| |
News: Barack Obama addresses Syria
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
|
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaida will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.
|
Those extremists USA is supporting in this conflict are in fact violating human rights and are responsible for as many murders as Assads regime. Again, there is no good or evil side in this civil war. The US intervention will just cause more chaos.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2012
Posts: 22,883
|
Quote:
Originally posted by CoolestPerson12
No. According to the Constitution, the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the US military. He has the authority to move troops around, one example of this was the Vietnam War. Congress can consent to war, this is to keep the two offices in check.
|
I'm aware he has the authority to move troops around, but the previous poster implied he can go ahead with a military strike "as he pleases." It looks worse for Obama in the sense that he said this when he was first running for president.
Quote:
|
During his first run for the White House, Obama told the Boston Globe that '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.'
|
And to those supporting a strike, Assad basically said retaliation is around the corner if a strike occurs. I'm just  .
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,868
|
And I love how Obama and the government always claims that the "rebels don't have the means to use chemical weapons" as their reason for knowing it was al-Assad. *****, if they have no means to support themselves, why has this civil war been going on for almost three years now? Shouldn't Assad have crushed them by now? The FSA started out as peaceful protesters, but then other governments got involved and sent in terrorists to fight for them and have been steadily providing them with weapons. I hope the American public is smart enough to do their own research, because if not... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 7,898
|
Who cares? Somewhere in America Miley Cyrus is twerking.. twerk miley miley twerk!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/11/2012
Posts: 4,253
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miley Cyrus
Who cares? Somewhere in America Miley Cyrus is twerking.. twerk miley miley twerk!
|
Yassssssss Miley, twerk on America's exclusive entitlement and moral authority to perpetuate war, altogether ignoring the UN and the voices of the American people.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 23,375
|
Of course he's a ****ing hypocrite he's pretty much done nothing but prove that his entire 2nd term.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2010
Posts: 7,401
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/17/2011
Posts: 8,965
|
So did he slay? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2012
Posts: 22,883
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DWG
|
Brilliant for basically throwing Congress under the bus?  Good move for Obama, but it depends if the American people see what he is doing.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 390
|
Girls, y'all really need to read It's not even that long.
Re: what would be our objectives if we do, in fact, strike:
Quote:
I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
|
Re: possible retaliation against the US/Israel:
Quote:
|
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.
|
Like that other link says, it's also plausible that he asked Congress to deliberate this because he knew they would be against a military strike and that he doesn't really want war, but he hasn't outright said this so we can't really discuss it.
The bottom line isn't that people are fighting and we ~should intervene in the name of peace~, but that people are being GASSED TO DEATH. These are weapons that hundreds of countries have agreed not to use. Even Russia condemns chemical weapons of this magnitude. When ****ing Russia is looking to work with us, that's how serious this is, and teenagers on ATRL aren't going to know better.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2010
Posts: 7,401
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyclarkson
The bottom line isn't that people are fighting and we ~should intervene in the name of peace~, but that people are being GASSED TO DEATH. These are weapons that hundreds of countries have agreed not to use. Even Russia condemns chemical weapons of this magnitude. When ****ing Russia is looking to work with us, that's how serious this is, and teenagers on ATRL aren't going to know better. |
Yes, yes and yes.
And  but a serious YES at that last line.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/9/2012
Posts: 16,749
|
The American media is just using fear tactics as usual to scare the public. They want their ratings high. News is a business after all. Obama does not want war. What he called for is a strike. Similar to what we did in Libya. He is calling on Congress to decide what course of action to take (which is a smart chess move pinning the political burden on them).
I am against a U.S. military intervention or strike of any kind in Syria. Syria's civil war is not our business. The best we can do is enforce sanctions on Assad's govt, and provide humanitarian relief to the refugees and victims.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/20/2011
Posts: 12,590
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SupahBass05
lmao what? Wouldn't it be unconstitutional of him to go ahead without Congress's consent?
|
Kind of.
There are ways around it. Like the President can send troops wherever he wants for 90 days. It is called the War Powers Act.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/15/2012
Posts: 6,964
|
Quote:
|
But I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
What everybody wanted to hear.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2012
Posts: 22,883
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyclarkson
Girls, y'all really need to read It's not even that long.
Re: what would be our objectives if we do, in fact, strike:
Re: possible retaliation against the US/Israel:
Like that other link says, it's also plausible that he asked Congress to deliberate this because he knew they would be against a military strike and that he doesn't really want war, but he hasn't outright said this so we can't really discuss it.
The bottom line isn't that people are fighting and we ~should intervene in the name of peace~, but that people are being GASSED TO DEATH. These are weapons that hundreds of countries have agreed not to use. Even Russia condemns chemical weapons of this magnitude. When ****ing Russia is looking to work with us, that's how serious this is, and teenagers on ATRL aren't going to know better. |
Let's say hypothetically that Congress votes against a military strike. What happens next? Does he go on ahead and use military force?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyclarkson
Girls, y'all really need to read It's not even that long.
Re: what would be our objectives if we do, in fact, strike:
Re: possible retaliation against the US/Israel:
Like that other link says, it's also plausible that he asked Congress to deliberate this because he knew they would be against a military strike and that he doesn't really want war, but he hasn't outright said this so we can't really discuss it.
