Thread: Military intervention in Syria

Whatever the decision taken by Parliament last week, there seems to be quite a lot of activity on Cyprus at the moment....

Originally Posted by Troy

Whatever the decision taken by Parliament last week, there seems to be quite a lot of activity on Cyprus at the moment....

Well it's not going to stop the military positioning equipment just in case they get a go or something else happens.

Akrotiri's quite a convenient spot really, although I wonder if the Cypriots are happy becoming a target...

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you mean "declare war", then you're probably right, but he can take action without their permission.

I wrote "declare war", what did you think I meant? And I'm not probably right, I am right. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"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. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." - Barack Obama, 2007

Erm, I covered that too:

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Only Congress has the authority to start a war except in cases of emergency threats to the USA and it's hard to see how a Syrian civil war presents that.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Ain't quite 90% there RA but the sentiment is just the same:

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters


Interesting that only 25% of Americans support intervention even if it is established the Assad regime used chemical weapons. I suppose, after a decade thats given us Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring (that wasn't), and the assassination of a US Ambassador in Libya, Joe Sixpack just wants out. Fair enough too.

Looks like ships from all sides positioning themselves in the Med as well.

Russian Med Fleet Redeployment

Syria: Russia And US Send Warships To Med

Russia, France deploy warships to eastern Mediterranean | The Times of Israel

Syria's arms race has accelerated through international pressure | World news | The Guardian

The pressure cooker is on full heat .... Might be better, for all concerned, to let this one cool off a little...

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you mean "declare war", then you're probably right, but he can take action without their permission.

I wrote "declare war", what did you think I meant? And I'm not probably right, I am right. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"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. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." - Barack Obama, 2007

Erm, I covered that too:

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Only Congress has the authority to start a war except in cases of emergency threats to the USA and it's hard to see how a Syrian civil war presents that.

Obama expressly said that Syria's chemical weapons represent an imminent threat to the US.

So if it wasn't for the fact he was going for a bit of PR (i.e. blame Congress for stopping him), there is nothing to stop him launching a raid. They can always argue the semantics afterwards.

Originally Posted by Troy

The pressure cooker is on full heat

An interesting choice of metaphor.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So if it wasn't for the fact he was going for a bit of PR (i.e. blame Congress for stopping him), there is nothing to stop him launching a raid.

Well yes- by lying. Tried and true political technique I guess.
No one gets 'done' for lying- it's even OK to lie to Congress these days.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

An interesting choice of metaphor.

The pressure has been rising within Syria for a while now.

The "Superpowers" and their followers are more interested in their own Agendas and taking different sides instead of trying to ease the situation. They are nothing more than vultures, circling Damascus, when they should be Aloe Vera softly applied to the wounds.

The propaganda machine is in full swing but the Western World has cried: "Wolf!" too many times and their people are getting sick of it.

What about a Diplomatic Mission, consisting of the UN "5", popping over and offering some solutions to the problems within Syria. A little trade may be all that is required and could include a softening in the stance with Israel as well. Time to add many colours to a black-and-white picture...

Plenty to pick over with that little lot.....

if i had to guess, he'll get the votes in congress. it'll be close, but he'll get there.

that, IMHO, is when he needs to take it to the UN.

Originally Posted by raycarey

if i had to guess, he'll get the votes in congress. it'll be close, but he'll get there.

that, IMHO, is when he needs to take it to the UN.

It won't be close whatsoever, RA...
You truly don't know how these things work, do you?

It does not matter if he gets a vote in Congress or not,he is still going to bomb Syria just like he has bombed Pakistan,Somalia,Yemen,Afghanistan....and this guy got the Nobel peace prize..ha ha

Originally Posted by Primo

It does not matter if he gets a vote in Congress or not,he is still going to bomb Syria just like he has bombed Pakistan,Somalia,Yemen,Afghanistan....and this guy got the Nobel peace prize..ha ha

Technically, he doesn't need Congressional approval.

Presidental Direcives/EOs can over-ride any legislative marker.

Ain't the elective democracy grand?

Originally Posted by raycarey

if i had to guess, he'll get the votes in congress. it'll be close, but he'll get there.

After that he should stage impromptu photo-ops with all the Republicans who voted for it thanking them for their support and bipartisan cooperation.

And then kick back and watch them spend all their campaign cash fighting off primary challenges from infuriated teabaggers for daring to give him something he wanted.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Operation Enduring Hesitation

In this case, among others, it's probably the best policy.
Next up, "Operation keep yer Big Nose out".

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by raycarey

if i had to guess, he'll get the votes in congress. it'll be close, but he'll get there.

After that he should stage impromptu photo-ops with all the Republicans who voted for it thanking them for their support and bipartisan cooperation.

And then kick back and watch them spend all their campaign cash fighting off primary challenges from infuriated teabaggers for daring to give him something he wanted.

I'll be surprised if Congress votes in favor of military action. And I'll be shocked if it's even close. We're in a period of time when the politicians know the people are weary of these ME foreign adventures.

No matter how they vote this is win-win for Obama.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

No matter how they vote this is win-win for Obama.

How do you figure that? Already he's being castigated for being a waffler - hence the title of his next plan: Operation Enduring Hesitation.

Heh...this Barry Soetero divided against himself can't stand...

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama Indicts Obama.

One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.

The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.

And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions."

Well, yes, it sure does...

^ If anything history will judge him guilty of weakening the office of the President. Nobody of significance cares about the waffler banter.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ If anything history will judge him guilty of weakening the office of the President. Nobody of significance cares about the waffler banter.

You one of Obama's Fanboys, stores?

Like this guy?

Steve Rattner: We should attack Syria because if we don’t Obama will look silly.

Rightly or wrongly, POTUS drew red line over chemical weapons in #Syria. No way we can back off now.
—
Steven Rattner (@SteveRattner) September 01, 2013

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

If anything history will judge him guilty of weakening the office of the President.

if anything, the power assumed by the executive branch has become too strong over the last few decades--particularly from 2000-2008.

i support anything that will bring us back to equal branches of government.

Operation Enduring Hesitation brought to you by...

Isn't the moonbats turnaround amazing? Not long ago he posted this cartoon in the political cartoons thread.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

If anything history will judge him guilty of weakening the office of the President.

if anything, the power assumed by the executive branch has become too strong over the last few decades--particularly from 2000-2008.

i support anything that will bring us back to equal branches of government.

There is a time and place for cowboy Presidents ... Now isn't one of them.