# Can anyone defend the Admin Syria drive? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417 "2013-09-09T16:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/481 "2013-09-22T16:32:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m sure you _would_ say that. Who else would say that? > > Frankly, I don’t know if he expected the support of Congress or not. Absent your display of a Certificate of Telepathy, I don’t think you do either. It isn’t your position that is absurd, it is your certainty. It’s absurd to think a President can launch an attack on another country without support. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/482 "2013-09-22T16:33:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama painted himself into a corner by asking Congress. Without a yes vote he will be attacking a country that didn’t attack us in any way. It would be like attacking Mexico. So yes, I’d say a no vote from Congress would put any orders he gives in jeopardy of being carried out. Military allegiance is not to the President. It’s to the Constitution. Asking Congress changed nothing as far as the Constitution goes. Will you cite something of relevance to your bold claim that Obama backed himself into a corner by asking Congress for support? I don’t take your arguments and points seriously but when you wrote that the UNSC authorized the use of force in Iraq that left me no doubt that you are quite often wrong about many things. And you are wrong about this. With a yes vote Obama would be attacking a country that didn’t attack us in any way? What is your point? I am not aware that Mexico has used chemical weapons on any of its people. Is this something new? Just what makes you think that a no vote in Congress would put any orders to strike by Obama to the Joint Chiefs of staff would not be carried out. You need to back that up with something other than your opinion. Military allegiance is to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and that includes following the orders of the Commander in Chief who is also defined in the Constitution. Does the Constitution allow for the United States Military to decide if they will follow orders from the Commander in Chief. If so, where? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/483 "2013-09-22T17:33:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The problem is, the way Obama has handled this makes the US threat of force pretty much null and void. Which, btw, is perfectly fine with me. When we bomb countries in the M.E., we end up looking like vigilantes, at best, and thugs, at worst. But let’s not pretend that the threat of force is something folks there will take seriously going forward. The “international community” won’t do it, the American people don’t want to it, Congress won’t approve it, and Obama isn’t going to go it alone. > > This will fall off the news cycle, and Assad can go back to killing his people in a civilized manner. Russia is happy, Assad is happy, the US is happy. Win-win-win!! Oh, except for the Syrian people, but nobody cares about them anyway. This is all about who can claim a “diplomatic victory”. I agree with this – that said, Obama’s announcement that he’ll [**“move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels”**](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels/index.html) is pretty fuckin’ stupid on its face. How is that in any way to be interpreted _as other than taking sides and wanting Assad out of the way_? It was also reported that [the president of the United States has the authority to waive the restrictions if he “ **determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States**.”](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/did-obama-just-waive-the-ban-on-arming-terrorist-groups/) Yeah, OK, so what does arming Syrian rebels have to do with US “security?” Especially in light of the news of who, exactly the “rebels” are: [**Hundreds of Syria Rebels Pledge Loyalty to al-Qaeda**](http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/20/hundreds-of-syria-rebels-pledge-loyalty-to-al-qaeda/) – :rolleyes: ETA: [**Nearly half Syria’s rebels are jihadists, report says**](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/09/16/Nearly-half-Syrias-rebels-are-jihadists-report-says/UPI-13731379352579/) Give me some skin, Obama! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/484 "2013-09-22T17:45:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Obama’s announcement that he’ll [**“move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels”**](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels/index.html) is pretty fuckin’ stupid on its face. Yes, and hopefully the info in that article, which dates from late July btw, is no longer valid. When Obama was all about bombing Syria, he needed to throw the real GOP hawks a bone, but I think the game has changed now. If anyone has an update on what we are doing now, I’d love to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/485 "2013-09-22T17:52:52Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Asking Congress changed nothing as far as the Constitution goes. you’re correct. Nothing changes in this process. According to the Constitution that power is held by Congress. To wage war a President must first go to Congress. There are historic examples of a President acting on a limited basis against an immediate threat to the United States. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Will you cite something of relevance to your bold claim that Obama backed himself into a corner by asking Congress for support? you’re asking for a cite on opinion? OK, here is someone else making the same point from [the Baltimore Sun](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-obama-syria-20130909,0,4399092.story). \* The problem is that when it comes foreign policy, the president doesn’t have a clue. He has painted himself into a corner by stating that Syria could not cross the “red line” barring the use of chemical or biological weapons. Only he didn’t have a backup plan when he said it.\* > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I don’t take your arguments and points seriously but when you wrote that the UNSC authorized the use of force in Iraq that left me no doubt that you are quite often wrong about many things. And you are wrong about this. I cited the exact wording of the UN resolution. I even colored it for you. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > With a yes vote Obama would be attacking a country that didn’t attack us in any way? What is your point? It’s self explanatory. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not aware that Mexico has used chemical weapons on any of its people. Is this something new? I’m not aware it’s the President’s job to police the world for injustices. Can you cite this power in the Constitution. