If Congress votes No on Syria and Obama orders bombings anyway, Consitutional Crisis?

[Contumacious]

he didn't need authorization just as obama didn't in libya...

Then why are all your nutty pals insisting he needs authorization to bomb Syria?

Why are you dumbshits advocating that he does bomb Syria?

We have in our midst

1- dumbshits
2- neocrazies like alcoholic
3- sunnis
4- zionists

So you do the math.

.

 

[Circe]

BO sees what is on his calendar with the sequester, and the debt ceiling debate, and helicopter Ben's taper which will send the economy down, and the 2014 talking points if/when the ME turns to sh!t, (there goes the Senate), etc. Not to mention all the furor about Obamacare when that "train wreck" hits and unemployment rises, etc. I hope the WH has their aluminum hats on tight...

Yessssss....good point, there are other things of some interest going on, aren't there? Like an incipient renewal of the recession if he doesn't watch out. Given all the weird economic issues going on now.

Yeah, a big war in the Mideast, that'll really help the economy.....

I cannot say I think things are going well with this turkey president we have.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[Circe]

The above photo is presumably a Syrian hack

USA Today about noon 9/2:

Pro-Syrian government hackers defaced a Marine Corps recruitment website Monday, posting a letter on Marines.com arguing that the Syrian government is "fighting a vile common enemy."

Capt. Eric Flanagan, a spokesman for the Marine Corps, confirmed to theWall Street Journal that the Marines site had been hacked. The Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility.

"The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy," the letter read. "Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it."

The hack included pictures of people wearing U.S. military uniforms holding signs reading "I will not fight for Al Qaeda" and "I didn't join the Marine Corps to Fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war."


Looks like the Syrians hit the Navy, too.

I guess it's better than a Blitz, but I do think our military websites ought to be better defended than they clearly are.

 

[Contumacious]

The above photo is presumably a Syrian hack

.

The above post is presumably a zionist hack - one of Bibi's guys posting for shekels.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

he didn't need authorization just as obama didn't in libya...

Then why are all your nutty pals insisting he needs authorization to bomb Syria?

Why are you dumbshits advocating that he does bomb Syria?

I'm not. If the international community that imposed prohibitions on chemical weapons doesn't want to enforce them,

and if the American people have no interest in the U.S. unilaterally doing so,

end of story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libya was behind an attack on the US, and he retaliated.

Syria attacked the US when ...

That's the cue for your answer, BTW.

Really? lol

Your knowledge of history is just sad.

I know that conservatives never miss an opportunity to cling to some irrelevant, supposed, invented, distinction in order to rationalize their flip flopping on one issue to the next when one issue involves a Republican president and the other involves a Democrat.

 

[Circe]

Why are you dumbshits advocating that he does bomb Syria?

I'm not. If the international community that imposed prohibitions on chemical weapons doesn't want to enforce them,

and if the American people have no interest in the U.S. unilaterally doing so,

end of story.

Huh! Good summary, really, IMO.

I mean, there's no Voice From The Heavens thundering that we have to enforce the "international law" against chemical weapons. After all, Germany invented them and all the other European powers manufactured them as fast as they could and used them, too. We only got rid of our mustard gas near me from WWI two years ago.

On reflection, I wonder if it isn't a tempest in a tea pot. Of course warfighters are going to use chemicals: the whole thing in warfare now is depopulation. I mean, that is what Assad is doing WHATEVER he's using, right??

His rebellious citizens are just as dead with bombs as with Sarin.

Whatever.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Syria is a no win situation for the USA....

We have no friends in Syria...........

 

[Mertex]

President Obama opened his mouth and drew a line in the sand...

Now they have crossed it and slapped him in the face....

He now has no Idea what to do so he will lay it on congress and hope to blame the Republicans for anything that goes wrong....

Weren't they the ones that were pleading Obama to do something? Are they flip-flopping now?

Oh, we get it, as soon as Obama is for something, it's time for the GOP to be against it.

Gotcha!

Senators Urge Obama to Strike Assad's Forces | The Weekly Standard

True.

The partisan right is extremely conflicted between their traditional warmongering tendencies and knee-jerk propensity to oppose everything Obama.

Exactly. They are the "doves" now!