The bottom line isn't that people are fighting and we ~should intervene in the name of peace~, but that people are being GASSED TO DEATH. These are weapons that hundreds of countries have agreed not to use. Even Russia condemns chemical weapons of this magnitude. When ****ing Russia is looking to work with us, that's how serious this is, and teenagers on ATRL aren't going to know better. |
 
Dear teenage ATRLer, Russia is Syrias ally. They know that every military action against Assads regime would endanger their position in Middle East and destroy their whole geopolitical alliance which makes Russia very strong and which US desperately want to destroy. Russia will do anything to avoid the US military intervention to protect the current regime.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 32,106
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nippy'sReceipts
The American media is just using fear tactics as usual to scare the public. They want their ratings high. News is a business after all. Obama does not want war. What he called for is a strike. Similar to what we did in Libya. He is calling on Congress to decide what course of action to take (which is a smart chess move pinning the political burden on them).
I am against a U.S. military intervention or strike of any kind in Syria. Syria's civil war is not our business. The best we can do is enforce sanctions on Assad's govt, and provide humanitarian relief to the refugees and victims.
|
The problem in Libya hasn't been solved, Khadafi might be dead but that country still has problems
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,868
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyclarkson
Girls, y'all really need to read It's not even that long.
Re: what would be our objectives if we do, in fact, strike:
Re: possible retaliation against the US/Israel:
Like that other link says, it's also plausible that he asked Congress to deliberate this because he knew they would be against a military strike and that he doesn't really want war, but he hasn't outright said this so we can't really discuss it.
The bottom line isn't that people are fighting and we ~should intervene in the name of peace~, but that people are being GASSED TO DEATH. These are weapons that hundreds of countries have agreed not to use. Even Russia condemns chemical weapons of this magnitude. When ****ing Russia is looking to work with us, that's how serious this is, and teenagers on ATRL aren't going to know better. |
The Syrian Army doesn't have any means to strike back, yet they've managed to fight these rebels for basically three years? And it's not just Syria we have to worry about, it's their allies AND ours. Iran, China, and Russia would surely be mad if we attacked Syria. And while they may not be able to support a fight against us, they could definitely fight Israel.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 390
|
If Congress votes no, then we'll see. Why don't we ask Obama to join ATRL so he can tell us if he plans to strike anyway? We can have an Ask Obama thread.
Russia working with us is still good because the goal is to get rid of the chemical weapons. Striking Assad so that he is unable to deploy chemical weapons is the goal. Maybe weakening Russia's geopolitical power is too, but that's irrelevant right now because at the end of the day people are being gassed to death. We can worry about Russia her power later--always have, always will. The strike's goal is to debilitate Assad's regime's chemical weapons, not to unseat him. Whether or not he is unseated as a result is a different matter--who's to say he will or will not be?
Nobody said Syria has no means to fight back. Read. He said any potential retaliation from Syria against us is nothing that our military cannot handle. Assad's regime may redouble their efforts against his opposition, but at least he won't be gassing them to death, which is the goal.
China and Russia are collaborating with us. If Assad hands over the chemical weapons, we won't have an issue with them because we won't strike. If we do strike, both nations could be mad, sure, but they both understand the issue with chemical gasses and neither of them support that. Iran always hates us, but if you had read you'd know that the point of striking is also to let other nations like Iran know that usage of nuclear and chemical weapons isn't okay for obvious reasons.
China and Russia are not going to attack Israel. Israel already worries about Iran, there is nothing new that Israel cannot handle or has proven itself unable to handle (and besides, if Israel is attacked, it's not like we'll just... watch).
I'm not bolding any of this because y'all apparently only read the bolded bits.
Anyway, we'll find out Thursday what Kerry has accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kellyclarkson
If Congress votes no, then we'll see. Why don't we ask Obama to join ATRL so he can tell us if he plans to strike anyway? We can have an Ask Obama thread.
Russia working with us is still good because the goal is to get rid of the chemical weapons. Striking Assad so that he is unable to deploy chemical weapons is the goal. Maybe weakening Russia's geopolitical power is too, but that's irrelevant right now because at the end of the day people are being gassed to death. We can worry about Russia her power later--always have, always will. The strike's goal is to debilitate Assad's regime's chemical weapons, not to unseat him. Whether or not he is unseated as a result is a different matter--who's to say he will or will not be?
Nobody said Syria has no means to fight back. Read. He said any potential retaliation from Syria against us is nothing that our military cannot handle. Assad's regime may redouble their efforts against his opposition, but at least he won't be gassing them to death, which is the goal.
China and Russia are collaborating with us. If Assad hands over the chemical weapons, we won't have an issue with them because we won't strike. If we do strike, both nations could be mad, sure, but they both understand the issue with chemical gasses and neither of them support that. Iran always hates us, but if you had read you'd know that the point of striking is also to let other nations like Iran know that usage of nuclear and chemical weapons isn't okay for obvious reasons.
China and Russia are not going to attack Israel. Israel already worries about Iran, there is nothing new that Israel cannot handle or has proven itself unable to handle (and besides, if Israel is attacked, it's not like we'll just... watch).
I'm not bolding any of this because y'all apparently only read the bolded bits.
Anyway, we'll find out Thursday what Kerry has accomplished. |
That is the worst scenario everybody wants to avoid actually.
I dont want to even think about what would happen if Iran got involved. Dont forget that not only Syria, but also Iran and Israel posses weapons of mass destruction. There is a huge tension between these countries and every wrong step can cause an open war in the region.
The diplomatic way is the best and Syria also welcomed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