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Just what makes you think that a no vote in Congress would put any orders to strike by Obama to the Joint Chiefs of staff would not be carried out. You need to back that up with something other than your opinion. because it expressly states the action should not be taken. It makes any such order illegal and nobody in the military is obligated to carry out illegal orders. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Military allegiance is to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States… yes. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > and that includes following the orders of the Commander in Chief who is also defined in the Constitution. no. The allegiance is to the Constitution. The job of POTUS does not include a personal army. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Does the Constitution allow for the United States Military to decide if they will follow orders from the Commander in Chief. If so, where? Yes, if you remember, First Lieutenant William Calley was court martialed for following illegal orders. Sent to prison for it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/486 "2013-09-22T17:55:03Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I agree with this – that said, Obama’s announcement that he’ll [**“move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels”**](http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels/index.html) is pretty fuckin’ stupid on its face. > > How is that in any way to be interpreted _as other than taking sides and wanting Assad out of the way_? It was also reported that [the president of the United States has the authority to waive the restrictions if he “ **determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States**.”](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/16/did-obama-just-waive-the-ban-on-arming-terrorist-groups/) Yeah, OK, so what does arming Syrian rebels have to do with US “security?” Especially in light of the news of who, exactly the “rebels” are: [**Hundreds of Syria Rebels Pledge Loyalty to al-Qaeda**](http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/20/hundreds-of-syria-rebels-pledge-loyalty-to-al-qaeda/) – :rolleyes: > > ETA: [**Nearly half Syria’s rebels are jihadists, report says**](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/09/16/Nearly-half-Syrias-rebels-are-jihadists-report-says/UPI-13731379352579/) > > Give me some skin, Obama! I would say arming people who have threatened the United States in the past would be reasons for removal from office. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/487 "2013-09-22T18:43:13Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t take your arguments and points seriously but when you wrote that the UNSC authorized the use of force in Iraq that left me no doubt that you are quite often wrong about many things. And you are wrong about this. -Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > > I cited the exact wording of the UN resolution. I even colored it for you. Trouble is the exact wording you cited clarifies that the UNSC DID **NOT** authorize the use of force agsinst Iraq and I cited Kofi Annan when he said the Bush invasion of Iraq was illegal and in defiance of the UN Charter. How can that be if the UNSC authorized the use of force? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/488 "2013-09-22T18:52:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Trouble is the exact wording you cited clarifies that the UNSC DID **NOT** authorize the use of force agsinst Iraq and I cited Kofi Annan when he said the Bush invasion of Iraq was illegal and in defiance of the UN Charter. > > How can that be if the UNSC authorized the use of force? again, not sure why you have problems using the quote system. figure it out, then print out what cited which was the exact wording of the resolution and I walk you through it. I have things to do and am not going to go back and forth requoting cites. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/489 "2013-09-22T19:31:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > again, not sure why you have problems using the quote system. figure it out, then print out what cited which was the exact wording of the resolution and I walk you through it. I have things to do and am not going to go back and forth requoting cites. Here you go, let’s see you walk us through it: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Magiver > There were 16 UN resolutions regarding Iraq prior to resolution 1441. The UN DID authorize the use of force in Iraq: > > [T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] > > Bush had the support of Congress on top of that resolution. He also had public support. Cite. > > So you would be completely wrong on all counts. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/490 "2013-09-22T19:45:57Z")
> [@](#): > > you’re asking for a cite on opinion? OK, here is someone else making the same point from the Baltimore Sun. Who is this R. Houck, Rosedale in the Baltimore Sun comments you are quoting? He can be as wrong as you. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/491 "2013-09-23T04:04:22Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Here you go, let’s see you walk us through it: “this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.” maybe you’re too young to remember that this resolution was hammered out specifically to allow for military intervention. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/492 "2013-09-23T04:12:22Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Who is this R. Houck, Rosedale in the Baltimore Sun comments you are quoting? He can be as wrong as you. Well so far you’ve got Francois Hollande on your side but even he doesn’t have public backing. [64% of the French citizenry](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10278076/French-oppose-military-intervention-in-Syria-and-dont-trust-Francois-Hollande-to-carry-it-out.html) do not want military intervention. Nobody else is drawing any red lines. