I want to see if Obama has the stones to go ahead and attack when Congress votes no.

HitsRus;1497919 wrote:sigh...can we just stop groveling and trying to justify an 'unbelievably small' operation...just smack Syria's hand and be done with it. You don't need to build a consensus for an 'unbelievably small' operation. You are not going to get the security council to hand you a formal okie dokey....not with China and Russia blocking anything even close to that. You are not going to get a compelling okie dokey from Congress or the American people. Act like a president...act like a superpower...quit asking everybody's permission...just do what you feel has to be done in the interest of the American people, take responsibility and move on. All this dithering is humiliating and sends mixed signals.


The problem, I suspect, is the 'take responsibility' part. This administration doesn't take ownership for anything.

I actually think he should have struck with cruise missiles, informed Congress a few hours before, then went on TV, and explain, laying out all the evidence for the strike.
Then, the President would have been in control of the situation. Instead, it is a PR and policy mess.
And, yes, President's have done that before, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

ptown_trojans_1;1497973 wrote:I actually think he should have struck with cruise missiles, informed Congress a few hours before, then went on TV, and explain, laying out all the evidence for the strike.

Agree 100%.

The problem is BHO views everything he says and does thru the campaign/popularity prism. The man doesn't have an ounce of real leadership in his body.

gut;1497981 wrote:The problem is BHO views everything he says and does thru the campaign/popularity prism. The man doesn't have an ounce of real leadership in his body.

This and as HitRus says, Barry refuses to accept responsibility for any of his actions - or inactions.

He has surpassed Carter in terms of "namby pamby" and "wishy washy".

In my lifetime I've never seen a bigger wuss in the WH.

believer;1497991 wrote: In my lifetime I've never seen a bigger wuss in the WH.

What a neocon non-sequitur. I cannot attach statements like "wuss" or "brass balls" to the WH - that implies something about the office that it is not, and should not be.

BHO is not a leader and not willing to take any accountability. Everything he does is designed to position himself to shift blame and responsibility on to someone else. The end-game for BHO is Bill Clinton-like admiration so he can continue to shape and influence politics for decades after leaving office. He DOES NOT want to be GWB "exiled" into non-relevance.

Con_Alma;1497732 wrote:We must respond to anyone violating such agreements of use of these heinous weapons.

I don't care if the response was immediately or in 12 months. It really doesn't matter. The world should know if you use chemical weapons you will see the force of the U.S. military.

Does this not assume authority?

If not, how does it not?

If so, by what appeal does it do so?

O-Trap;1498006 wrote:Does this not assume authority?

If not, how does it not?

If so, by what appeal does it do so?

You really have to pick and choose your spots to act unilaterally (or even with a "coalition of the willing") outside the UN. The UN's impotence can work to your advantage in avoiding getting involved in a lot of quagmires that serve no economic or national security interest. It's bad enough playing world police, but at least with the cover of the UN we can deflect choosing not to intervene in every civil war and human atrocity.

I don't want to start debating Iraq, but there's an example of what you are arguing in terms of demonstrating that the US will not subject it's national security interest to UN control.

gut;1498007 wrote:You really have to pick and choose your spots to act unilaterally (or even with a "coalition of the willing") outside the UN.

At the risk of sounding antagonistic (I genuinely mean for this to be more inquisitive), that sounds a LOT like arbitrariness. By "picking and choosing," does that not really boil down to using our own criteria, which we control, to dictate our own actions?

gut;1498007 wrote:The UN's impotence can work to your advantage in avoiding getting involved in a lot of quagmires that serve no economic or national security interest. It's bad enough playing world police, but at least with the cover of the UN we can deflect choosing not to intervene in every civil war and human atrocity.

And this sounds strangely like a scapegoat for acting hypocritically. Again, I don't mean it to sound antagonistic, but I can't think of a better way to put it.

Did Russia just blink? Or is their offer for international control of Syria's chemical arsenal another point and laugh at Kerry for running off at the mouth? This entire mess is a clusterduck of phenomenal proportions.

O-Trap;1498016 wrote: By "picking and choosing," does that not really boil down to using our own criteria, which we control, to dictate our own actions?

