|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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?
Yes, this is the correct thing to do. But, if they vote against him? He will go ahead with force anyway.
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!
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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
Doesn't every President? But, this notion is just too far fetched.
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
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.
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.
by Susie Lehto14 months ago
More than 50 tomahawk missiles were launched from US Navy destroyers, targeting an airfield near Homs, the report said, citing a US official.More to follow..* http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-07/repo …...
by crankalicious14 months ago
Here are a few statements Donald Trump has made:Sept. 2013:We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZEROInterview...
by JAKE Earthshine8 days ago
ABOVE: Trump Accusers that we know of: Is Mr. Trump above he law or will these women get their day in court to prove these horrific accusations?
by Sherrie Weynand14 months ago
Do you agree or disagree with President Trumps attack on Syria today?
by Deforest4 years ago
How come my president is prompter to believe takfiri dogs/criminals versus Assad? Any interests involved? Your opinion. I've noticed that not many people are concerned on the subject. Fear of a potential retaliation...
by Mike Russo14 months ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.