What happens if Republicans REFUSE to attack Syria for using WMD?

[240 is Back]

Now, before everyone attacks me instead of answering the Q, let me be very clear - we should close OUR borders, bring most troops home, spend the military budget on alternative energy sources, and let everyone on that side of earth blow each other up over oil nobody suddenly wants.  that being said...

What happens if Obama WANTS to attack Syria... and Repubs do not...

Do repubs vote AGAINST the war - and then what happens if 1000, 2000,

Or 20,000.   Or 50,000.   Or 500,000.   What happens when ONE MILLION people are killed with chemical weapons?  could this come back to bite repubs who are now suddenly very soft on an oil-important nation, who HAVE and are USING these WMD?   

Or, what happens is Assad starts selling his WMD or using it on his neighbors in the region.  Would dems, in 2014, tell voters "We tried to stop this, but the repubs didn't want to stop this". 

IMO, repubs run a big political risk, and I think they might actually get ON BOARD with bombing any nation that uses WMD like Syria did.  imagine if some syrian idiot opens a suitcase of WMD on US soil... guess what repubs, you prevented Obama from stopping that bad guy - true or false, that becomes the narrative. 

So yes, I think IF it comes to a vote, repubs will get on board with bombing syria for fear of another attack that they could have stoppped.

[andreisdaman]

Now, before everyone attacks me instead of answering the Q, let me be very clear - we should close OUR borders, bring most troops home, spend the military budget on alternative energy sources, and let everyone on that side of earth blow each other up over oil nobody suddenly wants.  that being said...

What happens if Obama WANTS to attack Syria... and Repubs do not...

Do repubs vote AGAINST the war - and then what happens if 1000, 2000,

Or 20,000.   Or 50,000.   Or 500,000.   What happens when ONE MILLION people are killed with chemical weapons?  could this come back to bite repubs who are now suddenly very soft on an oil-important nation, who HAVE and are USING these WMD?   

Or, what happens is Assad starts selling his WMD or using it on his neighbors in the region.  Would dems, in 2014, tell voters "We tried to stop this, but the repubs didn't want to stop this". 

IMO, repubs run a big political risk, and I think they might actually get ON BOARD with bombing any nation that uses WMD like Syria did.  imagine if some syrian idiot opens a suitcase of WMD on US soil... guess what repubs, you prevented Obama from stopping that bad guy - true or false, that becomes the narrative. 

So yes, I think IF it comes to a vote, repubs will get on board with bombing syria for fear of another attack that they could have stoppped.

Actually Syria has no oil.....however, I think the Repubs are held hostage to their Libertarian and Tea Party wings and although I think they will approve, it night prove difficult and it will be made into an issue in the midterm elections......any Repub who sides with Obama on ANYTHING will be subject to a primary challenge......all Repubs know this

[tonymctones]

to both you retards

[B_B_C]

Actually Syria has no oil.....however, I think the Repubs are held hostage to their Libertarian and Tea Party wings and although I think they will approve, it night prove difficult and it will be made into an issue in the midterm elections......any Repub who sides with Obama on ANYTHING will be subject to a primary challenge......all Repubs know this

indeed Syria has little oil but it does have important oil pipelines from other countries- otherwise why such wailing and gnashing of teeth by the UK USA and France at the moment?  The USA was almost proactive towards Iraq when it was using Gas against the Iranians. A US foreign policy based on its enemies enemise being its friends is a fickle and unreliable policy

[240 is Back]

to both you retards

answer the Q, tony.   Will the repubs REALLY vote NO on an act to drop bombs on Syria?

I dont think they can.  I think they'll add stuff to it and call it a "blanket safety act for the region", but it'll essentially be bombing shit outta targets inside syria.  

consider mccain, graham, and their usual boatload of repubs that love war.  Then consider obama saying "Do you want to see these syrian chemical weapons used on american soil?"

I think republicans would crack if they have to vote - and obama would get his war bill.

Tony, what do you think?

[andreisdaman]

to both you retards

where's the retardedness?...you are so locked into disagreeing with us all the time you go out of your way not to agree with us.....this is why you often lose credibility

[tonymctones]

any Repub who sides with Obama on ANYTHING will be subject to a primary challenge......all Repubs know this

where's the retardedness?...you are so locked into disagreeing with us all the time you go out of your way not to agree with us.....this is why you often lose credibility

my credibility among those who have no credibility is of no concern to me, you and 240 are the bottom of the barrell around here in terms of their credibility...while I understand this is probably news to you, it only serves to highlight my point

[Soul Crusher]

U.S. Military Action Against Syria ‘Going to Happen’ Even If Congress Votes Against It...
The Blaze ^ | 31 August, 2013 | Dave Urbanski
Posted on September 1, 2013 12:57:44 AM EDT by Errant

President Obama will carry out military action against Syria even if Congress votes against it, a senior State Department official tells Fox News’ Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.

Rosen’s notes concerning the White House’s reported intentions regarding the Syrian crisis were posted on Fox News colleague Greta Van Susteren’s Gretawire site late Saturday afternoon.

