Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

I've been commenting about the logic of making chemical weapons a trigger for action, after a hundred thousand people have already been killed. And while I'm still highly dubious a bombing strike is going to help, I this WaPo article helped me understand the reasoning to a far greater degree than I had before.

Related, here's a live stream for Obama's comments in a few minutes, probably to announce the strikes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

 

[PhoenixDark]

I've been commenting about the logic of making chemical weapons a trigger for action, after a hundred thousand people have already been killed. And while I'm still highly dubious a bombing strike is going to help, I this WaPo article helped me understand the reasoning to a far greater degree than I had before.

Related, here's a live stream for Obama's comments in a few minutes, probably to announce the strikes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/president-obama-speaks-syria

From a strategy position, crippling Syria would further tip the scale in Saudi Arabia's scale during their proxy war with Iran; it would eliminate Iran's final ally in the area. Syria poses no threat to the US, but borders three countries that could be destabilized by the civil war. That being said, a US attack could very destabilize things faster. Syria has been at war for more than a year, I don't think another year of them fighting themselves will lead to some massive ME explosion. However, the US getting involved could very easily do that.

In terms of risk/reward there is no argument for attacking Syria. At best it won't stop Assad. At worse it could explode into something far bigger. So what's the point?

 

[786110]

I know he's going to speak in a few minutes but what's the likelihood that Obama goes to congress as a get out of jail free card.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Who is the conspiracy idiot on neogaf? And how did he find join this site?

 

[Tamanon]

I know he's going to speak in a few minutes but what's the likelihood that Obama goes to congress as a get out of jail free card.

Honestly, I think it'd be best, especially since it would take about as long as the UN report needs.

It's not like they wouldn't give authorization for force. Although the Dems might not want him to call Congress back so they don't have to go on record.

 

[Cloudy]

This is complete BS and I will be REALLY disappointed if Obama launches strikes to save face over this "red line" bullshit

Hey Obama, no allies want this. Even Bush had allies with him for Iraq and Afghanistan!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Who is the conspiracy idiot on neogaf? And how did he find join this site?

Gaf is filled with them.
See obesity, diet, economics and mental illness (except the mental illness OT, because we're cool like that) threads.

 

[Cloudy]

At least he's putting the onus on Congress. Will be interesting to see the hawks vote no just to spite Obama lol

 

[ClassyPenguin]

If the UK can outclass us then, yeah that'll hurt.

Or Rand Paul and Co. could actually do something useful for a change.

 

[cooljeanius]

link to thread for Obama speech:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=79280321

 

[R10Neymarfan]

And people in the OT still bag on Obama. Another dude once again mentionsed the Yemen drone nonsense again.

 

[zero_suit]

This is one instance where GOP obstructionism will come in handy.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Our hopes are with John Boehner now, fellas.

In the senate, Rand Paul could force a filibuster depending on the vote...

 

[B-Dubs]

Our hopes are with John Boehner now, fellas.

In the senate, Rand Paul could force a filibuster depending on the vote...

He won't bring it up unless he can be sure it won't go through, he understand the optics of a GOP House approving another mideast war.

 

[Tamanon]

Our hopes are with John Boehner now, fellas.

In the senate, Rand Paul could force a filibuster depending on the vote...

Rand Paul isn't going to do shit.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

 

[Cloudy]

GOP can't attack him for fecklessness while voting against this and the Dems can't argue against intervention while voting for it. I like it

 

[Tamanon]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

He wouldn't attack if they voted no. It's the perfect out.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is one instance where GOP obstructionism will come in handy.

Yeah... I kind of agree. Despite McCain and Ms. Graham's warmongering, saying no just to be contrarian to Obama won't necessarily be a bad thing...

 

[Cloudy]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

I didn't hear anything like that. Let them embarrass him by voting against this but he maintains his credibility. This is kind of a master stroke. We've been seeing a lot of anti-war Republicans this week since it's been politically convenient. Let them prove it...

 

[B-Dubs]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

If he was serious he would have actually done it, I'm hoping it's just rhetoric or a just in-case something big happens.

 

[RustyNails]

It sounded like Obama suggested he might still strike regardless of congress' vote. If that happens I would support impeachment. This has to end at some point or another, or we'll just continue down the same slippery slope.

Why would you want Obama impeached over a ceremonial vote?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Rand Paul isn't going to do shit.

I wasn't being completely sincere.

 

[kehs]

did pd just crosspost his silly post?

