Suppose Congress does not approve an attack on Syria...

[Angry Irishman]

It seems unlikely, since Obama was openly cracking jokes about him at a press conference not very long ago.

Also, why would Putin scare Obama? Putin should scare common citizens, as he apparently has few compunctions against arbitrarily jailing people, murdering them, etc. In terms of what Russia can do on a country to country basis? Not much to fear.

Cracking jokes....this may not be fear but equates to a sign of weakness to the Russians and I would think most people.

If the situation upgraded to a naval surface battle with the Russians there would be casualties, heavy casualties, on both sides.

 

[Dari]

Why have foreplay only to back down? Just stick it in and enjoy. Attack! Attack! Attack!

 

[fskimospy]

Cracking jokes....this may not be fear but equates to a sign of weakness to the Russians and I would think most people.

If the situation upgraded to a naval surface battle with the Russians there would be casualties, heavy casualties, on both sides.

No, probably not. While it always depends on circumstances, by far the most likely outcome is the entire Russian force would be sunk by us aircraft before either navy got in surface to surface missile range.

Russian carrier aircraft are old and outdated and their crews are poorly trained. It would be a slaughter.

Edit: it seems in this thread and others that people don't have a good grasp of just how bad russias military is. This is not the soviet union.

 

[Doppel]

I am not big fan of Obama, but I am really surprised at how many people think he would do it without authorization.

You need to take a moment and think through why he asked for authorization and what it would look like politically for him if he asks for authorization, doesn't receive it, and proceeds anyway. Keep in mind also his character. There is just damn near no chance of him doing it.

If he was so dead set on attacking he would have already done it and asked for forgiveness instead of permission. He isn't asking for permission just to make people feel like they have a say that he is going to ignore.

 

[boomerang]

I am not big fan of Obama, but I am really surprised at how many people think he would do it without authorization.

We think that because in a speech in the Rose Garden he said he didn't feel he needed authorization. For political reasons he had second thoughts and asked Congress not to vote the way the people wanted but to vote their conscience.

We feel the way we do because we're paying attention to what he's saying. The only political fallout he need fear is impeachment. With the exception of Reid and Pelosi who struggle to be the smeller of each Obama fart first, the dem's figured out some time back that it's best to humor him and try to fly under the radar to avoid becoming collateral damage.

He's turned himself into a eunuch. But I have no doubt that he still has visions of grandeur surrounding his importance. He's the laughing stock of the world and an albatross around our necks.

 

[Doppel]

We think that because in a speech in the Rose Garden he said he didn't feel he needed authorization.

I actually think he said that because he is sulking. It came across to me as a child with fingers in ears saying "I don't have to listen to you", when in fact the child does, and will listen.

His actions can be predicted when we look at what his motivations are and what he perceives his gains/losses to be. I cannot imagine for a moment he'll calculate that he will end up the victor from asking for authorization--"just to be nice"--not getting it, and going ahead anyway.

 

[gb74]

He doesn't need to back down.

1) He wouldn't technically be declaring war so he really doesn't need congress' approval to strike targets with missiles.

2) He doesn't even need to use the U.S. military. He already has the most advanced, well equipped shadow military at his disposal. It's called the C.I.A.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually think he said that because he is sulking. It came across to me as a child with fingers in ears saying "I don't have to listen to you", when in fact the child does, and will listen.

His actions can be predicted when we look at what his motivations are and what he perceives his gains/losses to be. I cannot imagine for a moment he'll calculate that he will end up the victor from asking for authorization--"just to be nice"--not getting it, and going ahead anyway.

He has been saying that he didn't need congressional authorization from the very beginning. Sulking? Are you joking?

 

[Moonbeam]

If the left is as pathetic as the right says it is and the right as pathetic, well let's just leave it at the fact they are objectively pathetic, then we will certainly go to war. After all, who can argue that we must convince Iran we will bomb them if they don't abandon their nuclear weapons program, right?

 

[BlueWolf47]

He has been saying that he didn't need congressional authorization from the very beginning. Sulking? Are you joking?

He's either a weak leader with vaginitis for going to congress for approval, or hes a tyrannical dictator for using the war powers act.


Maybe he will end up being both lol.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the left is as pathetic as the right says it is and the right as pathetic, well let's just leave it at the fact they are objectively pathetic, then we will certainly go to war. After all, who can argue that we must convince Iran we will bomb them if they don't abandon their nuclear weapons program, right?

Yeah, baby. A second quagmire will show them whose boss! Unfortunately I don't think it'll be us.

 

[Doppel]

He has been saying that he didn't need congressional authorization from the very beginning. Sulking? Are you joking?

Why else is he reminding us of his view after he has already deferred to something he says he does not need to abide by? He may think he is threatening that he will act without approval but we know he won't. He has shown he lacks the spine to do it before, and certainly will after a vote. He is not a decisive leader, though that has its benefits. I think it is good he is deferring to congress even if e is pretending he is willing to act without their approval. He isn't, though.

 

[nextJin]

Why else is he reminding us of his view after he has already deferred to something he says he does not need to abide by? He may think he is threatening that he will act without approval but we know he won't. He has shown he lacks the spine to do it before, and certainly will after a vote. He is not a decisive leader, though that has its benefits. I think it is good he is deferring to congress even if e is pretending he is willing to act without their approval. He isn't, though.

It's fairly amazing how he is navigating this and there really is no easy out. The only thing he can do is shrug off as much responsibilty as possible onto the Congress.

