This from Yahoo! News, Sept. 3, 2013
House Speaker John Boehner plans to vote to approve a measure authorizing U.S. military action against Syria, the Ohio Republican said after a meeting with President Barack Obama in the White House Tuesday.
“This is something that the United States and the country need to do. I’m going to support the president’s call for action,” Boehner said after the meeting with the president and other congressional leaders. "I believe that my colleagues should support this call for action."
In response to reports showing what the United States says is strong evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack that killed more than 1,000 civilians in August, Obama on Saturday said he would seek approval for a “limited” military strike in the region.
In a statement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor also said he would support Obama's call for action.
"I intend to vote to provide the President of the United States the option to use military force in Syria," Cantor said. "While the authorizing language will likely change, the underlying reality will not. America has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as Syria, and to prevent further instability in a region of vital interest to the United States."
Both parties in Washington are unprepared for the three debates that matter. Political leaders can now immerse themselves in a debate about a minor action with minimal risk and feel useful.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it feels as though the national leadership seeks trivia to stay busy so it doesn't have to face the really big issues.
Newt Gingrich
What a dog and pony show.
ReplyDeleteThere are two barking dogs, Obama and Kerry, as for the ponies, that would be the American public being led all over the world maps so Obama can have his very own war like every good little President.
DeleteI for one want regime change in Syria, with boots on the ground if need be, and target Iran with everything we have that doesn't walk upright dropped on the nuke facility.
Under NO circumstances can Iran get nukes.
I guess I don't understand why the fearless leader does not call the strikes and be done with it,he acts alone and bypasses Congress on almost everything else.
ReplyDeleteThe MSM is what makes Obama what he is, if they turn on him, we'll he'd prefer a lynching to the barbs his MSM will sting him with....
DeleteOur military is spread too thin as it is and this is NOT our war. These rule of engagement are beneficial to everyone but Americans ... This is bullshit. Friends and fores are interchangeable and the US has been the worlds 911 and ATM long enough. It is time to get out of the UN and focus all our energy here at home.
ReplyDeleteAlas ... for a few hours I had the feeling that the American people had finally gotten 0bama's attention and more importantly finally had a Congress to stand firm against intervention in Syria.
ReplyDeleteApparently I erred, grossly.
An ill wind that blows no one any good.
It is a touchy situation and would be for any President. Who used the WMD's the rebs or the government or maybe both. Their is no good side in the fight and Syria will be an ungodly mess whatever the outcome of American involvement. These people live with death and destruction, burned out buildings, roadblocks and all the other effects of war and strife on a daily basis and have for several decades. Boots on the ground TD. I dunno. This would probably be a quagmire that would make Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam look like childs play. we are dealing with 2 groups, The Alawites against everyone else and neither cares what they do to each other or for that matter their own people and supporters.
ReplyDeleteBashar Assad is a bad man as bad as Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately there are countries out there, Iraq and Syria being two of those that probably unfortunately need/needed a harsh hand on the tiller.
The other side the rebs now polluted with the deadly scum that is al Qaeda and it's related factions.
But I do agree with Angie that this is not a U.S. problem but this and the entire middle east is a world problem. The powers that be need to set aside all the petty differences and truly work on solving this mess. We left Iraq and it is slowly descending into chaos. Afghanistan will follow when we leave. Syria, Egypt, Libya, all a mess. Democracy takes time but can the world collectively wait.
I agree with TD that the lynchpin in the whole affair has always been and remains the country of Iran. They sponsor the majority of the hell raisers in the area and they cannot ever be allowed the luxury of being a nuclear state. And that again becomes a worldwide problem not just ours. Invade Iran TD?. I had this argument the other day with an individual who thinks we could mop that up in about two days. that kind of thinking will spell big trouble for our country. His reasoning was that Iraq whipped Iran back in the 80's and if we whipped Saddam in three days (1st gulf war) then we should be able to do the same in Iran. Well not so fast. First Iraq didn't whip Iran so badly well actually not at all. Iraq was expelled from Iranian territory within weeks and the negotiated settlement happened with Iranian troops bearing down quickly on Bagdad. Yeah Saddam negotiated peace when he saw he was going to lose. Second in the first gulf war Saddam had populated the deserts of Kuwait with conscripts, people who didn't believe in the legitimacy of the fight, with no loyalty to their leader. so therefore as we approached they threw up their hands in surrender.
Iran on the other hand has a majority of it's people loyal to the government and extremely loyal to the idea of the spread of Islam. remember they invented terrorism as we know it today. Iran would welcome us to their country for a battle and unfortunately we would soon be sorry we came to the party. remember they have no regard for human life, not yours not mine not even their own people. If they have to kill 10 of theirs to get 15 of ours, well they have no qualms about that.
Historically American has not done well in foreign wars. Even WW2 which cemented our position as the worlds premier power was a slugfest for many many years and keep in mind that Germany was fighting on 2 fronts against 3 world powers at the time, the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. And for a while a long while it appeared that they were going to win. They almost pulled it off. So TD what to do about Syria and Iran. I am not so sure based on our historical record in foreign wars that boots on the ground is truly the answer.
Iran...
DeleteOnly the U.S. has the weapons capable, in a coordinated air and sea attack, to set back the Iranian effort to get a nuke. Unlike North Korea, which is a Chinese puppet, and would starve in days if attacked, and is too isolated to assault with ALL of our capabilities, if we hit Iran, we would set them back 20 years and probably start an internal civil war.
Iran would no longer be a threat and therefore ANY puppet of Iran would be begging to sign anything that would keep them off our radar...
That should have been done a long time ago. It wouldn't surprise me a bit that Iran has nuclear weapons now. Iran won't announce it is a nuclear power until it has at least 5 functional/deliverable warheads.
DeleteIt would take putting our troops on the ground to take on Iran. The geography in Iran would make a war with troops a nightmare. I thought we already learned our lesson in Iraq with that phony war and as we all can see, Americans do hot want to get involved in a Middle East war again. Also, Iran will have nukes sooner or later anyway, so why even entertain attacking this nation. Let Israel do the deed. It is time for Israel to step up to the plate instead of getting the USA to do it for them. -USSNJ
DeleteTwinsdad, the keyword in your post above is "probably". You said "if we hit Iran, we would set them back 20 years and probably start an internal civil war". This may be the scenario you wish for, but we could also stir up the entire Arab population and the results would be attacks on Americans throughout the world. No American would be safe anywhere outside of the USA. The Iranian people would probably come together, not apart and if Iran does have a nuke, they most assuredly would use it on Israel. -USSNJ
Delete
ReplyDeleteThis is a proxy war versus Iran. Obama could not care less about Syria. Obama was a coward versus Iran in regards to its nuclear weapons ambitions. Obama is hoping this scares Iran in to stopping. It won't, Iran will see Syrian intervention as further proof of the need for nuclear weapons. But NOW, Obama has a scapegoat. Republicans PUSHED for WAR. McCain and his clan.
I agree Live. The tell was the video of the Obama political operatives exiting the White House late this afternoon. Obama could care less about the situation. Once an organizer, always an organizer. All he cares about is the next election and his Obamacare orgasm.
DeleteDrill baby drill. Supply Isreal with whatever they need to protect themselves. Let the civil wars in just about every Middle Eastern country settle themselves out.
Did the Muslims help the North in our Civil war?
Mr. livefree, Israel is on its own as we now can all see. Americans have had enough of these wars and now that we are going to be energy positive with all of the domestic oil in the USA, we no longer need Israel to play junkyard dog to protect the oil fields in Saudi Arabia. -USSNJ
Delete