 

[Wilsongt]

did pd just crosspost his silly post?

PD gonna PD.

 

[remist]

It's the smart political move, but doesn't really mean anything because he still claims the power to unilaterally attack another country without congressional approval. It's basically just a call for a congressional referendum.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

#dictatorobama

 

[bonercop]

It's the smart political move, but doesn't really mean anything because he still claims the power to unilaterally attack another country without congressional approval. It's basically just a call for a congressional referendum.

If he is just posturing and congress votes not to go through with a strike, it'll look really bad for him. I think the political pressure at that point would force him to go with what congress wants. He's essentially ceded the responsibility to them, which is a very good thing.

 

[RustyNails]

If we're going to impeach Obama lets impeach him for having an affair with Susan Rice. PD do you agree?

 

[Gotchaye]

He should absolutely be pressed to explain more fully the reasoning for allowing Congress a vote on this as opposed to other things and to say to what extent he's obliged to obey Congress here. But he's not saying that if Congress tells him the wrong thing he's going to bomb Syria anyway. He's wanting to be clear that he's not setting a precedent that a president is obligated to get permission from Congress for a strike like this.

 

[PhoenixDark]

He bombed Libya without congress approval, to be fair

If we're going to impeach Obama lets impeach him for having an affair with Susan Rice. PD do you agree?

I'm being serious. The WPR is obviously a bit muddled, but I tend to believe a president needs congressional approval to start a war or greenlight a massive military operation - ESPECIALLY when there is absolutely no threat to the United States.

 

[remist]

If he is just posturing and congress votes not to go through with a strike, it'll look really bad for him. I think the political pressure at that point would force him to go with what congress wants. He's essentially ceded the responsibility to them, which is a very good thing.

I'd guess he's content with either scenario, just as long as he doesn't have to make a decision.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Obama isn't going to say he's legally obliged by congress. No president will, but politically he will be constrained he's conceded that.

 

[thefro]

He should absolutely be pressed to explain more fully the reasoning for allowing Congress a vote on this as opposed to other things and to say to what extent he's obliged to obey Congress here. But he's not saying that if Congress tells him the wrong thing he's going to bomb Syria anyway. He's wanting to be clear that he's not setting a precedent that a president is obligated to get permission from Congress for a strike like this.

Assad isn't an imminent threat to the US and military strikes are not time-sensitive.

 

[FyreWulff]

The reversal of the 'police action' presidential trend would be nice, but it didn't stop him from using it before, and I don't quite trust he won't just ignore them again. Feels more like a one-time deflection onto Congress as a political strategy.

Of course both parties are warhawks so I imagine they'll vote for it anyway.

 

[RustyNails]

He bombed Libya without congress approval, to be fair


I'm being serious. The WPR is obviously a bit muddled, but I tend to believe a president needs congressional approval to start a war or greenlight a massive military operation - ESPECIALLY when there is absolutely no threat to the United States.

Do you want the fate of free world rest in the hands of 500 people that may include idiots that hold crazy conspiracy theories and other kooky nonsense? There's a reason why the President gets vetted more than any other person in the world. The President does have the authority to engage in hostilities, provided he seek authorization if the engagement continues for more than 90 days. I'm perfectly fine if he does go with it.

 

[Tamanon]

I'd guess he's content with either scenario, just as long as he doesn't have to make a decision.

Well, it's not supposed to be his decision to begin with, so I'm fine with that.

 

[bonercop]

He should absolutely be pressed to explain more fully the reasoning for allowing Congress a vote on this as opposed to other things and to say to what extent he's obliged to obey Congress here. But he's not saying that if Congress tells him the wrong thing he's going to bomb Syria anyway. He's wanting to be clear that he's not setting a precedent that a president is obligated to get permission from Congress for a strike like this.

I'm actually sort of hoping that this is going to set a precedent for it. I don't think history shows anything positive gained from the way it works now.

Wishful thinking, I know, but it's encouraging to see both Britain and US leaders being at least a little scared of what the public thinks.

Do you want the fate of free world rest in the hands of 500 people that may include idiots that hold crazy conspiracy theories and other kooky nonsense? There's a reason why the President gets vetted more than any other person in the world. The President does have the authority to engage in hostilities, provided he seek authorization if the engagement continues for more than 90 days. I'm perfectly fine if he does go with it.

Do you want it in the hands of one potential idiot/conspiracy theorist who might not even be accountable if he's in his second term?

