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

beystr 2.0

Bench Warmer
Jul 9, 2006
1,983
0
#21
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.
Now that is another fairy tale said and repeated enough times and we all think of it as a fact...how self righteous to bomb and send another country to hell just based on some fossil pundits assumption that oh yes...these 3 form an incredible power and killing one would start a domino effect..? ..

The fact is...yes IRI may have few allies , if u can call it that...so Hezbollah and Syria may be quite important to IRI but vital as a life line..? doubt it..after all Syrians owe IRI some 20+ Billion dollars and Hezabollah is on the payroll....but what exactly have these 2 done to save IRI?..not a whole lot...

The other fact is...the more u try to get rid of IRI based on some Hollywood mentality and bunch of drug induced delusions...the more u have strengthen them..more u have given the excuse to be hard core and not democratic...the more u have essentially weaken the Iranian people...
 

Mahdi

Well-known member
Jan 1, 1970
6,993
496
Mjunik
#22
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.
It's not and you're making it even worse. You mention Libya and then you talk about unilateral strike. One had nothing to do with the other. If you thought the same, then make it clearer next time. You kept dragging Libya into some argument about unilateral attacks...obviously UOENO.

Further your comparison makes even no sense at all since in 2001 and 2003 both congress and president were Republican and the mood in general was favorable for an attack while this time it's not. That's what adds points to IPride's argument.

On the other hand, we could sit here and believe people on ISP who said Obama will lose the second term because he opted to care for health care instead of the economy in 2009 and some bullshit someone said on CNN. Anyway....one thing that is clear is that you haven't paid attention to politics. LOL.
 
Jun 18, 2005
10,888
0
#23
Another typical Mahdi response that pretty much avoids the point and brings shit to the table.

You said the Libyan conflict involved the NATO and really did not require congressional approval. I asked when was the last time US went at it alone? Been a while but regardless of NATO being involved or not the president usually asks for congressional approval. Its not a new trend started just by Obama.

I think that is pretty self explanatory. I really do not wish to engage in kindergarten level discussions with you. Apparently you still have not grown up.
 

Mahdi

Well-known member
Jan 1, 1970
6,993
496
Mjunik
#24
Another typical Mahdi response that pretty much avoids the point and brings shit to the table.

You said the Libyan conflict involved the NATO and really did not require congressional approval. I asked when was the last time US went at it alone? Been a while but regardless of NATO being involved or not the president usually asks for congressional approval. Its not a new trend started just by Obama.

I think that is pretty self explanatory. I really do not wish to engage in kindergarten level discussions with you. Apparently you still have not grown up.
Really? Like Clinton did when NATO attacked Kosovo/Serbia? LOL!
 
Jun 18, 2005
10,888
0
#25
Congress voted against declaring war on Kosovo. Clinton cited presidential powers and circumvented the congress. Why? Because he knew it would be voted down. If he had the votes he would have asked for their approval. Obama may not get the votes either, difference this time is strikes will not take place if congress says no and that wont look good.

What Clinton did in Kosovo was pretty controversial.

http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#27
That was a NATO attack

Reading some peoples' posts, you would think they never paid attention to politics
You do realize NATO is really the US. "NATO" ran out of ammo the first weeks of Libya. You are jus trying to cover for Obama, that much is obvious.

"Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials."

"The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months."


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...als-cluster-bombs-munitions-in-civilian-areas
 
Jun 18, 2005
10,888
0
#28
Thanks to Mahdi bringing up Kosovo I found out that Bill Clinton was not so hot on getting the congress to approve use of force. Kosovo was just one example.

At least George Bush was consistent with consulting the congress first.
 

Mahdi

Well-known member
Jan 1, 1970
6,993
496
Mjunik
#29
Congress voted against declaring war on Kosovo. Clinton cited presidential powers and circumvented the congress. Why? Because he knew it would be voted down. If he had the votes he would have asked for their approval. Obama may not get the votes either, difference this time is strikes will not take place if congress says no and that wont look good.

