Forum Thread

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves Use of Force Against Syria

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 2 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a use of force authorization allowing President Obama to use military force against Syria. President Obama surprised nearly everyone when he declared that he wished to use force against Syria, but asked Congress to give him authorization to do so. The vote exposed the wide rift between a range of ideological camps on the committee and only shows how difficult a climb it will be to get passage out of the full Senate, let alone the House of Representatives. If that weren't enough, Senator Rand Paul has already suggested that he may do a talking filibuster to thwart the measure from moving forward.

    The President's request has created a strange group of bedfellows with anti-war Democrats and Tea-Party Republicans joining forces in attempt to derail the war effort, along with hawkish Democrats and Republicans coming together to support the President's request. In my personal opinion, I am incredibly torn on the entire subject. The use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should never be used in a theater of war, but I question what our overall mission is with regards to this strike. I do not support a bombing campaign in order to "save face" in the international community because President Obama stated a year ago that there is a red line that Syria can not cross. I am against a war that is solely for the purpose of showing the rest of the world that if we say we'll bomb you, we will. On the other hand, if we have a clear objective in this bombing campaign, I will be willing to line up behind our President in support of the mission.

    What is everyone's thoughts on the vote today? Does anyone think that the Senate measure will be adopted as is, or will the House try to insert additional language in order to get it out of that body?
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    But, ..."save face"... unfortunately is at least partly what this is all about. President Obama made some unfortunate remarks and now feels the need to follow through with his threat. And yes, it was President Obama who made the "Red Line" threat, not the "world". I don't expect him to apologize for making some stupid remarks, but he could find a diplomatic, and honest, way to change his stance.

    The warmongerers like Obama, Kerry, Hagel, McCain(of course), Boener, and even Hillary have shown their true allegiances and have won this round for more war. I still hope cooler heads will prevail. It is not too late to have a little restraint in this situation.

    President Obama said ..."My credibility is not on the line..." Wrong! President Obama put his and Americas credibility on the line with his "Red Line" speech. He said it and should not be trying to deny it!

    President Obama said "We have to act." meaning bomb Syria. "Have to"? Why? Why can't we talk about what to do? This shows that he has made up his mind.

    Kerry said that he "KNOWS" that Assad will use Chemical weapons again if we do not bomb Syria. He "KNOWS" it? How? I would think it is very possible that Assad will do it again, but I do not claim to KNOW what Assad will do. Does Kerry belong to the "Psychic Hot Line"? How does he or anyone else "KNOW" what Assad will do?

    McCain agreed to the strikes but has indicated that he wants MORE military action. MORE? What? Nukes? Would that finally make him happy?

    President Putin has apparently called Sec Kerry a "liar" today". He may be correct.

    It gets worse by the day... More war is almost never the answer.