Is Syria Obama's legacy and what he will be remembered by in future ?

[shahinc]

There are some really good discussion in the videos that are posted in this link. I highly recommend you guys to watch them.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Fatso]

I think the NSA stuff will overshadow this all when history judges him.

 

[beystr 2.0]

This Syria attack especially if it's done without U.N. and no congressional approval will become Obama's " gate" in the 2nd term...Syria Gate will save the republican party and they'll be hammering democrats on the way to White House in 016...thank god if that can make Mrs. Clinton kiss that idea goodbye..

 

[ChaharMahal]

if Obama was in the first term, he would have likely attacked Syria with any hesitation.
That's because politically as a democrat he needed to show that he is not afraid to pull the trigger.

politically Americans simply don't give a darn about Syria and that's Mccain Left and right complaining has not gone anywhere.

Israel loves the status quo in Syria, where Hamas Esq groups are spending their energy fighting Asad.

I think Obama's legacy will be formed by the economy, Iraq pull out, Afghanistan surge, gay marriage endorsement

There is no clear American interest in Syria.

 

[Behrooz_C]

Last time America went it alone was in Vietnam. Now that didn't go too badly, did it

 

[shahinc]

Listening to CNN right now and Obama is getting crucified for his speech today. They are accusing him as being indecisive and for putting the responsibility on the shoulder of the congress. It is really not pretty.

 

[Flint]

There is no clear American interest in Syria.

Yes, but. Syria alone is not a factor. Syria is the third leg of the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria stool. You kick the Syrian leg from under it and the whole thing comes crashing down. Well worth it, imo.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Yes, but. Syria alone is not a factor. But Syria is the third leg of the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria stool. You kick the Syrian leg from under it and the whole thing comes crashing down. Well worth it, imo.

believe if Israel thought Syria falling into opposition hand was the best course for them. they would have had half of u.s congress ready to launch a war on behalf of them.

the reality is Syria has no major oil deposits.
it has not posed a threat to Israel for over 40 years.
It is a country that really has no strategic value other than access to Mediterranean sea.

in political science you always assume that the evil you know is better than the evil you don't know.

and it is not like U.S has to put up with Asad, they can just let both sides fight it out.

once they are out of gas. a Lebanon esque portioning of the country can be devised.

 

[Behrooz_C]

Obama wants a legacy? Bomb Syria into oblivion and then help remove the regime in Iran. He will go down in history, good or bad

 

[IPride]

What Obama pulled off today is a political jedi master move.

First - he is trying to set a precedent for future presidents to consult congress before using military force
Second - By doing this, he is kind of sounding consistent with his opposition against the Iraq war
Third - He is putting the ball in the Republicans court - if they vote against it, they'll come off as chicken shits who are weakening Americas place in the world and if they vote for it, they'll be seen as supporting the country's leader and helping him and democrats score political points.l

 

[Behrooz_C]

When the Kerrys met the Assads

 

[shahinc]

What Obama pulled off today is a political jedi master move.

First - he is trying to set a precedent for future presidents to consult congress before using military force
Second - By doing this, he is kind of sounding consistent with his opposition against the Iraq war
Third - He is putting the ball in the Republicans court - if they vote against it, they'll come off as chicken shits who are weakening Americas place in the world and if they vote for it, they'll be seen as supporting the country's leader and helping him and democrats score political points.l

As I said on the other thread, I don't think American people are that stupid. Listen to all the news agencies right now and all of them are critical of Obama for first, setting the red line and now dumping the decision to Congress. They are all talking about his indecisiveness and ineffectiveness facing the issue of Syria.

So I am surprised that you thought this was a political master move because from all I am hearing, it has been considered a political blunder in his part.

 

[Flint]

What Obama pulled off today is a political jedi master move.

I have a feeling if Obama gets out of bed next day you call it a political jedi master move.

Let me tell you what really happened. He got cold feet. What better way of passing the buck than asking Congress to approve his move. He doesn't need it. He is the commander in chief. If he can't on his own fire a few missiles what sort of commander is he? He is not going to war with Syria to need authorization. Look at how Israel does it. No saber rattling, no hot air, no early warning. All that Syrians hear is a loud boom. Anything else and you are not taken seriously over there.

 

[footballeirani]

What Obama pulled off today is a political jedi master move.

First - he is trying to set a precedent for future presidents to consult congress before using military force
Second - By doing this, he is kind of sounding consistent with his opposition against the Iraq war
Third - He is putting the ball in the Republicans court - if they vote against it, they'll come off as chicken shits who are weakening Americas place in the world and if they vote for it, they'll be seen as supporting the country's leader and helping him and democrats score political points.l

First of all George Bush also asked for congressional approval for use of force in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Reading some people's posts, you would think they started paying attention to politics when Obama became president.

 

[footballeirani]

George Bush had congressional approval for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. To my understanding Obama did not even have a congressional approval for use of force in Libya. But they went ahead and attacked anyway. Can you imagine a republican president doing something like that today?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/politics/25powers.html?_r=0

 

[Flint]

George Bush had congressional approval for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Yes. Hillary couldn't run to the microphones fast enough to take credit for the removal of Saddam.

 

[Mahdi]

To my understanding Obama did not even have a congressional approval for use of force in Libya. But they went ahead and attacked anyway. Can you imagine a republican president doing something like that today?

That was a NATO attack

Reading some peoples' posts, you would think they never paid attention to politics

 

[footballeirani]

That was a NATO attack

Reading some peoples' posts, you would think they never paid attention to politics

The congress voted on and rejected use of force in Libya. When was the last time US unilaterally striked without any coalition whatsoever?

 

[Mahdi]

The congress voted on and rejected use of force in Libya. When was the last time US unilaterally striked without any coalition whatsoever?

LOL

it was a NATO attack...that's not unilateral

google NATO

FFS

 

[footballeirani]

Apparently you cant even read. I did not say the Libyan conflict was unilateral. What I asked was when was the last time America attacked another country unilaterally with no coalition? With or without a coalition the congress votes on use of force and later on the funding. The significance of asking for a congressional vote is that potential strikes may be more severe and longer lasting.

Either way I think my point is pretty clear.