiles at distant targets, there's really not much back and forth.

So because we have such a massive, lop-sided advantage we can bomb with impunity and it's only a war if they fight back?

At a minimum I would consider bombing another sovereign country as an act of war.

 

[CSpindizzy]

unfortunately I have stopped expecting much from our elected leaders and tend to just focus on what I believe the policy should be. I've found only a handful (if that many) actually take their job and positions seriously and deal with each situation regardless of politics. At least one of those is young (Amash) and gives me a glimmer of hope for our future

Call me a skeptic. Give Amash a few cycles in office and then we will see. Rubio was the second coming of Reagan for a while. Didn't take long for that image to change. Same thoughts apply for Cruz and Paul. Actually both have shown hints at not being the entrenched bastions of conservatism that many believe.

 

[Velo Vol]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the Syrian economy, but I'm not at all surprised to note that the country blew apart following a prolonged period of oil revenue declines. People generally don't start fighting when times are good.

Let's hope the oil keeps flowing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Where was that in the Congressional authorization to go to war?

Tell me why a POTUS and Congress labeled Syria a threat to national security interests. I can show you a Congressional act signed by a POTUS that says the US will not tolerate Syria having, producing, and using WMD's. This same act said that Syria had volunteers going into Iraq with weapons and attacking US forces in Iraq. This same act said that Syria was a threat to regional security and to the national security of the US. Whether Syria has threatened a POTUS is not the issue. The issue is a law on the books that already defined the red line. The issue is the same ones who defined that red line now saying the extreme exact opposite for the sole reason of partisan hatred/dislike for Obama.

AH yes, 0bama didnt start the fire, its always been burning since the worlds been turning

 

[utvolpj]

Call me a skeptic. Give Amash a few cycles in office and then we will see. Rubio was the second coming of Reagan for a while. Didn't take long for that image to change. Same thoughts apply for Cruz and Paul. Actually both have shown hints at not being the entrenched bastions of conservatism that many believe.

I'm not really concerned with whether they're a conservative. Heck I voted for Johnson in 2012. I just appreciate the start Amash has made with his votes and even being able to explain the rationale behind them. But like you said, I've been disappointed before

 

[lawgator1]

AH yes, 0bama didnt start the fire, its always been burning since the worlds been turning

Whether Obama should or should not have made the comment is immaterial to the question of whether we should strike. When people like you keep trying sooooo hard to make Obama the issue, it naturally causes one to speculate that, to you and those of similar temperament, you'd gladly have us make the wrong choice as long as you scored some cheap political points against a guy who can't eve run again.

Good job.

 

[MG1968]

Whether Obama should or should not have made the comment is immaterial to the question of whether we should strike. When people like you keep trying sooooo hard to make Obama the issue, it naturally causes one to speculate that, to you and those of similar temperament, you'd gladly have us make the wrong choice as long as you scored some cheap political points against a guy who can't eve run again.

Good job.

When you're the so-called "leader of the free world", what you say and how you say it matter. Starting with the protests in Iran in 2009, Obama has consistently made the wrong choices. It's hard not to make him the issue when his leadership has been so poor.

 

[utvolpj]

Whether Obama should or should not have made the comment is immaterial to the question of whether we should strike. When people like you keep trying sooooo hard to make Obama the issue, it naturally causes one to speculate that, to you and those of similar temperament, you'd gladly have us make the wrong choice as long as you scored some cheap political points against a guy who can't eve run again.

Good job.

Obama is a serious issue (along with Kerry) since he claims to possess the authority to start wars without any approval. I care little about scoring political points and more about the abuse of the laws of the US that he would violate with an unapproved strike.

instead of continuing to defend the man you should try and defend the policies since you put him there twice

 

[volinbham]

Whether Obama should or should not have made the comment is immaterial to the question of whether we should strike. When people like you keep trying sooooo hard to make Obama the issue, it naturally causes one to speculate that, to you and those of similar temperament, you'd gladly have us make the wrong choice as long as you scored some cheap political points against a guy who can't eve run again.

Good job.

talk about pot and kettle. Taking a shot about Muslim-based racism of Ted Cruz comes to mind today alone.

The comment is not immaterial - if he had not made it then been called on it I'm quite sure our approach would be quite different. I would imagine we'd be working the UN Security Council much harder but not considering going it alone.

