In the case of Syria, is Obama correct in asking the vote of Congress?

1. 69

   alexandriaruthkposted 10 years ago

   In the case of Syria, is Obama correct in asking the vote of Congress?
   
   or he should have acted and should not have sought the Congress approval?

   replyreport
2. 0

   JThomp42posted 10 years ago

   Yes, this is the correct thing to do. But, if they vote against him? He will go ahead with force anyway.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Michael Pelletierposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes , Congress should vote on all his decisions !
      I think the U.S. soldiers are tired of fighting other peoples wars , hopefully times are changing .

      replyreport
3. 40

   Borsiaposted 10 years ago

   It should require Congressional approval for any act of war against a country that hasn't physically attacked the US.
   The question of whether the US should use military force against Syria based on entirely sketchy unconfirmed reports can have only one answer,,, NO!
   
   92% of the American people want nothing to do with Syria or want to come to the aid of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other Islamic mercenaries.
   
   Consider who would gain from US military action?
   We know very well that the extremist are more than willing to murder innocent men, women and children; they do it every day.
   
   On the other hand we have no solid evidence that Assad has gassed anyone.
   The US needs to stay out of Syria and get out of the Middle East completely!

   replyreport
4. 61

   duffsmomposted 10 years ago

   While it wasn't necessary, I believe he did it so cover his ---well you know.  This way he does not bear sole responsibility for the action if it turns sour--which I believe it will.

   replyreport
5. 45

   thomasczechposted 10 years ago

   I think Obama is wrong in pushing for war with Syria all together. Most people do not agree with anyone using any sort of chemical weapons, but in the case with Syria, there is no proof that Assad used them, but evidence has come out that the AlQaeda backed rebels did use them. Why is Obama and his regime continually putting blame on Assad and ignoring that the rebels used them? Also, the USA has used napalm and recently used white phosphorus on people, why is this ignored. There are so many issues that should be addressed, but it is unjust and illegal to attack a nation without proof of wrongdoing. The Obama regime must stop having oneset of rules for themselves and another for everyone else. Feel free to read both blogs: http://thomasczech.hubpages.com/hub/On- … nk-of-WW-3 …
   http://thomasczech.hubpages.com/hub/War-Speak

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      When did we use napalm?? This is absurd!!

      replyreport
   2. 45

      thomasczechposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      the napalm reference was about the past. Vietnam. But nevertheless, usa uses white phosphorus now. That is a fact, where there is no evidence Assad uses chem weapons but evidence AlQaeda backed rebels, the same rebels Obama is supporting have.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why would we back terrorist who only want to kill us? This argument is so far from absurd. We are currently fighting against them in Afghanistan.

      replyreport
   4. 45

      thomasczechposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why is Obama supporting AlQaeda? That is a good question. The rebels are backed by AlQaeda. Yes fighting them in Afghanistan (And murdering innocent civilians) and yet supporting them in Syria. The Obama regime is a regime that lies, manipulates

      replyreport
   5. 0

      JThomp42posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Doesn't every President? But, this notion is just too far fetched.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      ptosisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      'nam????

      replyreport
6. 67

   ptosisposted 10 years ago

   
   
   Under the War Powers Act, Obama doesn't need to have Congress permission. Who benefits? Saudi Arabia that who.
   
   "Why is Obama intending to have American military fight for al-Qaida interests at the same time charge American ex-serviceman Eric Harroun for doing the same thing?" - From http://ptosis.hubpages.com/hub/Syrian-F … eo-Reports

   replyreport
7. 0

   Copper Manposted 10 years ago

   I would say so. We have gone the other route all too often in the past, with Congress having to OK a conflict in progress after the fact. If a situation is serious enough to warrant war action, Congress (and the people) should have the intestinal fortitude to head up the decision making process.

   replyreport
8. 66

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   I personally think when the US is not under direct threat, the answer is yes. Either way he is a hypocrite.  He asked for no such vote in Libya.  So if he no claims that this is the correct constitutional process, than he was in violation of the constitution while launching bombing missions in Libya.

   replyreport
   1. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He also set up an embassy in Libya when they had no government, no military, no police and no security. We all know how well that worked out.
      Obama is a do now, think later kind of guy not much of a president

      replyreport