 

[Cloudy]

He bombed Libya without congress approval, to be fair

Wasn't there a supporting resolution passed soon after? The law is that he needs to get approval within 60 days or cease operations within 30 thereafter

 

[PhoenixDark]

The wait for Congress also gives Obama a chance to wait on UN chemical report, without having to say he's waiting on the UN.

https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/373869558513168384

Good point. I'm frustrated at the thought of putting hope in John Boehner and republicans to prevent a stupid war instead of Obama, but ultimately I'm glad he made the decision to ask congress. I've been on edge and quite angry about this situation for days, and want to apologize if folks have been annoyed by my posts. I think a strike on Syria, even a limited one, is a very very bad idea that could lead to a major shit storm pulling the US further into the situation (especially with respect to Lebanon).

 

[remist]

Obama isn't going to say he's legally obliged by congress. No president will, but politically he will be constrained he's conceded that.

That's the point, he has his cake and eats it too. He retains executive power to do as he will, but offloads the responsibility and political consequences off too congress when he doesn't want to make a hard decision.

Well, it's not supposed to be his decision to begin with, so I'm fine with that.

The problem is he still retains that power whenever he feels going to congress would be an annoyance.

 

[iamshadowlark]

https://twitter.com/NPRinskeep/status/373869558513168384

Good point. I'm frustrated at the thought of putting hope in John Boehner and republicans to prevent a stupid war instead of Obama, but ultimately I'm glad he made the decision to ask congress. I've been on edge and quite angry about this situation for days, and want to apologize if folks have been annoyed by my posts. I think a strike on Syria, even a limited one, is a very very bad idea that could lead to a major shit storm pulling the US further into the situation (especially with respect to Lebanon).

So what is your response for the actions in Syria? Thats what I never see from people against a strike.

 

[RustyNails]

Do you want it in the hands of one potential idiot/conspiracy theorist who might not even be accountable if he's in his second term?

There's a reason why the President gets vetted more than any other person in the world.

.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So what is your response for the actions in Syria? Thats what I never see from people against a strike.

Nothing. It's not our concern unless Assad attacks Turkey or Israel. The Syrian situation will resolve itself soon enough, if the reports about Assad winning are true. I'd rather have Assad in control of Syria than Al-Qaeda, or whatever fundamentalist "government" would take over.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do you want it in the hands of one potential idiot/conspiracy theorist who might not even be accountable if he's in his second term?

Congress has the power to stop any conflict, deny funding.

You also forget impeachment.

 

[remist]

So what is your response for the actions in Syria? Thats what I never see from people against a strike.

Nothing, I don't understand why people insist on doing something for the sake of doing something, no matter that the consequences may be worse than doing nothing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's the point, he has his cake and eats it too. He retains executive power to do as he will, but offloads the responsibility and political consequences off too congress when he doesn't want to make a hard decision.

I know I don't understand why people are thinking this is a big give back. Its optional and obama choose it. Presidents have taken action without congress many times. They will in the future too.

 

[bonercop]

.

Bush got through the process, so it can't be that impressive!

Congress has the power to stop any conflict. any conflict

Then what's the problem with extending their power a little bit more? I don't see the value in allowing the President to decide these things unilaterally.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Nothing, I don't understand why people insist on doing something for the sake of doing something, no matter that the consequences may be worse than doing nothing.

How does Syria get worse? Its already in the worst case scenario. I keep hearing us making it worse but its already in lebanon and iraq. Its already bled over, its already a proxy conflict. Doing nothing has in large part caused this. Not doing anything is a choice and it makes us responsible for the actions which come after.

And how does this look to Iran? The military option is supposed to bring about a diplomatic solution. If they don't believe we'll act how will it be effective in preventing that program? If anything this increased the chances of that war. (If congress votes no, if it votes yes than I think it actually further prevents it as it would show even when not wanting to they do back up their word)

 

[remist]

How does Syria get worse? Its already in the worst case scenario. I keep hearing us making it worse but its already in lebanon and iraq. Its already bled over, its already a proxy conflict. Doing nothing has in large part caused this. Not doing anything is a choice and it makes us responsible for the actions which come after.

And how does this look to Iran? The military option is supposed to bring about a diplomatic solution. If they don't believe we'll act how will it be effective in preventing that program?

What does the power vacuum look like if Assad gets deposed? Sectarian strife, secularists vs Islamists, attacks on Alawite minorities, the house of Saud with a strong influence. I would rather we stay out of it for purely selfish reasons.