What Clinton did in Kosovo was pretty controversial.

http://www.usasurvival.org/kosovowar.html

Which takes us to the point IPride mentioned. If congress votes it down, then congress/republicans voted down an attack on Syria and all that. The ball will then be with UN and others to strike for a humanitarian case or watch as the country goes down in flames and innocent people keep dying. He has made it clear that he wants to attack but he won't go over the congress' head. He doesn't have much to gain by attacking Syria and I guess his and the US's interests are what matter to him. Whether it will turn out like this or not is open, but at least it's a cohesive idea, unlike everything said so far by others. He did the mistake to talk about the red line but that's his get-out-of-jail-card. Not that difficult

Yes, thank you for reminding us that what Clinton did in Kosovo was controversial. I was actually alive back then and saw it close by :) What NATO did to Serbs with regards to Kosovo was a crime from an international law point of view. It would be like Afghans declaring an independent republic of Zahedan. Syria
You do realize NATO is really the US. "NATO" ran out of ammo the first weeks of Libya. You are jus trying to cover for Obama, that much is obvious.

"Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials."

"The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months."


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...als-cluster-bombs-munitions-in-civilian-areas
and your point is what exactly?

footballeirani said:
At least George Bush was consistent with consulting the congress first.
thank God!
 
Oct 18, 2002
16,341
197
#30
If I were Obama I would be rightly torn on the question of whether I should attack Syria or not.

There are important consequences.

An American Attack would likely destroy the Syrian Airforce and thus tipping the balance toward opposition.

The issue is an overwhelming part of the opposition is Saudi financed and basically fundamentalist Salafis.

The fall of Asad would likely hand over Syria to AlQada/Saudi Esque folks with the Turkish faction being at minority.

Then you would have years of fighting between that Salafi Faction and Kurds and the Alawites and possibly druze.

An American Action will likely even if it lasts only a few days could determine the final winner in this conflict.

That Winner is very likely to be just as violent and unforgiving as the current regime.

on the other hand doing nothing appears to be non optimal option as well.

either way all paths lead to terrible outcomes for Syrians.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#31
and your point is what exactly?
That you think NATO is some independent self-sustaining force that the US just happens to be a member. If NATO goes to war, US goes to war. You were implying that since it was NATO's war no congressional action was needed. Phew, I'm exhausted!
 

Mahdi

Well-known member
Jan 1, 1970
6,993
496
Mjunik
#32
That you think NATO is some independent self-sustaining force that the US just happens to be a member. If NATO goes to war, US goes to war. You were implying that since it was NATO's war no congressional action was needed. Phew, I'm exhausted!
Nato is not the US though and the US attacking a country under NATO banner and the US attacking a country under the star spangled banner are two different things, at least from the viewpoint of international law and therefore, yes, congress becomes more irrelevant in that case.

thanks..case closed...
 
#33
Obama, despite his policies, will only be remembered to the media as "the first black President". For most of his time in the White House, most of his colleagues in Congress have been Republican so in situations like Syria, he has to think like a Republican. The economy is in recovery, so US has a bit of cash flying about so he can use this money to enforce military action on Syria. But in the end of the day, it is all about oil.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#34
Nato is not the US though and the US attacking a country under NATO banner and the US attacking a country under the star spangled banner are two different things, at least from the viewpoint of international law and therefore, yes, congress becomes more irrelevant in that case.

thanks..case closed...
You don't get to close the case, my friend. You are simply showing that you are too willing to be fooled. International law can say whatever it wants. NATO is NOTHING without the US. They don't have enough planes, ships, trucks or even bullets. When US goes to war, US goes to war. It doesn't matter what the cover story is.
 

Playboy

IPL Player
Oct 18, 2010
4,310
427
#38
i believe the legacy obama is going to leave behind from the syrian crisis is the fact that he is asking the congress to give him the go ahead.this is extremely important as it is going to give the american people the option to declare war on syria or not.if they choose to go ahead and declare war on syria then ordinary americans become legitimate target of retaliation by syrians.this is what obama is doing that is significant.he is telling the american people to think hard and decide what they want to do and then take the consequences and not whine about it later if it did not work out as expected.
 

IPride

National Team Player
Oct 18, 2002
5,885
0
Toronto, Canada
#39
So the latest consensus apparently is that it is actually unconstitutional for a president to go to undertake an act of war without direct authorization from the congress - Madison made sure it was explicit that the branch of government most likely to start the war, the executive branch, would require authorization. So that should settle whether Obama was right in setting a precedent or not.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#40
if they choose to go ahead and declare war on syria then ordinary americans become legitimate target of retaliation by syrians.
Your terrorist DNA is shining through, Mr. anti salafi+wahabi+al-qaeda. You mean to tell me if someone who is living on some farm and hasn't even heard of this debate needs to be killed because some douchbag politician voted for the war? How are you different from run of the mill suicide bombers? You are not, not that I had any doubts.