 

[Borillar]

Lobbing missiles from aircraft carriers is not a deceleration of war, and requires no congressional action or approval.

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

Its been our policy since 1945....we haven't declared war on anyone and we have bombed . probably hundreds of cities...can't change the rules because you dont like the players.

Then, perhaps the policy is wrong. I'm trying to think of any military actions the US has taken since WW2 that were justified and not a big mistake in retrospect. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing. Syria has not attacked us and poses no threat. We should keep out of their civil war.

 

[kaz]

Really? lol

Your knowledge of history is just sad.

I know that conservatives never miss an opportunity to cling to some irrelevant, supposed, invented, distinction in order to rationalize their flip flopping on one issue to the next when one issue involves a Republican president and the other involves a Democrat.

Right, which is why I opposed both wars on Iraq, because I support them when a Republican is in power. You're an idiot. You're the only one between us who cares at all which party is in power.

That Libya was behind attacks in places like Germany murdering Americans isn't in dispute. It is completely the job of the United States to protect America and Americans when actual governments are involved in targeting us.

I also supported attacking the Taliban for the same reason.

I oppose it when it's not to defend Americans. I don't give a crap which party is in power. You don't give a crap about anything other than which party is in power.

 

[peach174]

President Obama opened his mouth and drew a line in the sand...

Now they have crossed it and slapped him in the face....

He now has no Idea what to do so he will lay it on congress and hope to blame the Republicans for anything that goes wrong....

Weren't they the ones that were pleading Obama to do something? Are they flip-flopping now?

Oh, we get it, as soon as Obama is for something, it's time for the GOP to be against it.

Gotcha!

Senators Urge Obama to Strike Assad's Forces | The Weekly Standard

True.

The partisan right is extremely conflicted between their traditional warmongering tendencies and knee-jerk propensity to oppose everything Obama.

Traditional warmongers?
Repub's- 4 wars. Libya, Persian Gulf and War on Muslim Terrorism, this includes Afghanistan & Iraq
Dem's - 6 wars. WWI, WWII, Korean and Viet Nam, continuation of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya, Yemen. 7 if Obama bombs Syria without congressional approval.
Dem's are the traditional warmongers.

 

[candycorn]

So, would you be perfectly happy with some country lobbing a few bombs in the middle of your town? With impunity and no accountability?

Its been our policy since 1945....we haven't declared war on anyone and we have bombed . probably hundreds of cities...can't change the rules because you dont like the players.

Then, perhaps the policy is wrong. I'm trying to think of any military actions the US has taken since WW2 that were justified and not a big mistake in retrospect. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing. Syria has not attacked us and poses no threat. We should keep out of their civil war.

I couldn't agree more.

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Its been our policy since 1945....we haven't declared war on anyone and we have bombed . probably hundreds of cities...can't change the rules because you dont like the players.

Then, perhaps the policy is wrong. I'm trying to think of any military actions the US has taken since WW2 that were justified and not a big mistake in retrospect. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing. Syria has not attacked us and poses no threat. We should keep out of their civil war.

I couldn't agree more.

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

Then I suppose that I'm "intellectually dishonest". Giving THIS "president" the ability to "strike at will" is like giving a 1 year old a book of matches and telling them to "have fun".

This man is an incompetent fool. Do you really want him to have the ability to "burn it all down"??

 

[Circe]

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

Then I suppose that I'm "intellectually dishonest". Giving THIS "president" the ability to "strike at will" is like giving a 1 year old a book of matches and telling them to "have fun".

This man is an incompetent fool. Do you really want him to have the ability to "burn it all down"??

Obama wants to start a war with Iran just as Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam. They use extraneous things as an excuse for some other war they just feel like starting! Bush used 9/11 and Obama is trying to use "WMD" (shades of Bush lies) in a civil war in Syria as his excuse.

Obama is even stupider and less competent than Bush was!! And that's really saying something!!

Let's don't let Obama start World War III, okay? It could end up even worse than all Bush's long losing wars. I mean, if Bush nearly ran us bankrupt with all his wars, what is China going to charge us to borrow all the money to fight Iran and Russia and all the other Mideast states for ten years and lose as usual?

I'd say, let's give it a miss.

 

[RandallFlagg]

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

Then I suppose that I'm "intellectually dishonest". Giving THIS "president" the ability to "strike at will" is like giving a 1 year old a book of matches and telling them to "have fun".