Rosen reports that “the president’s decision to seek a congressional debate and vote was a surprise to most if not all of” his national security team members. The state department official who communicated with Rosen added that Obama’s move to seek congressional approval “did not supplant the president’s earlier decision to use force in Syria, only delayed its implementation.”

“That’s going to happen, anyway,” the source told Rosen, which is why Obama’s Rose Garden remarks Saturday included his belief that he possesses the authority to launch strikes even without congressional authorization, Rosen adds.

The White House Saturday sent Congress a draft of a resolution authorizing Obama to use military force against Syria and laying out the administration’s claim that Assad’s regime killed more than 1,000 last week in a chemical weapons attack.

The resolution also says the objective of a U.S. military response would be to “deter, disrupt, prevent and degrade” the regime’s ability to use chemical weapons going forward.

The resolution authorizes Obama to use the military as he determines “necessary and appropriate” to serve that goal. The draft doesn’t lay out a timeline for action but does say only a political settlement can resolve the Syrian crisis.

TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror; Click to Add Topic

[pedro01]

Now, before everyone attacks me instead of answering the Q, let me be very clear - we should close OUR borders, bring most troops home, spend the military budget on alternative energy sources, and let everyone on that side of earth blow each other up over oil nobody suddenly wants.  that being said...

What happens if Obama WANTS to attack Syria... and Repubs do not...

Then Syria doesn't get bombed. You live in a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Do repubs vote AGAINST the war - and then what happens if 1000, 2000,

Or 20,000.   Or 50,000.   Or 500,000.   What happens when ONE MILLION people are killed with chemical weapons?  could this come back to bite repubs who are now suddenly very soft on an oil-important nation, who HAVE and are USING these WMD? 

What makes you think this is likely? There is no evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. There is no evidence they intend to sell them.

Or, what happens is Assad starts selling his WMD or using it on his neighbors in the region.  Would dems, in 2014, tell voters "We tried to stop this, but the repubs didn't want to stop this". 

Yes, that is exactly what would happen, this is politics. Still, your scenarios are far fetched. You want to bomb Greece because you think they might create a deadly goat cheese bomb and start selling it to neighbors in the region?

In any case, the US has no responsibility. All that will happen if they start bombing Damascus is that thousands of civilians will die unnecessarily. These civilians would probably prefer to be alive. None of them will be thanking Obama for killing them with conventional weapons as opposed to chemicals. Let's face it, the whole mania about chemical weapons is bullshit anyway. People shouldn't be getting killed at all and it makes very little difference what sort of weapon kills them. Dead is dead.

IMO, repubs run a big political risk, and I think they might actually get ON BOARD with bombing any nation that uses WMD like Syria did.  imagine if some syrian idiot opens a suitcase of WMD on US soil... guess what repubs, you prevented Obama from stopping that bad guy - true or false, that becomes the narrative. 

So yes, I think IF it comes to a vote, repubs will get on board with bombing syria for fear of another attack that they could have stoppped.

Then you may as well just bomb everybody. Let's just hope that like in the UK vote, a little common sense prevails.

[pedro01]

President Obama will carry out military action against Syria even if Congress votes against it, a senior State Department official tells Fox News’ Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.

If true, the USA is no longer a democracy.

[Purge_WTF]

If 240 is suggesting that the GOP will look like hypocrites for voting nay when it comes to Syria after voting yay on Iraq, then he has a point.

It's obvious at this point that the President can and will go over all the heads he needs to in order to achieve Globalist goals.

[tonymctones]

If 240 is suggesting that the GOP will look like hypocrites for voting nay when it comes to Syria after voting yay on Iraq, then he has a point.

It's obvious at this point that the President can and will go over all the heads he needs to in order to achieve Globalist goals.

or is he suggesting that the will look like they have learned their lessons and the democrats have not?

[240 is Back]

I'm sorry, but if republicans say "Let's vote for this nonsense war because if we don't, he's just going to start it anyway"

Then they are the weakest, most pathetic group EVER.   I hope that's not a defense being created here lol.


And I'm not even really saying they'll be hypocrites about the Iraq thing.  What I'm saying is, the same way most dems HAD to support iraq (which many people believed was about lust for war, NOT WMD we couldn't find) - I think repubs are going to be caught in that trap too. 

If the repubs vote AGAINST it, then chemical WMD are used on us or our allies, Obama will stand up there and say "I told you so - we could have stopped this, but republicans let politics get in the way..." blah blah.

So I think they will fold, if given a vote.  Does anyone agree or disagree?

[Soul Crusher]

If 240 is suggesting that the GOP will look like hypocrites for voting nay when it comes to Syria after voting yay on Iraq, then he has a point.

It's obvious at this point that the President can and will go over all the heads he needs to in order to achieve Globalist goals.

240 will do anything to protect Obama.   He rather defend treason than admit he was wrong about the Kenyan grifter in the wh

[240 is Back]

240 will do anything to protect Obama.   He rather defend treason than admit he was wrong about the Kenyan grifter in the wh

33/soul crusher,

What is your take?  Do you think Repubs will fold?  There is a whole lotta "240 sucks" but nobody wants to debate an actual Q that is VERY relevant... Obama wants congressional approval - WILL THE REPUBS GIVE IT TO HIM?  YES OR NO?

