Syria (Page 3)

big time ditto.

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy if he chooses to bypass congress.

Agreed.

I'll admit I voted for Obama, I had hope that he would be different.  I think I have finally lost all faith in him and our leadership in Washington (I held on longer then most, I know!).  I don't think I'll ever vote for another D or R again.

Well said.

Because we are the ones to take the heat from it then, especially if things go bad.

I think it is pretty well understood we are talking about military actions.

If an USAF pilot drops a bombm he's been "introduced". No different than a Navy guy pushing a button for a cruise missle, or some guy flying a drone. Military actions, introduce US Forces.

If Obama wants to declare war on Syria, then let him make his case. But I'm done with the US taking military actions all over the world.

My definition of intervention is armed conflict.  There is no distinction between boots on the ground or lasers from space in the War Powers Resolution.  It simply states that the president cannot commit our troops to armed conflict without the consent of congress, unless there is a national emergency due to us being attacked.  Even then, he only has 60 days that he's allowed without congressional consent.

I know that Reagan, Clinton, and Bush have all violated this act, but Obama was such an outspoken critic of Bush getting us into conflicts without congressional consent, it makes for a unique political aspect to intervention as well.

From Wiki:

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)^[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. The War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past by President Reagan in regards to the aid to the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for violations.^[2][3] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

Historical filters and microscopes are not really good for comparison. Not at all saying Obama has said anything worthy.... but history plays a big part on what importance we do or don't give speeches from the past. I'm sure the past held an equal amount of BS for any given time point.

They meant something in the last administration......Bush's problem was target acquisition.

Good point!  I stand (humbly) corrected. 

Regardless of the reason(s) behind the decision, I have respect for President Obama seeking authorization from Congress before ordering military strikes against Syria.  

I would love it if the Obama Doctrine turns out to be seeking Congressional approval before military action.  It's hard to square with Libya, but it's never too late to start.

Dude, seriously... who cares about the Pres... he wanted the job, criticized the Pres of all the wrong decisions he made for 2 straight years, now it's his turn. Seriously... you make a case for 400 gassed kids... and then you want to defend the Presidents be cause he will be "criticized".

Again... if the GLOBAL community has rules about chemical weapons use, and the GLOBAL community does not like that they did use them, and there has to be some sort of punishment... then what difference does it make what one man is going to do? I think the entire problem with this nation is that everybody is ACTUALLY concerned what ONE man is going to do... when there is 6 billion people on this planet. How about the WORLD stand up and do SOMETHING?

I think we should support they guys who are willing to eat the heart and liver of their dead enemies,,,, at least I think the dude was dead.

Personally I think the majority of the people in other countries we give money to laugh at us for doing it.

So, we have a topic on Syria, and you use it to take some shots on those you think are taking shots. I have someone I think you would like to meet....

But let's take your example of 2000 kids gassed. Russia does not threaten to withhold all military aid if chemical weapons are used again. France does not send their warships to the area. Britain does not plan airal strikes. Nobody in the region condemns their actions. Nobody tries to play third party and broker a peace. Nobody has any other thoughts outside the box.... and yet the U.S. is the only one that is supposed to take military action? The U.S. is the only country that has to take the heat from extremist Muslims that vow revenge? The U.S. is the only country on the planet that will lift a finger over kids getting gassed.... ya, what's wrong with that picture?

I agree.  BO wants to hold Congress' feet to the fire; he WANTS a vote that can be used for/against that member in the next election cycle.  And, while I LOVE the idea of making our elected leaders accountable, I HATE the idea that this country's World Standing (yes, we most certainly DO have a certain ...standing....as a world leader) is being squandered for the sake of political posturing.

"If you think too much about being re-elected, it is very difficult to be WORTH re-electing."  Woodrow Wilson.

Someone crashes their bike on the side of the road, and everyone else drives by. Do you drive by too just because no one else stopped?