This man is an incompetent fool. Do you really want him to have the ability to "burn it all down"??

Obama wants to start a war with Iran just as Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam. They use extraneous things as an excuse for some other war they just feel like starting! Bush used 9/11 and Obama is trying to use "WMD" (shades of Bush lies) in a civil war in Syria as his excuse.

Obama is even stupider and less competent than Bush was!! And that's really saying something!!

Let's don't let Obama start World War III, okay? It could end up even worse than all Bush's long losing wars. I mean, if Bush nearly ran us bankrupt with all his wars, what is China going to charge us to borrow all the money to fight Iran and Russia and all the other Mideast states for ten years and lose as usual?

I'd say, let's give it a miss.

Agreed. Bush used 9/11 to incite America (and 49 allies) that it was necessary to go to war in the middle east. I was absolutely against the move, because I knew that once awakened, this thing called "radical Islam" would grow exponentially - and it has.

Every fire starts with a spark. For the US, that spark was 9/11.

We have finally left Iraq (having destroyed that country, thrown it into anarchy and accomplished nothing). We are still involved in Afghanistan, having accomplished nothing (other than to get more American men and women killed) and are SLOWLY winding that nonsense down after ignoring every military historian in the world, who advised BOTH Russia and America that "no invading Army has EVER brought Afghanistan down".

We had a chance to let our country rest. Our military is war weary. The American people are war weary. Our economy is war weary. Hell, the WORLD is war weary. This country needs to re-constitute itself and makes itself whole again. Nope.

Our clown president ran his mouth, yet again and issued a "red line" warning. Syria called his bluff. Not once, but multiple times and Barry was silent. Suddenly, Barry envisions himself as "JohnWayne" and decides "I'll show you! - NO ONE ignores ME!" and decides to take action.

Now, the world is watching. Barry, while on the golf course, says to himself - "Oh Hell! What have I done here?!?" "This will destroy my legacy of being the first mulatto president!" "I will look as bad as Bush and Clinton" "I can't have this!"

So, he "defers" to Congress (for the first time in his presidency) and tells himself "Cool! Now THEY will look like the war mongers OR they will make ME look good"

And he heads back to the golf course with the idiot Biden.

It really is that simple.

 

[Contumacious]

I mean, there's no Voice From The Heavens thundering that we have to enforce the "international law" against chemical weapons. .

OK , Listen closely, our politicians are prostitutes which will do anything anything for power. So, from their standpoint when the Zionuts speak , their voices come from the heavens.

Dead children , sarin gas means NOTHING -they are merely a PRETEXT to please the aforesaid Zionuts.

Capisce?

.

 

[candycorn]

Then, perhaps the policy is wrong. I'm trying to think of any military actions the US has taken since WW2 that were justified and not a big mistake in retrospect. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing. Syria has not attacked us and poses no threat. We should keep out of their civil war.

I couldn't agree more.

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

Then I suppose that I'm "intellectually dishonest". Giving THIS "president" the ability to "strike at will" is like giving a 1 year old a book of matches and telling them to "have fun".

This man is an incompetent fool. Do you really want him to have the ability to "burn it all down"??

The last President to actually go waist deep into battle was Bush 41 who according to you violated the constitution twice in Panama and Kuwait, not to mention Somolia.

You cant change the rules just because you dont like the players.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I couldn't agree more.

But for some here to not want to give this POTUS the same leeway they eagerly gave others is intellectual dishonesty.

Then I suppose that I'm "intellectually dishonest". Giving THIS "president" the ability to "strike at will" is like giving a 1 year old a book of matches and telling them to "have fun".

This man is an incompetent fool. Do you really want him to have the ability to "burn it all down"??

The last President to actually go waist deep into battle was Bush 41 who according to you violated the constitution twice in Panama and Kuwait, not to mention Somolia.

You cant change the rules just because you dont like the players.

Lady, do yourself a favor. Take a couple of minutes and watch this short film (made in Israel) about the first few minutes of WWIII.

Then remember - this scenario could be in YOUR hometown. It's coming closer and closer each day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWveazPiuxg]The First Few Minutes of World War III Will Look Like 2012-2013 MIRRORED - YouTube[/ame]