War with Syria

Not striking carries as much negative potential as striking. Obama just put it on Congress, and more over, on us.

If there is enough opposition to this, and I really think there is... many Democrats will not vote for it. Id love to see a whole bunch of townhall meetings on this issue between now and the House vote.

Jait_sl said:

It could just as easily devolve. Here I'll play a member of Congress....

So you're saying you LIKE chemical weapons attacks??? A vote against a strike, is a vote for terrorism!

Click to expand...

Yeah Chuck Todd was saying that no way this is what Congress members wanted. They preferred to stand on the sidelines and sling shit with no real responsibility towards it. Now they have to actually own their actions.

Wake me up if and when Obama sends some cruise missiles, otherwise gonna take a long nap.

Well to quote a friend of mine:

The buck stops here -Truman

Obama just passed the buck, after it became a clusterfuck. I still appreciate that he did it. But should he have waited for everyone else but the French to be against us? I dunno.

Tuco_sl said:

Fine, I'll bet that one of the four items you listed is wrong.

Click to expand...

okay

I might have to watch Rush Hour to see the last time a black and an asian agreed on anything to do with War.

Eyashusa_sl said:

I will avatar bet or whatever you want that the following happens:
1. The Senate approves the strike.
2. The House does not approve the strike.
3. The majority and minority leaders of the House publicly, via press release or whatever, say they are fine with Obama striking.
4. Obama strikes before December 31, 2013. (inTrade up in this mother fucker)

Click to expand...

I think Congress approves.

I wouldn't bet on anything. Congress is so finicky and immature that whatever they had for breakfast that morning could influence their decision making process drastically.

I know its cynical to talk about politics in all of this, but politically this was a great move by Obama, and one I did not expect.

Chanur_sl said:

I think this worked out great for the President. Once he drew a line in the sand and it was possibly "crossed" he was required to do something or look weak. This way he can go to congress and say I want to bomb Syria, congress can say no. This keeps the president from looking like a total weenie and keeps us out of this fucking mess.

Click to expand...

Or the war machine lobbies the fuck out of it and we do indeed go to war.

Passing the buck isnt a weenie move?

This is not passing the buck. This is exactly what the Presidentshoulddo when considering military action which could spark a larger conflict.

If the stakes were lower Obama would have already ordered an air raid. Lets not kid ourselves, this isn't some pissant carribean island we're talking about imposing our will on. Because that's what it is, it's the Will of America. And that's all it is. Right makes Might? That sounds nice until you think about it for more than three seconds.

Nice speech and all, but yeah -- fuck that. It actually was a pretty good speech. It made what he was saying sound almost like duty (instead of doody). Or at least something more than utterly thankless suicide.

With that speech his face is saved. Not only can he claim to the world that while he tried, he is only a President and not an Emperor he can also claim to the American public that, "Hey look, I follow the Constitution ideals of balance of powers!"

To be fair, he does respect the odd numbered amendments. Haven't seen him shit on the 3rd, 5th, or 7th yet. And to his credit he's actually fought FOR the 9th.

I guess half a loaf is better than none.

Edit: Nope, just remembered. He did shit on the 7th with Trayvon. 4/10th's a loaf?

"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another." Carl Sagan