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.
Why does it take so long to get to the core of the issues at hand, why do they need to go through the entire history. I understand the anti-protestors mission but all they are doing is dragging this out even longer.
Quote:
House Republicans are working to approve
President Barack Obama’s request to equip and train moderate Syrian rebels with
legislation that requires heavy Congressional oversight and explicitly does not
authorize the deployment of U.S troops to combat Islamic militants.
The authorization, a key part of Obama’s
strategy to defeat ISIS, will likely be included as an amendment to a government
funding bill that will be considered this week. House Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters on Monday he is confident both the funding
bill and amendment will pass.
Why does it take so long to get to the core of the issues at hand, why do they need to go through the entire history. I understand the anti-protestors mission but all they are doing is dragging this out even longer.
I guess I'm a bit confused about what you are talking about.
1. What do you consider the "core issues at hand"?
2. A real question is probably, does Obama have the authority to launch a new 'War' against ISIS based on the 2001 authorization of military force passed by Congress for the war on terror?
3. Obama says he needs both Congressional Authorization for Training "moderate" Syrian Rebels, and the funding ($500 Million) to finance it. Should that be open ended? or should their be Congressional Oversight?
This is already complicated and likely to get a lot more complicated. Team Obama wants Congress to share in the responsibility of a new War, but doesn't want to take the chance of them voting against a new War. The Military Advisors and Generals all say this can't be done without "Boots on the Ground" and Obama and Congress (the American people also) don't want "Boots on the Ground". How do we reconcile that?
I've been watching it (on a one hour delay) - so far - I'm betting Hagel's "We are at War" is going to be a headline.
John McCain asked a very significant question - "will we protect these new FSA Rebel troops we are going to train from Bashar al-Assad's air campaign?" That would essentially mean shooting down Syrian planes. They are supposed to be our "Boots on the Ground" in Syria to "degrade and destroy" ISIL, which has it's Base of Operations located in Raqqa/Racca/Rakka (so many different spellings) in Syria. We can't go to War against ISIL, without attacking their Base. That is just the reality.
I've been watching it (on a one hour delay) - so far - I'm betting Hagel's "We are at War" is going to be a headline.
John McCain asked a very significant question - "will we protect these new FSA Rebel troops we are going to train from Bashar al-Assad's air campaign?" That would essentially mean shooting down Syrian planes. They are supposed to be our "Boots on the Ground" in Syria to "degrade and destroy" ISIL, which has it's Base of Operations located in Raqqa/Racca/Rakka (so many different spellings) in Syria. We can't go to War against ISIL, without attacking their Base. That is just the reality.
Why would McCain care, after all he would send our troops back to Iraq and anywhere else for that matter to kill these monsters, under those conditions anyone that got in our way would be dealt with, so what is the difference now. Syria knows better than to interfere with our actions there, so it really is no concern. Sometimes I think McCain just talks to hear the sound of his own voice.
Why would McCain care, after all he would send our troops back to Iraq and anywhere else for that matter to kill these monsters, under those conditions anyone that got in our way would be dealt with, so what is the difference now. Syria knows better than to interfere with our actions there, so it really is no concern. Sometimes I think McCain just talks to hear the sound of his own voice.
You don't think it's valid to wonder what we are going to do about our proxy "Boots on the Ground" (which we are supposed to spend $500 Million dollars to train) - getting shot from Assad air strikes?
Seems like a relevant question to me. These same FSA Rebels have made it clear that their first priority is to fight Assad, which makes me question the advisability of trying to use them to fight ISIL .... which is a major part of Obama's "Strategy".
We already know that McCain is not the person who decides about "troops back to Iraq" or anywhere else .... that Obama's decision and he has made it Crystal Clear that we will NOT put US Boots "on the ground". I'm glad that you are so sure about what Assad will/will not do ... he says that flights over Syria will be considered "aggression". If he thinks it's aggression to fly over Syria, he will go ballistic if/when the US planes start shooting his planes and helicopter out of the air.
I should mention that I don't think that the US is ever going to shoot down a Syrian plane, which means that we can't count on the FSA Syrian Rebels at all. See the problem?
You don't think it's valid to wonder what we are going to do about our proxy "Boots on the Ground" (which we are supposed to spend $500 Million dollars to train) - getting shot from Assad air strikes?
Seems like a relevant question to me. These same FSA Rebels have made it clear that their first priority is to fight Assad, which makes me question the advisability of trying to use them to fight ISIL .... which is a major part of Obama's "Strategy".