 

[CSpindizzy]

AH yes, 0bama didnt start the fire, its always been burning since the worlds been turning

Good Billy Joel impression. Who cares? The bar was set 10 years ago. The same ones who set that bar are hiding from it....even lying about it. It's all fun and games to take swipes at Obama because he's the evil Democrat screwing the country over. But nevermind the fact that the idiots who actually told the world Syria is the devil and that the US would not tolerate the mere possession of WMD's are now saying to the same world and Syria carry on and disregard our own standard. All the crap about Obama saving face by striking ignores the fact that we've already promised to act on this a decade ago. Assad even upped what the bar was set at by using chem agents. The fact the place is going to hell and these weapons are who knows where means nothing either. But please...by all means. Only point out the shortcomings of Obama. Carry on. Because he is the only idiot on this whole matter.

 

[volinbham]

Good Billy Joel impression. Who cares? The bar was set 10 years ago. The same ones who set that bar are hiding from it....even lying about it. It's all fun and games to take swipes at Obama because he's the evil Democrat screwing the country over. But nevermind the fact that the idiots who actually told the world Syria is the devil and that the US would not tolerate the mere possession of WMD's are now saying to the same world and Syria carry on and disregard our own standard. All the crap about Obama saving face by striking ignores the fact that we've already promised to act on this a decade ago. Assad even upped what the bar was set at by using chem agents. The fact the place is going to hell and these weapons are who knows where means nothing either. But please...by all means. Only point out the shortcomings of Obama. Carry on. Because he is the only idiot on this whole matter.

If you read the thread people are taking shots at others besides Obama too. The truth is that the redline comment DID precipitate the current state we are in. Sure there is hypocrisy on all sides of this but the current guy in charge bears considerable responsibility for our current predictament.

If it's "who cares" about the redline comment then it should be "who cares" about an act voted on 10 years ago as well.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If you read the thread people are taking shots at others besides Obama too. The truth is that the redline comment DID precipitate the current state we are in. Sure there is hypocrisy on all sides of this but the current guy in charge bears considerable responsibility for our current predictament.

If it's "who cares" about the redline comment then it should be "who cares" about an act voted on 10 years ago as well.

Not sure which red line comment you are referring to. Obama's original red line comment was more on par with the existing bar already set. Even before his whole bungling of 'red line' afterwards and the bad sell with allies, those who were trumpeting 'bad Syria' in 2003 were already taking shots at Obama. I've never said Obama doesn't deserve any blame. I've only said that if the standard is red line, then go back to 2003 as well. My whole argument has been about the fact that almost every single member of the GOP griping about Obama and saying Syria is not a threat and/or national security matter has their own vote saying otherwise to account for. If the issue is about credibility or lack thereof there is a much larger group than Obama at fault here. We have a large group in Congress moving the goalposts around on established standards just with a single nation. Syria and the whole world for that matter can base actions and reactions on what Congress does just as much as what Obama does. The GOP is by far the war party - much more hawkish than Dems by any means. If a Republican controlled Congress with a Republican president sets a standard on war then it needs to remain consistent. If a violating/rogue nation faces a Dem President they have less to worry about because of the internal partisan issues that develop.

 

[lawgator1]

If you read the thread people are taking shots at others besides Obama too. The truth is that the redline comment DID precipitate the current state we are in. Sure there is hypocrisy on all sides of this but the current guy in charge bears considerable responsibility for our current predictament.

If it's "who cares" about the redline comment then it should be "who cares" about an act voted on 10 years ago as well.

That reasoning is so weak because it is based on guessing "what would have happened if" and theorizing that, had the comment not been made, we'd be doing something else, entirely. You are just making that up.

And I'll play along.

Had the UK not backed out the middle of last week, Obama would not have felt the need to go to Congress and in fact the missile strike might even be over by now.

So its Cameron's fault.i

 

[utvolpj]

well since 2003 we have been told that Assad changed. This came from

Pelosi - "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."

H Clinton - “There’s a different leader in Syria now,” Clinton said. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

Kerry - "So my judgment is Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation comes with it"

 

[OJ]

Consensus among my liberal coworkers this morning; tired of being the world police.

what the heck is a cow orker?

 

[Obsessed]

what the heck is a cow orker?

You apparently have never been to Alabama then if you don't know what that is.

 

[CSpindizzy]

well since 2003 we have been told that Assad changed. This came from

Pelosi - "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."

H Clinton - “There’s a different leader in Syria now,” Clinton said. “Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”

Kerry - "So my judgment is Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West and economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation comes with it"

Not sure these would be reasons for those Republicans to have changed their mind. But I am sure these quotes would no doubt be used by said Republicans in speeches.

 

[volmaverick]

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.


The House’s Syria hearing: Live updates

Obama and Kerry turning the American military into mercenaries for hire now?

Nobel Peace Prize Obama winner does everything possible to justify a war.


John F’N Kerry made his name and his career by declaring that wars which do not directly involve the US are not worth the lives of US citizens. I guess that rule only applies when when he ISN’T SOS!?!?