It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama sends Congress draft war authorization that says Islamic State 'poses grave threat'

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No, I still suspect that Obama harbors sympathies for what is going on in the ME and could care less about oil. *Note, I do not think he is actually Muslim.

No, I think there may be two other reasons why he might be doing this:

1.) To attempt to score political points when a Republican Congress says no because the idea of war is politically unpopular. It may be something far more necessary later on and he is seeking an early leverage.

2.) Because the ME has finally become a problem he feels he can longer ignore.

Whichever of these two is the reason depends on what his internals tell him.




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Hmmm.



Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations are ready to send ground forces into Iraq and Syria to try to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but are waiting for U.S. forces to join them, according to a Republican senator.

When asked if Jordan was onboard with sending ground troops, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) replied, "Yes. Saudi Arabia is onboard, everybody's onboard."

"They just want us to be part of the mix because they have limited capability," he said, before meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah at the Capitol. Graham made his comments earlier this week. He traveled as part of a congressional delegation to Saudi Arabia and Qatar last month.



Graham: Jordan 'onboard' with ground forces vs. ISIS, but wants US to lead



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Close.
I think he KNOWS a Republican Congress will agree with him, and that there will be backlash for putting boots on the ground.

He also knows that he is a lame duck President and does not have to worry about winning another term.

While people are pissed about war the next democrat Presidential who runs for office, will then point to the Republican Congress and say, "Look at all those war mongers in the Republican Party, vote for me" after all I am opposed the war!

In short he is just setting up the political stage for the next presidential cycle.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The Middle East has been an issue since 1930. Barry Sotero (Obama) is way out of his league on this area and has been since he showed up. I'm sure his head is on a swivel with his staff and advisors. Far too much outside interests for him to stabilize a basic plan. He just fights fires. That isn't a solution.

I'm not sure if he's what he says he is, don't care. However it is evident that every person that started with him when he took office has left him. His new and ever-changing bunch of fools might be able to order pizzas and get a good tee time but thats about it.

It is what it is, he just can't fix it. Until then he needs to cease the weapons orders, drone strikes and threats in all conflict areas. Sorry he just ain't the guy.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

i think you may be right. but, i get the feeling there is more going on here. last year the isis were nothing more than a jv team and now they need to be stopped. i need more input on this , time will tell.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Firefly_

Touche but we don't know who the pervs are yet or if we ever will. Meanwhile in Iraq, lots of slave girls are getting scuttled against there will and we know who the perps are.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
IT puts HIM in control by congressional ORDER.
He is already trying to MICRO MANAGE the tactical deployments now he can do so with greater MONEY..that way he can send TANKS to lebanon,Egypt and Syria.
MINUS the US crews.
edit on 11-2-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: toxicspikes

10 bucks says we end up in Syria.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Antipathy17

Because we really need to antagonize Russia that much more ... Either Obama is an idiot or he's ... nope an idiot. I don't even see how he can try to work a horse trade out of this.

"You get out of Ukraine and we'll stay out of Syria ..."



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Antipathy17

Because we really need to antagonize Russia that much more ... Either Obama is an idiot or he's ... nope an idiot. I don't even see how he can try to work a horse trade out of this.

"You get out of Ukraine and we'll stay out of Syria ..."



Yup.. idiot. Really scary how many rabbit holes this fool has led us down. Just a puppet. That being said as we tip over the cliff again into conflict, who the hell will get us out of it? Hillary? I think not.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: thishereguy
a reply to: toxicspikes

so, he doesn't need congress to go into Libya , but wants their approval to do this.

did something change?



Yeah Libya blew up in the Presidents face and both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. The President as commander in chief can send the military where ever he wants. Congress controls the purse strings and can decide to fund them or not.

Lets look at the bright side in that the President was forced to conform with the law / constitution and asked Congress like he is supposed to do.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, apparently, it's not your first guess... From the CNN article (I didn't read the source from this OP) it sounds like the reason the republican congress would say no is that the rough draft proposal of war doesn't go far enough in giving the president flexibility/authorizations.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, apparently, it's not your first guess... From the CNN article (I didn't read the source from this OP) it sounds like the reason the republican congress would say no is that the rough draft proposal of war doesn't go far enough in giving the president flexibility/authorizations.


I don't see how this is possible considering once an authorization to use military force is put into effect it allows the President to use whatever he needs to get the job done, including ground forces. An authorization would have to specifically spell out what the President is authorized to do in order to restrict how the President does the job. That would include a specific mention of no ground forces, which this authorization does not have.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Living with consequences of our actions. None of this would have happened if we had not gone over there at all. Get use to it. A hundred years of this. It will already be 20 years before we know it.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

"House Republican leaders were quick to dismiss the White House draft authorization as too limited, insisting that the President should have fewer limitations.

"If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorization, not one that limits our options," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement Tuesday. "Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people...I have concerns that the president's request does not meet this standard.""

- www.cnn.com...

I'm just relaying what I read on MSM...



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This request for war powers authorization needs to have specific limits on the use of ground troops - from what I am reading it does not, its too open ended where concerns ground troops. What Obama is saying, and what is specifically in that bill are two different things from the looks of it.

Right now from the looks of it, the republicans want ground troops (idiotic) and the democrats don't.. yet the bill doesn't specify.. might be the democrats who reject this bill as a result, and not the republicans this time..

who knows? I support those who say no ground troops outside of perhaps small special forces units here or there when necessary - plus it needs to be in that authorization.
edit on 11-2-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Siiiiigh

Truth, we wouldn't do this if we didn't have something up our sleeve to defeat the Russians, we are walking with a Black Budget that is larger than the entire Military budget of the nearest several runners up. We have something or we wouldn't be pressing Russia, these are the tactics of a nation that thinks it's solved the issue of MAD and can stop a first strike and hit Russia hard, likely electronically as Russia has almost no shielding this is the case.

Is that disturbing... no

Obama getting the credit for the work of Countless scientists, 60 years of cold warriors and Trillions of tax payer dollars.

That is disturbing.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Although, it STILL could be beneficial in political points, or whatever, because people are generally tired of war... People will probably be like, "Well, if we HAVE to go to war, at least he did it through the right channels this time. And he didn't try to get more power than he needed." I'm guessing, rather than just 3 years, it'll be more open ended. If not, at the end of 3 years, an extension will be devised. We might take care of ISIS, but what happens when they change their name again? Because isn't the whole thing supposedly fueled by a differences in ideology and beliefs and blame, which then leads to the use of even more violence, defiantly? So we're gonna have to change a lot of people's minds, somehow.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
So if/when another official WAR is declared, are people still going to be allowed, legally (as far as gov is publicly concerned) to voice opposition? According to say, the Supreme Court, what's the rule, "while at war?" and when does it turn into civil disobedience? (at minimum)
edit on 2/11/2015 by japhrimu because: "and when does it turn into civil disobedience? (at minimum)" - added on at end



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Yay... more fail. More death. More debt. More terrorists. More vets, less benefits they've earned... etc.
edit on 2/11/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join