U.S. intervention in Syria

[Locutus]

Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech.   I am okay with the approach he laid out.   He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force. 

[Exterminator]

Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech.   I am okay with the approach he laid out.   He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force.

Yep!  Put the ball in their court.

[Palehorse]

Obama's stock just went up big time with this speech.   I am okay with the approach he laid out.   He's going to seek Congressional approval prior to giving the order for force.

Yep. By the time congress is done debating and arguing, Syria will have imposed even worse atrocities upon its citizens and another entity will be taking them to task. . .

[Henry Hawk]

What other choice has he got?  He boxed himself into a corner with drawing the line in the sand last year....I think he is doing the right thing.... NOW.  But he should have never spouted his mouth off last year.

He has himself in a pickle..imo.

[Locutus]

What other choice has he got?  He boxed himself into a corner with drawing the line in the sand last year....I think he is doing the right thing.... NOW.  But he should have never spouted his mouth off last year.

He has himself in a pickle..imo.

The whole situation is a pickle.  Like I said in one of my very first posts, there's no good side in this war.  That's why I'm opposed to US involvement in it.   Let them fight it out and stay out of it.  Atrocities happen around the world all the time with no US involvement whatsoever. 

[Sandy Eggo]

That and our involvement will solve nothing. One of my friends thinks its a means to a bigger end such as engaging another country in war.

Who knows really. (Rhetorical so no question mark)

[Exterminator]

I believe that we should engage in a limited, punitive strike to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anyone, ever.  Unlike bullets, chemical weapons are indiscriminate about who they kill and everyone in the world community should agree that their use is always unreasonable and those who choose to continue to stockpile and use such weapons should pay some price for doing so.

Having said that, I find more than a little irony in moronic comments like that recently offered by Henry Hawk who completely supported the full scale invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the deaths of far more Iraqi non-combatants than Saddam ever killed at a cost of over $1 trillion in American taxpayer dollars.  Even now, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he has, in the past few days, suggested on this forum that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the security of our country and moved them to a country that is an ally of perhaps his most profound enemy to save them for something more important than a full-on invasion of his country.  This, from an 'evil dictator' empowered by, well, us, who ten years earlier couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a scud missile if his mother's life depended on it.  Such talk is that of illiterate fools and miscreants too cowardly to admit to the simple, obvious fact that their racism guides their thinking...or more accurately, the lack thereof.

[Henry Hawk]

I believe that we should engage in a limited, punitive strike to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated by anyone, ever.  Unlike bullets, chemical weapons are indiscriminate about who they kill and everyone in the world community should agree that their use is always unreasonable and those who choose to continue to stockpile and use such weapons should pay some price for doing so.

Having said that, I find more than a little irony in moronic comments like that recently offered by Henry Hawk who completely supported the full scale invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 U.S. troops, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the deaths of far more Iraqi non-combatants than Saddam ever killed at a cost of over $1 trillion in American taxpayer dollars.  Even now, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he has, in the past few days, suggested on this forum that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the security of our country and moved them to a country that is an ally of perhaps his most profound enemy to save them for something more important than a full-on invasion of his country.  This, from an 'evil dictator' empowered by, well, us, who ten years earlier couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a scud missile if his mother's life depended on it.  Such talk is that of illiterate fools and miscreants too cowardly to admit to the simple, obvious fact that their racism guides their thinking...or more accurately, the lack thereof.

First of all, I did NOT support a full scale invasion.  I was NOT in favor of boots on the ground.  I was content after the shock and awe.

I agree with your thoughts on a limited attack...by air.  Sending a message.

[Henry Hawk]

I also think it would be dead wrong for congress NOT to support our POTUS on this.  THAT would send a horrible message to the world.  Though I still think he was wrong for spouting his mouth of in the first place.  We must face this and deal with it.

[Locutus]

I suspect he'll have the votes he needs. 

[Exterminator]

I suspect he'll have the votes he needs.

I do as well.  This has as much to do with Iran as it does with Syria.

[Henry Hawk]

I also think it would be dead wrong for congress NOT to support our POTUS on this.  THAT would send a horrible message to the world.  Though I still think he was wrong for spouting his mouth of in the first place.  We must face this and deal with it.

Although I think if congress does not support it, they will be doing the POTUS a huge favor.

[Exterminator]

Although I think if congress does not support it, they will be doing the POTUS a huge favor.

They're lining up behind him!

[Henry Hawk]

They're lining up behind him!

I figured they would...I was making a case how it would give Obama an "easy out" on this.

[Palehorse]

For the entirety of the Obama administration, nobody in Washington DC could agree on how to work together for the benefit of the American people.

From jobs to healthcare to bringing to the courts any Wall Street or banking-industry criminals. They have persisted with years of bickering and stagnating posturing resulting in near-paralysis.

Republicans and Democrats now are united because of 1500 Syrians (the reported death-toll, and I am not diminishing the tragedy of that number) but neither side could get their act together for the betterment of the 316,564,000 Americans that they supposedly represent.

"There's something happening here; what it is aint exactly clear."