We already know that McCain is not the person who decides about "troops back to Iraq" or anywhere else .... that Obama's decision and he has made it Crystal Clear that we will NOT put US Boots "on the ground". I'm glad that you are so sure about what Assad will/will not do ... he says that flights over Syria will be considered "aggression". If he thinks it's aggression to fly over Syria, he will go ballistic if/when the US planes start shooting his planes and helicopter out of the air.
I should mention that I don't think that the US is ever going to shoot down a Syrian plane, which means that we can't count on the FSA Syrian Rebels at all. See the problem?
Actually the Rebels have been fighting ISIL for some time now, we are only talking about helping them out in a more direct manner, and in the end we might actually help form a new ally in the region by doing so since in the long run the Rebels will win Syria.
I really do not care what Assad/Syria does, nothing they do can change their fate, oh by the way they actually tried joining the coalition standing up to ISIL along with Iran but they were rejected for several reasons. We will not have to shoot down their planes unless they interfere the Rebels will end up taking down that problem themselves, we have some nice toys that make a foot solider a major threat to planes and choppers.
2. A real question is probably, does Obama have the authority to launch a new 'War' against ISIS based on the 2001 authorization of military force passed by Congress for the war on terror?
Yes, Obama does have the authority based upon Public Law 107-40 enacted into law on September 18, 2001. Until Congress repeals the law, it stays in effect.
For example, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was enacted into law in August 1964, officially starting the Vietnam War. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed in December 1974, officially ending the Vietnam War, even though the Fall of Saigon would not happen until April 1975.
Public Law 107-40 officially started the War on Terrorism, and only its repeal will officially end the War on Terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
3. Obama says he needs both Congressional Authorization for Training "moderate" Syrian Rebels, and the funding ($500 Million) to finance it. Should that be open ended? or should their be Congressional Oversight?
It is "open ended" as long as Public Law 107-40 remains in effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
This is already complicated and likely to get a lot more complicated. Team Obama wants Congress to share in the responsibility of a new War, but doesn't want to take the chance of them voting against a new War. The Military Advisors and Generals all say this can't be done without "Boots on the Ground" and Obama and Congress (the American people also) don't want "Boots on the Ground". How do we reconcile that?
There would not be an ISIL/ISIS had Obama not funded al Qaeda in Libya and Syria, along with the Muslim Brotherhood. For a nation that is supposedly at war with terrorism, Obama and the Democrats have provided more funding to international terrorist organizations than anyone else on the planet.
I've been watching it (on a one hour delay) - so far - I'm betting Hagel's "We are at War" is going to be a headline.
John McCain asked a very significant question - "will we protect these new FSA Rebel troops we are going to train from Bashar al-Assad's air campaign?" That would essentially mean shooting down Syrian planes. They are supposed to be our "Boots on the Ground" in Syria to "degrade and destroy" ISIL, which has it's Base of Operations located in Raqqa/Racca/Rakka (so many different spellings) in Syria. We can't go to War against ISIL, without attacking their Base. That is just the reality.
We had the same arrangement in Afghanistan with the Afghan Northern Alliance in 2001 and 2002. They were suppose to root out Osama bin Laden. Look how well that turned out.
You can rest assured that whatever funding or munitions we provide these so-called Syrian rebels, it will most certainly wind up in the hands of ISIL/ISIS. Which is what Obama actually intends.
I guess I'm a bit confused about what you are talking about.
1. What do you consider the "core issues at hand"?
2. A real question is probably, does Obama have the authority to launch a new 'War' against ISIS based on the 2001 authorization of military force passed by Congress for the war on terror?
3. Obama says he needs both Congressional Authorization for Training "moderate" Syrian Rebels, and the funding ($500 Million) to finance it. Should that be open ended? or should their be Congressional Oversight?
This is already complicated and likely to get a lot more complicated. Team Obama wants Congress to share in the responsibility of a new War, but doesn't want to take the chance of them voting against a new War. The Military Advisors and Generals all say this can't be done without "Boots on the Ground" and Obama and Congress (the American people also) don't want "Boots on the Ground". How do we reconcile that?
Just alluding to the long history of going through what transpired rather than starting from this point. The 2001 law should be rescinded, congress should be vote on any use of military force and put their name on it. The 2001 legislation was a complete overreaction to 9/11 along with several other laws.
ISIS is not a threat to us, it is a threat to the ME, those countries should be in front of this not us.
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.