That's precisely what it is. But I suppose what I meant to say was we need a very high standard/criteria for unilateral action. Syria doesn't come close.

Call it what you want, the ability to deflect or hide behind the UN has a lot of political value. And not doing so actually imposes political costs. Everyone acts in their own self-interest. That's what makes the UN so impotent, and at the same time offers valuable political cover.

gut;1498037 wrote:That's precisely what it is. But I suppose what I meant to say was we need a very high standard/criteria for unilateral action. Syria doesn't come close.

I suppose the issue I take with that is that even determining what is a "high" standard or set of criteria would be arbitrary. Also, by what appeal is it established that we need to determine a high standard or set of criteria, anyway?

Since there seems to be no objective plumb line, there equally seems to be no objective justification for acting.

One might say, "Correct; so what's wrong with that?" I would contend that's a pretty easy question to ask as a world power. A parallel could be drawn during the pre-Civil Rights era. A white person may campaign for such subjectivity in how he engages people who are not. I submit that would be no better or worse than picking how to deal with other autonomous nations based on our whims at the time.

gut;1498037 wrote: Call it what you want, the ability to deflect or hide behind the UN has a lot of political value. And not doing so actually imposes political costs. Everyone acts in their own self-interest. That's what makes the UN so impotent, and at the same time offers valuable political cover.

Still sounds like, "I'll do what I want, and I'll blame the UN if it doesn't make sense."

Does that not strike you as illogical, whether or not we're acting in our own interest ... or at least our own perceived interest?

O-Trap;1498006 wrote:Does this not assume authority?

If not, how does it not?

If so, by what appeal does it do so?

Authority is granted. Power is taken.

I have no issue with the U.S. using it's power against any leader who orders atrocities against it's people.

ptown_trojans_1;1497973 wrote:I actually think he should have struck with cruise missiles, informed Congress a few hours before, then went on TV, and explain, laying out all the evidence for the strike.
Then, the President would have been in control of the situation. Instead, it is a PR and policy mess.
And, yes, President's have done that before, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

I agree completely.

Con_Alma;1498093 wrote:Authority is granted. Power is taken.

I have no issue with the U.S. using it's power against any leader who orders atrocities against it's people.

Power is exercised via authority.

Would you feel the same way if a nation did the same in the US, based on their own arbitrary criteria?

It's a nonsensical, subjective view.

HitsRus;1497919 wrote:sigh...can we just stop groveling and trying to justify an 'unbelievably small' operation...just smack Syria's hand and be done with it. You don't need to build a consensus for an 'unbelievably small' operation. You are not going to get the security council to hand you a formal okie dokey....not with China and Russia blocking anything even close to that. You are not going to get a compelling okie dokey from Congress or the American people. Act like a president...act like a superpower...quit asking everybody's permission...just do what you feel has to be done in the interest of the American people, take responsibility and move on. All this dithering is humiliating and sends mixed signals.


The problem, I suspect, is the 'take responsibility' part. This administration doesn't take ownership for anything.

Amen to all of this.

O-Trap;1498097 wrote:Power is exercised via authority.

Would you feel the same way if a nation did the same in the US, based on their own arbitrary criteria?

It's a nonsensical, subjective view.

They have...and when they do we respond. My feelings do not change at all.

Con_Alma;1498099 wrote:They have...and when they do we respond. My feelings do not change at all.

You don't, then, have any objective problem with people flying planes into our buildings, then? They are, after all, just attacking who they perceive to be the oppressors and bad guys.

O-Trap;1498110 wrote:You don't, then, have any objective problem with people flying planes into our buildings, then? They are, after all, just attacking who they perceive to be the oppressors and bad guys.

My "feelings" lead me to continue to seek out people with such desire and throttle their efforts. Even more important is maintaining the power to do so. Should such an attack be successful, I would expect us to respond with significance.

The simple answer is I don't have an "objective problem" with the above scenario because of the U.S.'s ability to carry out such a solution.

