Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank goodness we have the Congress to make sure our credibility stays intact.
Yes. They have been the bulwark to insuring the nation's business and best interests are looked after both internally and abroad.
This looks like a golden opportunity for the conservative congress to throw the president under the bus on an international level. It's sad that the running of the nation has come to this but not unexpected.
Not every republican is a old fossil like McCain who has been stuck in first gear for decades. Is the republican party turning a corner? Possibly.
Also, there is an election coming up and I think both sides are listening to the people and weighing their re-election. If they aren't listening, they should be. Americans are being very vocal about it not happening.
This military intervention is not a small issue. It may seem small to some people on the face of it - send a warning by dropping a few bombs and the Assad regime will back off - end of story, but it could end up being really big or some where in the middle.
Yep, I became a Centrist after realized what bad mistake I made voting for Reagan his 1st term. The wrong direction the gop was taking has only been exaggerated from that.
ur credibility would not be ask risk if the President didn't draw a line in the sand. It wouldn't be at risk if we learned to mind our own business..
If we became isolationists today, it would be the first time in a very long time. Is that what you want? I am not saying it is a bad idea. As a matter of fact I have preferred a much more limited role in world policing, which is why I have supported Ron Paul all this time, but the problem is that neither party seems to support that approach.
Yes. They have been the bulwark to insuring the nation's business and best interests are looked after both internally and abroad.
This looks like a golden opportunity for the conservative congress to throw the president under the bus on an international level. It's sad that the running of the nation has come to this but not unexpected.
It is an opportunity all right, and that is exactly what the UK liberals did to UK conservatives with their vote last week, but is that what the GOP wants to do considering they have been calling for more intervention in that area. How will they look if they oppose this, and then go back to supporting intervention with Iran later? How will Dems look if they support this and then oppose intervention with Iran later?
If we became isolationists today, it would be the first time in a very long time. Is that what you want? I am not saying it is a bad idea. As a matter of fact I have preferred a much more limited role in world policing, which is why I have supported Ron Paul all this time, but the problem is that neither party seems to support that approach.
I dont think we would be any more isolationist than Russia or China currently are. In fact learning to mind our own business would most likely improve our world image. Not policing the world does not = isolationist.
I advocate allowing the UN to do its job. I advocate letting regional neighbors clean up their own back yard.
As it stands we don't know for a fact who used the chemical weapons.
The we know but can't tell you how we know certainly wouldn't hold up in any valid court of law. I mean who makes a decision based on because I said so explanations?
Finally Syria is no friend of the USA and nor are the rebels. We owe them nothing.
Obama makes a lot of speeches where he specializes in drifting from point-to-point, without really taking a clear, firm position or making a commitment. IMO, he made his "Red line" comment to position himself as a leader on the world stage ... with no expectation that the Syrians would actually use nerve gas or chemical warfare again.
Well, he guessed wrong and is suddenly forced to actually 'do something' beyond talk, in order to 'save face.' What a quagmire! However, there is still a solution! -- Pass the buck to Congress (whom he rarely consults on other matters) and let them make the decision.
It's a win-win situation for Obama. If Congress wisely refuses to authorize the action, he can declare that 'he would have taken the lead in this matter, but, Congress refused to allow him to be the leader he really is." If Congress foolishly sanctions actual missiles in place of rhetoric, he will be able to 'save face' without taking full responsibility for his actions!
(As heinous and egregious as Syria's actions against their own people are--the notion that the U.S. is now justified in firing missiles into this Mideast tinderbox ... makes no sense (and again leaves us trying to operate like a self-appointed world 'police force' ... while all other nations withdraw their support. -- This has never worked-out very well for us.
If we feel compelled to fire missiles into the Mideast tinderbox, let's go after Iran's nuclear facilities with bunker busters! At least w/Iran, there is a potential benefit to U.S. interests in the Mideast and elsewhere. (Not suggesting that the latter is the right course of action, but, we've got to start putting U.S. interests ahead of political posturing.)
If we became isolationists today, it would be the first time in a very long time. Is that what you want? I am not saying it is a bad idea. As a matter of fact I have preferred a much more limited role in world policing, which is why I have supported Ron Paul all this time, but the problem is that neither party seems to support that approach.
We don't need to become isolationists.
Just put down the guns and pick up the trade agreement instead.
Is China an isolationist ?
They trade all over the globe and they don't give a hoot who runs the country.
Why ? It's not their country to run.
When countries hear China is coming in they think trade and jobs.
When countries hear the US is coming in they head for the hills so as not to die from our bombs.
I dont think we would be any more isolationist than Russia or China currently are. In fact learning to mind our own business would most likely improve our world image. Not policing the world does not = isolationist.
I advocate allowing the UN to do its job. I advocate letting regional neighbors clean up their own back yard.
As it stands we don't know for a fact who used the chemical weapons.
The we know but can't tell you how we know certainly wouldn't hold up in any valid court of law. I mean who makes a decision based on because I said so explanations?
Finally Syria is no friend of the USA and nor are the rebels. We owe them nothing.
I personally dont give a rats ass what China, Russia, Iran or UN do. If the GOP wants to dance to their music, that will be a choice they will regret later. Mark my words.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
