A Case for Not Bombing Syria

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._on_syria.html

i cringed when he first mentioned a red line.

what happened to not showing your cards? bah, he's more bush-ie every day.

Obama's predecessor said that phrase—along with his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents—were among his greatest mistakes as president. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," said Bush. " ‘Wanted, dead or alive’—that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." The Die Hard–style talk made Bush sound like a cowboy who shot first and asked questions never.

Yes. let's not repeat his style..

And now the Brits want out..


http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-...y-syria-strike

Always chringed when they referred to the 'Coalition' in Iraq..Yeah,
90% U.S.
5% Brits
5% all others..

[Danzig]

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.

who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Mint Press News reporting Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

Quite the opposite of what the White House's news agencies (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al.) would have you believe - www.mintpressnews.com

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

who said all that, above?? barack obama in 2008.

Could someone please remind Congress? I think they like to put their heads down so they can say, "Hey, we had nothing to do with it!" Argh.

[jms62]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-...g-to-be,33662/

[bigrun]

Gearing up to go it alone


http://news.msn.com/us/us-readies-po...-against-syria

[bigrun]

France is with us...so what.

Striking Syria is a lethal quandary: The U.S. has lost track of some chemical weapons storage sites and hitting anywhere could unleash another disaster.

US and France prepare to act on Syria despite UK no vote

http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria

[bigrun]

Another country heard from...didn't 'we' liberate these people from Saddam

An Iraqi Shiite militia group on Friday threatened to attack U.S. interests in the Mideast if America launches a military strike on Syria.

http://news.msn.com/world/iraqi-mili...s-if-syria-hit

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

France is with us...so what.








http://news.msn.com/world/experts-do...sites-in-syria

comforting isn't it, having france to back us up.....