War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
And just to nitpick this point -- Did you miss the part where he said no boots on the ground in a public address and then a few days later asked for boots on the ground to remain an option? Or did you just forget that he actually did that and it's not an invention of bias and paranoia that part of the threat was a greater involvment than "tossing a few air strikes from a distance"?
I get what you and Soy are saying, and the weird thing is that I actually think he handled it as properly as he could. He didn't commit the aggression that he threatened to. But you don't get POINTS for that. That's rank intimidation and an incredibly poor sort of diplomacy. It's poor not for some moral or poli-sci reason, but because it's ineffective. Assad (and by extension Russia) are already trying to change the terms of the "understanding". I doubt they'll have to try too hard.
Obama completely fucked up, man. That was some North Korea style shit.
Dude. I have no clue wtf you're talking about. This is how things have unfolded from my understanding:
- Obama sends Congress a draft resolution asking for military force. This first draft was extremely open ended. It had no deadline, no limitations on force, and no prohibitions on whether or not there will be boots on the ground. Meanwhile, Obama publicly insists that there will be no boots on the ground, and the strike will be limited to specific, targeted strikes.
- Kerry goes before Congress and, ironically, flip flops on the issue of boots on the ground, suggesting that troops might be needed to secure chemical weapons if the country becomes unstable.
- This gets everyone nervous, and Kerry flops again, insisting no boots on the ground.
- The first draft resolution is amended, adding in limits such as a time limit (60 days, with an option for another 30 days, which equals to 90 days -- the same as the 90 days required in the War Powers resolution. Coincidence ? I think not) andspecifically prohibits putting boots on the ground.
- Before the resolution goes to a vote, Putin floats the idea of Syria giving up their chemical weapons, based on Kerry's statements to Congress (or flub ?). And that's where we are today.
So yea. In regards to the original authorization to use force, the only force authorized would be a few missiles here and a few bombs there. That doesn't preclude the possibility of boots on the ground later if the situation warranted it -- which would require another authorization from Congress. But in regards to the authorization that Obama was seeking AT THAT MOMENT, it was only for a targeted strike, nothing more. Had he been given the green light by Congress, that authorization would not have included the ability to send in ground troops.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,488
- 73,576
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,846
- 150,593
Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,313
- 3,169
To impeach a president, you need legal grounds to do so. You can impeach a president because you don't like his decision making.
Better Plan: according to thePresidential Line of Succession, we could impeach 13 people in a row. Then we will have the nation's first 'Independent' President, Eric Shinseki who is currently head of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs.
How could we get to Nancy Pelosi as President , I'd be behind that action!
Erronius
Macho Ma'am
- 16,491
- 42,462
I just don't equate wanting to leave the option open, with wanting to actually put people in Syria. That argument just seems nonsensical to me, and situations do tend to change over time. And I don't agree with a lot of people on what exactly BoTG means; sending extraction teams to pick pilots up isn't BoTG, and the hypothetical situation of possibly sending in teams to secure Syrian chemical weapons in the case they might fall into the "wrong" hands (wrong meaning"awww fuck where'd all that shit go?") isn't BoTG either. To me BoTG is actual combat forces being deployed - whether for combat or some sort of occupation.
It's asinine to expect any nation not to use threats, ever, particularly the large powers. Think back to Georgia, and Russia warning what would set them off. That was a threat too, but /shrug. I would agree that you shouldn't make threats if you aren't prepared to follow through on them, but I think they simply miscalculated the public's support (both domestic and abroad) and had to backpeddle. Presidents have done far worse than this, and we should be happy that instead of creating more evidence out of whole cloth to drum up support for strikes, that they were actually willing to back down and take a second look at what people thought.
CaughtCross
Vyemm Raider
- 2,737
- 4,324
As an employee of the DoD there was a lot of hate that Obama was on his 100 million African vaction with his his family, including his extended family while we were being furloughed thanks to the sequestration idea he thought of. Obama is the Lane Kiffin of presidents.
Wingz
Being Poor Sucks.
- 12,492
- 38,585
Fortunately she wouldn't read anything of the sort before the vote so anything can be thrown in there.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,518
- 583
To Erronius and everyone else. Please don't lump Afghanistan and Iraq together when making arguments.
Afghanistan was a justifiable war - if a government is sheltering the guy who orchestrated the death of 3,000+ of your citizens you get to go in with "boots on the ground" as well as missiles in the air and remove that government in your quest to find that guy.
Afghanistan is what one uses as a modern standard for "justifiable war". Compare this to Iraq, sure Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr., but that doesn't mean you go in with boots on the ground, it means you task the CIA with assassinating Saddam in response.
Edit: And to be clear, Bush's biggest fuckup was using Osama and the authorization for the use of force to go into Afghanistan as a justification/authorization to go after Saddam and Iraq (#2 was Patriot Act/expansion of NSA).
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
Actually you can just impeach him for that. I know TECHNICALLY you'd think the wording would keep that from happening, but the Supreme Court found it hasnooversight in terms of whether a Senate's impeachment hearing was justified or done properly. So the Congress is completely open to it's interpretation of what constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors", and is also open to render any decision they choose, with no interference from a higher or separate authority. They could label the crime "Subversion of national security through unreasonable and reckless aggression against a foreign entity", or some other bullshit--it's really up to them. Congress is, by far, the most powerful branch--but it's not a unified institution, so it's powers are rarely brought to bear like the Executives can be.