 

[IronWing]

I think Obama is using Congress to extract himself from his own rhetoric. Obama laid down a "red line", the Syrian government crossed it, but following through with action is a no-win situation for the U.S. so Obama suddenly remembered the Constitution and, IMHO, is hoping Congress does not authorize force.

 

[justoh]

Congress will likely approve some kind of engagement. If it doesn't he will still go ahead with it. Easy mode.

 

[lothar]

At the end of the day, he'll still have to attack to save face.
With or without congressional approval is irrelevant.

 

[justoh]

At the end of the day, he'll still have to attack to save face.
With or without congressional approval is irrelevant.

You mean to complete whatever the objective is. Why would saving face be more important than the purpose behind the mission? Why wouldn't saving face be contrary to the mission's purpose at this point?

 

[PlanetJosh]

It's having to wait the whole weekend to find out if there's going to be a war that bothers me. Could've been watching the tomahawks on a big screen while eating bbq food. But no they first have to have some vote next week. And we have to wait for the preisident to speak about the matter on Monday or Tuesday. On a serious note does it bother anyone the U.S. doesn't have the urgency about the conflict to have a vote on it over the weekend as in today (Saturday) or tommorrow?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's having to wait the whole weekend to find out if there's going to be a war that bothers me. Could've been watching the tomahawks on a big screen while eating bbq food. But no they first have to have some vote next week. And we have to wait for the preisident to speak about the matter on Monday or Tuesday. On a serious note does it bother anyone the U.S. doesn't have the urgency about the conflict to have a vote on it over the weekend as in today (Saturday) or tommorrow?

It's a casual war.

 

[Fern]

It's having to wait the whole weekend to find out if there's going to be a war that bothers me. Could've been watching the tomahawks on a big screen while eating bbq food. But no they first have to have some vote next week. And we have to wait for the preisident to speak about the matter on Monday or Tuesday. On a serious note does it bother anyone the U.S. doesn't have the urgency about the conflict to have a vote on it over the weekend as in today (Saturday) or tommorrow?

If they voted now Obama would lose that vote.

The admin needs time to persuade Congress.

I suspect those like Boehner who could call the vote now if needed would like the admin to make its case better. Might also be that some would like to wait for the UN report before voting. A number of physicians have been quoted as saying the videos don't look to show that a military grade sarin gas attack actually happened. We'd look like real idiots if we attacked and then the UN releases its report claiming no sarin attack.

Reid has been curiously silent on Syria, or at least I've missed any of his comments that were in the news.

Fern

 

[shortylickens]

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/09/07/obama-syria/


If he preempts monday night football I suspect many people will complain.

These days the public is more concerned with sports than world events and death and destruction.

Unless of course its the new Micheal Bay movie.

 

[Doppel]

If they voted now Obama would lose that vote.

The admin needs time to persuade Congress.

I suspect those like Boehner who could call the vote now if needed would like the admin to make its case better. Might also be that some would like to wait for the UN report before voting. A number of physicians have been quoted as saying the videos don't look to show that a military grade sarin gas attack actually happened. We'd look like real idiots if we attacked and then the UN releases its report claiming no sarin attack.

Reid has been curiously silent on Syria, or at least I've missed any of his comments that were in the news.

Fern

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-files-syria-resolution-96377.html?hp=f1

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I voted "No" because I think the political cost of doing it after asking for Congress to vote on it would be far too high. However, he does seem very determined, so perhaps he would.

 

[lothar]

You mean to complete whatever the objective it is. Why would saving face be more important than the purpose behind the mission? Why wouldn't saving face be contrary to the mission's purpose at this point?

Because you've set a red line that's been crossed several times and you need to use your bully pulpit to prove a point and make sure other foreign nations take heed at your word rather than scoff at it?

Since you seem to know more about it, what exactly is the purpose behind the mission, and why hasn't the mission done almost a year ago when Syria crossed Obama's red line several times?

 

[lothar]

Reid has been curiously silent on Syria, or at least I've missed any of his comments that were in the news.

August 31, 2013

Las Vegas, NV - Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement today following President Obama's call for Congress to debate the use of limited military force against Syria:

"Given the atrocities committed by Bashar al-Assad against his own people, including the use of internationally prohibited chemical weapons and the murder of innocent children, it is time for Congress to debate and vote on whether Syria's heinous actions should be met with a limited use of American military force.

"I believe the use of military force against Syria is both justified and necessary. I believe the United States has a moral obligation as well as a national security interest in defending innocent lives against such atrocities, and in enforcing international norms such as the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. Assad must be held accountable for his heinous acts, and the world looks to us for leadership."

"The Senate will engage in this critical debate right away, beginning with public hearings and briefings for members next week. The primary jurisdiction over this issue lies with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have spoken to Chairman Menendez, and he will convene hearings next week to provide senators and the public with the opportunity to hear from senior Obama administration officials. I have also spoken with Chairmen Feinstein and Levin, and they will convene both classified and unclassified briefings for senators throughout next week, for which the Obama administration will also make key national security officials available.

"Following the hearings and briefings, the full Senate will convene and debate a resolution authorizing the use of limited military force against Syria. The Senate will vote on the resolution no later than the week of September 9th, as requested by the Obama administration. This will provide ample time for a robust public debate, while ensuring that this critical issue receives a vote in a timely fashion.

"The decision to take military action is not one to be taken lightly, and this decision will receive the full and open debate it deserves."

http://www.reid.senate.gov/newsroom/reid_statement_on_syria.cfm