Barack Obama is heading for a humiliating defeat over Syria: this will be a mass

[jedi]

So what would happen if the congress votes "no", and then Obama decides to attack anyway? What would happen if the Pentagon said "Sorry, the people said no, we aren't going there"? Can that happen, what are the odds it would?

Barry can still attack even if congress says "no", Pentagon has nothing to do with it, they follow orders. But Barry won't without approval of Congress, he is looking for a way out and if Congress says "no" he will blame them....he blames everyone for everything cause he never had a father at home to beat his spoiled az.

To expand on this.
Only congress has the power/authoirty to declare war on another country/government.
Should congress say no, the president now has more limited options. Like prior presidents before him he can still order the military to attack for up to 90 days under his authority. Not sure what it's called but other presidents have done this before.

if congress does not like this they always have the legal option to start an impeachment process to remove a sitting president.
That I know of this has never occured in our history (impeachment due to president going to war without congrees's approval)

As for your question of the pentagon saying no.
The pentagon (ie. armed forces) just follow orders. If the pentagon were to say no (which again it has never done so in our history that I know of) then we have much bigger issues than Syria. We have something close to a miliatry coup on our hand. You have more of a chance of winning POWER BALL then seeing that occur.

What DragonGunner said is correct. By the president going to congress he has pertyy much but the ball in their court and politically they can take the blame. Granted with the world not wanting to get involved in the matter their might not be much blame to get for not doing anything.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And if Congress would vote yes he will be able to say he was able to work across party lines for a proper resolution

 

[ArcadiaGP]

To expand on this.
Only congress has the power/authoirty to declare war on another country/government.
Should congress say no, the president now has more limited options. Like prior presidents before him he can still order the military to attack for up to 90 days under his authority. Not sure what it's called but other presidents have done this before.

if congress does not like this they always have the legal option to start an impeachment process to remove a sitting president.
That I know of this has never occured in our history (impeachment due to president going to war without congrees's approval)

As for your question of the pentagon saying no.
The pentagon (ie. armed forces) just follow orders. If the pentagon were to say no (which again it has never done so in our history that I know of) then we have much bigger issues than Syria. We have something close to a miliatry coup on our hand. You have more of a chance of winning POWER BALL then seeing that occur.

What DragonGunner said is correct. By the president going to congress he has pertyy much but the ball in their court and politically they can take the blame. Granted with the world not wanting to get involved in the matter their might not be much blame to get for not doing anything.

Literally seconds ago, speaking at G20, he said he would not rule out acting if Congress said no.

 

[jedi]

And if Congress would vote yes he will be able to say he was able to work across party lines for a proper resolution

& that is fine. I can NOT fault him for this one. He is doing his job per the letter of the law. He is going to congress like every president should to ask for permission to go to war. It's NOT the president's job to make that decision (no sole person in out country should be allowed to). Why do you think our founding father's did it that way?

Literally seconds ago, speaking at G20, he said he would not rule out acting if Congress said no.

sigh... I hope he does not.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Literally seconds ago, speaking at G20, he said he would not rule out acting if Congress said no.

I see you fail to mention also at the G20, they voted AGAINST action on Syria. Correct me if im wrong but wouldnt us attacking Syria make us war criminals now? Not sure of the punishment if the UN or the G20 vote against something and a country goes against those wishes

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Also ... I wish people didnt so blindly follow their party and accuse the other of being the bad guy(s). So what if congress votes no on the war? So what if Obama tries to pin it on them? THE PEOPLE DONT WANT THIS WAR. How would that make Obama look better?

 

[Jerchap2]

& that is fine. I can NOT fault him for this one. He is doing his job per the letter of the law. He is going to congress like every president should to ask for permission to go to war. It's NOT the president's job to make that decision (no sole person in out country should be allowed to). Why do you think our founding father's did it that way?



sigh... I hope he does not.

He is only authorized to authorize military action if there is a direct threat to the US, which there is not. There was in Benghazi, but he did nothing. Bass-ackwards, don't you think?

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[jedi]

more like we just looked like f00ls on the world stage cause the sole 'super power' just got told by the rest of the world no... hum.... wonder if when history looks back at this era they notice this crack/kink in the us armor so to speak.

 

[tirebay1997]

Even if the People wanted this war, it wouldn't make it right.

 

[jedi]

Even if the People wanted this war, it wouldn't make it right.

Hum... war is never about right or wrong. It's always about power/control/wealth.
We did not go into Iraq to make it right. We went to Iraq for oil. We won't say it publicly but that is the resource we went in for.

 

[Willie]

Hum... war is never about right or wrong. It's always about power/control/wealth.
We did not go into Iraq to make it right. We went to Iraq for oil. We won't say it publicly but that is the resource we went in for.

really? Where is it at?

 

[spearheadersarge]

This guy is never gonna take responsibility for anything. The Syrians, or the rebels, used gas to kill a bunch of people and the whole administration is up in arms wanting to attack. Our Ambassador and three other Americans are killed in Benghazi and nobody batts an eye, what the hell? To date nothing has been done. Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I hope not.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Uhhhh, that wasn't my red line, I didn't draw that. If you've got a red line, you didn't draw that. Somebody else made that happen.

 

[jedi]

really? Where is it at?

Look at the oil industries. Don't miss read that the USA went to Iraq for oil for you and me (ie. the people). The .gov is not here for the people.
Do read that we went into Iraq for OIL otherwise China and Russia will be using/getting it.
Climb up to the higher altitudes to see the overall image.

 

[Mgderf]

Uhhhh, that wasn't my red line, I didn't draw that. If you've got a red line, you didn't draw that. Somebody else made that happen.

rep's incoming.

 

[firehawk1]

Do read that we went into Iraq for OIL otherwise China and Russia will be using/getting it.

Really...

Oil reserves in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia doesn't need Iraqi oil. China maybe but certainly not Russia.

I wonder if when "Britannia ruled the waves " the English people ever sat around and lamented the fact their government was just possibly looking out for the strategic welfare of their nation. Maybe they weren't as fat and happy with too much time on their hands as we do/are...

Not sayin', just sayin'.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Nope, but I'm sure we'll see another few dozen threads about how it is the Death Knell for Obama's Presidency.

As much as I had been hoping America would see the light I do not think ANYTHING could take his presidency down because of how sick of a society we have become.


I love America. Always have, but any nation sick enough to elect that ( I don't know what to call him that will not offend someone or myself. ) twice gets what it deserves. The problem is the moochers to elected looters to steal from producers are not the only ones that will be effected.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Given the recent swings in mindsets by the higher ups, I would not be surprised to see Congress support some sort of military response; who knows what backroom deals are being planned ("Guys--we'll launch a handful of Tomahawks, no combat units; no one on our side gets hurt. In return, I'll back off on gun control, healthcare and, what? What else would make it worth your while to support this?").

President Bush blamed his choices and position upon bad intel. Maybe we could see the same scapegoat again if things go south?

Sometimes it stinks being a pessimist about such things.

 

[pudly]