Con_Alma;1498115 wrote:My "feelings" lead me to continue to seek out people with such desire and throttle their efforts. Even more important is maintaining the power to do so. Should such an attack be successful, I would expect us to respond with significance.

The simple answer is I don't have an "objective problem" with the above scenario because of the U.S.'s ability to carry out such a solution.

Then, I daresay you would neither have an "objective problem" with that scenario if we no longer had such an ability. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Essentially, you've said you see nothing inherently wrong with terrorism and chaos. That's interesting, if nothing else.

How are you not a voluntaryist?

O-Trap;1498124 wrote:Then, I daresay you would neither have an "objective problem" with that scenario if we no longer had such an ability. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Essentially, you've said you see nothing inherently wrong with terrorism and chaos. That's interesting, if nothing else.

How are you not a voluntaryist?

I have no problem with aggressively carrying out what is believed to be right...no matter the ability to do so.

It does, however, create the greatest of importance to maintain such ability. That is very difficult to achieve being a voluntaryist. No thanks.

Con_Alma;1498131 wrote:I have no problem with aggressively carrying out what is believed to be right...no matter the ability to do so.

But you've said that you recognize no objective truth on this. As such, how can you believe anything to be "right," if you out-rightly reject objective "right?"

Con_Alma;1498131 wrote:It does, however, create the greatest of importance to maintain such ability. That is very difficult to achieve being a voluntaryist. No thanks.

That's exactly what you're espousing on a macro level, though. Might makes right. What is that, if not the natural devolution of absolute voluntaryism on a macro scale?

O-Trap;1498143 wrote:But you've said that you recognize no objective truth on this. ...

[quote/]

I think it is you that said that about me

O-Trap;1498143 wrote:...That's exactly what you're espousing on a macro level, though. Might makes right. What is that, if not the natural devolution of absolute voluntaryism on a macro scale?

Might doesn't make anything right.

Might gives you the ability to protect your beliefs and eliminate those you are opposed to.

O-Trap;1498044 wrote: Still sounds like, "I'll do what I want, and I'll blame the UN if it doesn't make sense."

No, I mean it to sound like "I'll do what I need, and blame the UN for not doing what people want"

Essentially you are advocating knee-capping the purpose the UN exists. As impotent as the UN may be, if you can't see the danger/risk in undermining the UN unnecessarily I can't help you. The global political fallout from acting outside the UN is very real, and that's why choosing to do so has to be very seriously contemplated.

Presumably the whole world opposed WMD's. If the UN won't act I don't feel the US should take it upon itself to rid the world of WMD's. It doesn't appear to have been an effective strategy, for starters, and it's a completely and totally unrealistic goal.

Con_Alma;1498154 wrote:I think it is you that said that about me

I was referencing this:

Con_Alma;1498115 wrote:The simple answer is I don't have an "objective problem" with the above scenario because of the U.S.'s ability to carry out such a solution.

Con_Alma;1498154 wrote:Might doesn't make anything right.

Might give you the ability to protect your beliefs and eliminate those you are opposed to.

How is that different? See the definition of the maxim itself: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Might+makes+right

gut;1498155 wrote:No, I mean it to sound like "I'll do what I need, and blame the UN for not doing what people want"

Essentially you are advocating knee-capping the purpose the UN exists. As impotent as the UN may be, if you can't see the danger/risk in undermining the UN unnecessarily I can't help you. The global political fallout from acting outside the UN is very real, and that's why choosing to do so has to be very seriously contemplated.

Presumably the whole world opposed WMD's. If the UN won't act I don't feel the US should take it upon itself to rid the world of WMD's. It doesn't appear to have been an effective strategy, for starters, and it's a completely and totally unrealistic goal.

That seems to clear it up some. Still, I'd suggest that there is little to nothing unilateral, short of defending direct attacks on homeland or citizenry, that is a "need." Beyond that, I think "want" is still a more appropriate term.

I would ask that you do try to explain the legitimacy for keeping an ineffective, impotent organization. Is it because nations sympathize with it, like a figure-head? Is it because it can, indeed, act as a scapegoat (I find that hard to believe, as virtually anyone can see it to be a bit of a neutered dog)?