Apply Now!

Obama follows Constitution on Syria

moose

moose

Veteran Expediter
i will politely disagree with you. we do not have a draft. everyone join our military is taking the oath to protect our way of life. the armed forces are an essential tool in the presidential arsenal, and needs to be used to protect the ones that needs our protections from a mass systematic extermination. this is not a political war, and we can win it without taking sides. simply declare a no fly zone. eliminate the method of distributing the chemicals and get it over with. this is not about going to war- it's about preventing the use of weapons of mass casualty's. they wanna fight?,let em be. but we cannot allow the wide use of chemical on civilian populations. well worth American life's.sorry.
 
layoutshooter

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter

"i will politely disagree with you. we do not have a draft. everyone join our military is taking the oath to protect our way of life. "

Sorry Moose, I have to disagree with you on this one. The oath we take is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United State against ALL enemies both foreign and domestic. That oath say nothing about our way of life or that other countries. I have taken that oath on multiple occasions.
 
moose

moose

Veteran Expediter
O.K, my philosophical friend... 'our way of life' vs 'our constitution'.
please do explain,
how can we stand by while mass populations are gassed.
if we don't act now it WILL happen again, and chemical weapons will only be the start. less we forget our promises to Iran that we will not allow them to obtained nuke capability's.
 
layoutshooter

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
moose said:
O.K, my philosophical friend... 'our way of life' vs 'our constitution'.
please do explain,
how can we stand by while mass populations are gassed.
if we don't act now it WILL happen again, and chemical weapons will only be the start. less we forget our promises to Iran that we will not allow them to obtained nuke capability's.
Click to expand...

"Way of Life" means many things to many people. Obama's vision our way of life is FAR different than what the Constitution allows.

It will happen again and again, whether we attack or not. We cannot stop it. Which side do we support? Many on the "opposition", in Syria, are as much an enemy to the US as Assad is. We also very well could kill far more with our action than Assad did. I also suspect that that "opposition" has either used, or will use, those same weapons.

It is not an easy thing. I understand your concerns and outrage over what is going on there. I don't like it either. The problem is that ANY action we end up taking very well could end up as a lose lose for us.

I also have MAJOR concerns about what may happen if we do take actions. It may lead to the entire Middle East lighting up. Then even MORE would die and those same weapons would still be used, only against our troops.

We went after these exact same weapons once, and missed getting most of them. We are still in Iraq, thousands of US troops are dead, and the weapons are still being used.
 
moose

moose

Veteran Expediter
which is greater?: our way of life?...or...our constitution?
no argument! our President fail his own oath to protect our constitution. heck he used and abused it to the limits and beyond. so how can we expect him to protect our way of life?
are we really so naive to think that 'this is not our war'?, those Benghazy stolen missiles can strike down any civilian airliner. if we allow the mass used of that kind of weaponry in Syria it WILL come back to hunt us...soon after.
 
S

sewmun

Seasoned Expediter
Back to the original question,Obama is letting Congress decide because he knows they will get done sonetime by next year after all the holidays & then he can blame them for being indecisive.
 
iceroadtrucker

iceroadtrucker

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Obamma is leaving it up to Congress good he doing the right thing. Senator Mcaine is allready Sabor rattling in the senate to support a strike. Personaly dont send no troops.
Why waist of time.
THe use of Chemical Weapons on his people ok thats wrong I fully agree.
Now let me ask you this and for ladies out there listen up. I agree using chemical weapons on your people is wrong. But I also agree that Wipping a women till she cant shed no more tears for correcting a male child is wrong is well. So your saying stiking Syria is ok becasue of of the use of chemical weapons but a strike on the rest of the muselms that follow the belief that a women has no rights is correct. If any of you condon this then your no better than the one that used chemicals on his people. Dont get me wrong Syria ya he needs punished but so do the rest of those that would treat a women that way. Agree or Disagree. Its the same human rights. A women should have rights just like the people that Syria used chemicals weapons on have rights. Public Whipping or Chemicals no difference in my book. think about it wrong is wrong. So we strike Syria then lets strike the rest of them that believe in that. Wrong is Wrong. Punish one but not the other. Think about it.
Who right now. Who wrong. John McCain and his Senator Partner are Sabor rattling in the Senate but do they got the guts to go all the way and punish the rest of them as well. No they dont. Point is who are we to try and change somthing thats not been able to be change long before the birth of Christ. Think about it. No matter what we do We are not going to change nothing. Its going to cost us and for what. Look at Iraq its going back to the old way it was before Sadam only difference is who runninng the country. Saudi Arabia Beats there women so does Kuait and Pakistan and Afganstan and Iran. Been there Seen it and I sure as heck da burn dont condone it. Do you?? The powers to be orderd do nothing its there way. Now think about it. Is that Right Beating a women with a whip publicaly till she cant cry tears no more for correcting a male child is that right No its not and Using chemicals weapons on people is wrong to. 2 wrongs dont make a right do they. If we intervene on one by rights since we are God fearing Nation we should do somthing as well about the other. But to do that we have to go to war with all them. Maybe Obama got somthing there then again maybe he just now going to sit back and let his Congress do there thing. 2 wrongs dont make a right. & remember Women have rights. 2 Different circumstances yes but on the same line of rights yes it is. Can we change them nope so leave it alone.
 