[Soul Crusher]

33/soul crusher,

What is your take?  Do you think Repubs will fold?  There is a whole lotta "240 sucks" but nobody wants to debate an actual Q that is VERY relevant... Obama wants congressional approval - WILL THE REPUBS GIVE IT TO HIM?  YES OR NO?

Yes they will cause the GOP is worthless and complicit in every single Obama crime up till now.   

[headhuntersix]

Obama's entire foreign policy credibility is on the line. This is his crisis alone. He should never have said he was drawing a red line on chems if he had no real intent, domestic support or international support to bomb in Syria. He has no...NO relationship with republicans. He does everthing he can to critize the party. He wants it all his own way. So I hope they tell him to go fuck himself. There are plenty of Dems in the senate that want no part of this. Failing that, they should bargin. He wants his bullshit war...we want a whole bunch of other shit..see who blinks

[240 is Back]

Yes they will cause the GOP is worthless and complicit in every single Obama crime up till now.   

I do respect you for saying you think the GOP will give obama this war.  Most others on the board won't comment either way.  I also think they will vote for the war.  One thing politicians cannot do is expose themselves to "We could have stopped this mass murderer from using WMD, but these 25 congressman voted against it..."

And I KNOW most dems want no part of it either... but if someone opens up a can of Sarin on the US or its allies, suddenly the whole nation says "Why didn't you stop this when we KNEW they had WMD".   I think both parties have to give obama the war he wants here.

[Soul Crusher]

I do respect you for saying you think the GOP will give obama this war.  Most others on the board won't comment either way.  I also think they will vote for the war.  One thing politicians cannot do is expose themselves to "We could have stopped this mass murderer from using WMD, but these 25 congressman voted against it..."

And I KNOW most dems want no part of it either... but if someone opens up a can of Sarin on the US or its allies, suddenly the whole nation says "Why didn't you stop this when we KNEW they had WMD".   I think both parties have to give obama the war he wants here.

Locally the gop ass faces are already calling for strikes.   The GOP needs to be disbanded

[Straw Man]

Now, before everyone attacks me instead of answering the Q, let me be very clear - we should close OUR borders, bring most troops home, spend the military budget on alternative energy sources, and let everyone on that side of earth blow each other up over oil nobody suddenly wants.  that being said...

What happens if Obama WANTS to attack Syria... and Repubs do not...

Do repubs vote AGAINST the war - and then what happens if 1000, 2000,

Or 20,000.   Or 50,000.   Or 500,000.   What happens when ONE MILLION people are killed with chemical weapons?  could this come back to bite repubs who are now suddenly very soft on an oil-important nation, who HAVE and are USING these WMD?   

Or, what happens is Assad starts selling his WMD or using it on his neighbors in the region.  Would dems, in 2014, tell voters "We tried to stop this, but the repubs didn't want to stop this". 

IMO, repubs run a big political risk, and I think they might actually get ON BOARD with bombing any nation that uses WMD like Syria did.  imagine if some syrian idiot opens a suitcase of WMD on US soil... guess what repubs, you prevented Obama from stopping that bad guy - true or false, that becomes the narrative. 

So yes, I think IF it comes to a vote, repubs will get on board with bombing syria for fear of another attack that they could have stoppped.

Obama needs to pretend he doesn't want to bomb Syria so that the Repubs can disagree with him and "force" him to do it

I think we all know by now that's the only way to get anything done in this country these days

[Gonuclear]

Obama's entire foreign policy credibility is on the line. This is his crisis alone. He should never have said he was drawing a red line on chems if he had no real intent, domestic support or international support to bomb in Syria. He has no...NO relationship with republicans. He does everthing he can to critize the party. He wants it all his own way. So I hope they tell him to go fuck himself. There are plenty of Dems in the senate that want no part of this. Failing that, they should bargin. He wants his bullshit war...we want a whole bunch of other shit..see who blinks

X2

Obama's own party is just as split on this as are the Republicans.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate lacks support from his own party, the American people, and our strongest ally, Great Britain. 

Incompetence on display again in the White House.

[TheGrinch]

can someone explain to me again who voted the US the policeman of the world? I dont remember voting in that election?


Why is it up to the US to determine who is right and who is wrong? USA is God now?


Im confused

[Straw Man]

can someone explain to me again who voted the US the policeman of the world? I dont remember voting in that election?


Why is it up to the US to determine who is right and who is wrong? USA is God now?


Im confused

the military industrial complex needs something to do with all their toys

[B_B_C]

can someone explain to me again who voted the US the policeman of the world? I dont remember voting in that election?
Why is it up to the US to determine who is right and who is wrong? USA is God now?
Im confused

ask Bob

[Straw Man]

X2

Obama's own party is just as split on this as are the Republicans.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate lacks support from his own party, the American people, and our strongest ally, Great Britain. 

Incompetence on display again in the White House.

If decides to go it alone we know at least Dick Cheney will fully understand and offer public support (as will all Repubs on this board who supported Cheney/Bush)