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/493 "2013-09-23T04:21:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > you mean the agreement between Putin and Obama that the UN resolution will have no teeth? How does that change the situation in Syria again? Do me a favor. Before you post in this thread, just pretend that in every instance of liberals talking about Obama, we’re talking about Reagan or Bush instead. In that case, yes, I am proud that Reagan was such a diplomatic wizard that he got the Evil Empire to agree to his terms without firing a shot. He’s a president for the ages, isn’t he? > [@Magiver](#): > > well that’s quite a deal for the Syrians. The UN doesn’t recognize that Assad was behind the CW use and nothing will happen if all agreements are ignored. Who cares? > [@Magiver](#): > > That actually made me laugh out loud. By Christmas nothing will have changed. Assad will still be killing people and we will be giving arms to terrorists which will probably be used against us like the guns in operation Fast and Furious were and still are. I’ll just give it a name ahead of time and call it Benghazi II, the Reckoning. You shouldn’t talk that way about Bush’s Fast & Furious scandal ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/494 "2013-09-23T05:13:33Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Do me a favor. Before you post in this thread, just pretend that in every instance of liberals talking about Obama, we’re talking about Reagan or Bush instead. In that case, yes, I am proud that Reagan was such a diplomatic wizard that he got the Evil Empire to agree to his terms without firing a shot. He’s a president for the ages, isn’t he? yes, he’s a President for the ages. And Carter and Nixon aren’t. What’s your point? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Who cares? Who cares what the resolution promoted by Obama consists of? Well the people defending it. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > You shouldn’t talk that way about Bush’s Fast & Furious scandal Fast and Furious started in October of 2009. You’re thinking of Operation Wide Receiver which took place between 2006-2008. Why shouldn’t I talk about it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/495 "2013-09-23T06:17:25Z")
I thought Operation Wide Receiver was about that Senator in the airport bathroom? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/496 "2013-09-23T06:31:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, and hopefully the info in that article, which dates from late July btw, is no longer valid. When Obama was all about bombing Syria, he needed to throw the real GOP hawks a bone, but I think the game has changed now. If anyone has an update on what we are doing now, I’d love to see it. As far as I can tell the waiver was made this past Monday, **John**. > [@](#): > > ( **Tuesday, 17 Sep 2013** ) President Barack Obama has waived part of a federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups so he could arm Syrian rebels. > > But keeping military assistance within “vetted” opposition groups could be tricky since significant elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups including al-Qaida, The Washington Examiner reports. > > **The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced Monday that he would waive two sections of the law that prohibit sending weaponry to countries, including Syria, that support international terrorism**. The law is intended to prevent U.S. weapons from falling into the hands of countries or groups that aid or abet international terror or the proliferation of nuclear weapons and material… > > \ > > The president can waive prohibitions in the law if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.” > > \ > > The administration has bipartisan support in its efforts to provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Both GOP Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Democrat Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan have endorsed Obama’s plans. > > “Our intelligence agencies, have a very good handle on who to support and who not to support,” Corker said. “And there’s going to be mistakes. **We understand some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms. But we still should be doing everything we can to support the free Syrian opposition.** ” > > **Obama’s decision came on the same day that details of a report from defense analysts IHS Jane’s were released saying nearly half those fighting against President Bashar Assad’s Damascus regime are** [**hardline Islamists**](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/islamists-extremists-dominate-rebels/2013/09/16/id/525880). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/497 "2013-09-23T06:56:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I thought Operation Wide Receiver was about that Senator in the airport bathroom? No you’re thinking of the prostitution ring that was operated out of Barney Frank’s house. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/498 "2013-09-23T09:24:36Z")
McCain posts article on [pravda.ru](http://pravda.ru) ([Senator John McCain: Russians deserve better than Putin](http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/19-09-2013/125705-McCain_for_pravda_ru-0/)). Presumable in response to Putin’s article in the New York Times. I wonder if McCain is so stuck in the Cold War that he doesn’t realize that [pravda.ru](http://pravda.ru) has nothing to do with the Soviet era Prava, and that it best can be compared to The National Enquirer or The Sun or whatever. I think we can all agree that fine upstanding articles like for instance this: [Cat rapes woman after performing oral sex on her](http://english.pravda.ru/news/society/sex/10-11-2004/60215-0/) is journalism at its best, but I personally would probably have send my op-ed to another place. But them I’m not a US senator. In any case, if that is any indication to the US opposition that faces the Obama administration, then I can easily defend the Admin Syrian Drive as anything is better than a fucking idiot like McCain and his clueless advisers. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/499 "2013-09-23T09:51:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.” > > maybe you’re too young to remember that this resolution was hammered out specifically to allow for military intervention. You said the UN authorized the use of force which the UNSC did not do in March 2003. Not ‘constraining force’ is not ‘authorizing force’ it says write there in your cite the Council needed to convene to decide to authorize anything the Council would do. You need to read the entire paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417/500 "2013-09-23T11:57:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > “this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.” > > maybe you’re too young to remember that this resolution was hammered out specifically to allow for military intervention. Likewise on Syria if the UNSC passes a resolution that contains no authorization to use force, it will be a fact that any member state including the US and France etc will not be constrained from taking military action on their own. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-anyone-defend-the-admin-syria-drive/668417.md?page=26)