cubansammich

cubansammich

Not a Member
purgoose10 said:
I think the missile strike should hit Washington then start over. At the minimum hit the golf course, at least we'll get rid of him.
Click to expand...
Seems sort of unAmerican to hope for a missile strike on our nations capitol. I'm afraid to ask who the golfer you would like hit might be but I will. Who is the golfer you would like to see hit by a missile?
 
Moot

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
layoutshooter said:
The other problem is that we no longer finish what we start. IF we are to commit US forces it should be to fight it, win it and get out. These "extended" conflicts are not what our military, or taxes, are designed to handle.
Click to expand...
True, but it sure is what the military-congressional-industrial complex is designed to handle!!!
 
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Obama is likely consulting with Slick Willie about bombing aspirin factories and is probably developing intel on their locations in Syria. Since similar "punishment" worked so well with Sudan in 1998, it shouldn't be too hard to get Congress to go along with a similar plan for Syria. :rolleyes:
 
Humble2drive

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
This is brilliant!!

This is basically what is happening right now:

U.S. To Assad - You have really ****ed us off this time. We are considering attacking you in a week or so!

Assad to U.S. - Thanks for the heads up guys! I will use the time to move my targets around and hide some things. Heck, I even have time to set up some family housing near the immovable targets.
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
moose said:
O.K, my philosophical friend... 'our way of life' vs 'our constitution'.
please do explain,
how can we stand by while mass populations are gassed.
if we don't act now it WILL happen again, and chemical weapons will only be the start.
Click to expand...
After advocating that the United States engage in military intervention (ie. war) with Israel's next door neighbor, please do remind me once again just how it is that Israel is fighting our wars for us, like you once claimed ...

Sure seems to be the other way around to me ...

moose said:
less we forget our promises to Iran that we will not allow them to obtained nuke capability's.
Click to expand...
Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has it's nuclear facilities under 24/7/365 monitoring by the IAEA (I sure wish I could say the same for Israel)

As such, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes ...
 
Humble2drive

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
This could have been a big WIN for the Republicans with the U.S. Electorate.

Vote no, make Obama look silly, appear to be in touch with public sentiment for once and change the perception of being the war mongering party.

But NO

McCain and Boyfriend want to go in the opposite direction and make this a full scale war.

McCain:
"We still have significant concerns but we believe there is in formulation a strategy to upgrade the opposition," McCain said.
Click to expand...

Boyfriend:
"Graham said he feels there is a "solid plan" from the Obama administration to "upgrade the opposition"
Click to expand...

Yes, now the goal is to "upgrading the opposition"

"[W]e cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the President's stated goal of Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," the senators said in a statement on Saturday.
Click to expand...

Here we go again!
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Terminally insane neocon and Israel-firster "Jenghazi" Rubin @ the Washington Post floats this "winner" of an idea for Syria (aka Iraq 2.0):

Resolutions can be amended. This one should be. An amended resolution could authorize the president to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction ...
Click to expand...

Seemingly, to eliminate the threat of WMD would require securing said WMD ... and there ain't no way that's gonna happen - short of turning Syrian sand into glass - without boots on the ground ...

Of course, since it is (theoretically) to Israel's benefit, Jen is all for it as per usual ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top